Sorry to say that article blows. You should know that tu quoque is a logical fallacy, Joe!
Just because it's the "Washington" way, doesn't mean it's lawful or acceptable. I personally believe Sestak is making it all up.
Mike, how does what I or what the former ethics offcer state amount to tu quoque? Did you misread the article and thought that I was trying to justify Obama's actions His position on the controversy about Obama and Sestak was this:1. Although the Obama Administration should stay out of Congressional races and primaries, it has the right to do so.2. Efforts to paint this alleged deal as "bribery" or a quid pro quo are wrong, as the Hatch Act would have required Sestak to resign from Congress and drop out of the primary. 3. Although Sestak has every right to disclose his talks with the White House, he probably should get the permission from the White House to disclose any more on what he talked about with the White House staff.That said, if the allegations are true, I think Obama acted stupidly in trying to get Sestak a job. I also agree that the situation looks fishy. However, due to the technicalties in the case, I do not think that Obama committed any crimes or made any ethics violations when he supposedly offered Sestak a job. Thus, I do not think Obama should be impeached or removed from office in this circumstance.
Joe, a direct quote from the article: "The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter’s way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President’s political party." In other words, it's been done before so it's okay. Textbook tu quoque.Also, read an article I wrote earlier today: http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-obama-commit-impeachable-offense.html
Mike, see my comment on your article.
I think that Joe may have a point-- but we need to hear more about the exact offer. If the President himself ordered a direct offer, I believe that that would be a crime.
Post a Comment