A Felon in the White House?

And, initially, Watergate was just a two-bit burglary gone wrong and Monica Lewinsky was just some woman referred to by a disgruntled former Clinton employee.

Not saying this is the next Watergate or Lewinsky, just saying almost every major political scandal starts small. Of course, a lot of little scandals happen all the time. You never know which one is going to end up having legs [insert crass Monica reference here].

I guess you could also call it arm-twisting politics...

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

:doh:

I see you still have not made it to post #2.

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

Come on Saden thats not even a very good example.

I hope the tea party wins and cut taxes some more.

Yeah so then I don't have to hear them crying about wanting their country back.

I wouldn't go that far. Gibbs is getting peppered with questions about it daily. Most likely it's not as serious as some are saying, but I don't think it's the "nothing to see here, move along" afterthought that the White House claims it to be.

Gibbs is referring to the memo because he/they want to stay on message and not give the media a sound bite and keep this thing going for another week. Why create a story when there isn't one? When the president was asked during the his oil spill presser about the "deal", he essentially dodged the question. Smart move. I think Joe Sestak is the best person to answer all the questions and he's doing that.

The mistake that was made, if any, was involving Bill Clinton. He's just an easy target. But from what I understand Bill Clinton and Joe Sestak have been close friends for years, so it makes sense that he was the messenger.

As far as arm twisting goes, I would say it's organizing your political party to maintain power and advance your agenda. Each party has that right to do that and should position themselves to be as powerful and effective as possible to serve their interests and the people they must answer to. As long as everything is done above board, let's play chess. There's nothing unethical, unusual, or as far as I can see, any impropriety occurred. The irony in all of this is that Sestak is probably more in line with Obama's views than Arlen Specter ever was, so it's still a win for the White House.

Anyway, 'nuff of that.

Come on Saden thats not even a very good example.

Why?

Why?

Because we know your boss would not offer you a raise. LOL

Why?

Because your boss isn't trying to thwart/circumvent a country's election process of public officials.

To me the whole meat of the matter is the fact the WH must have thought that Sestak had a good shot at winning the majority of the people's vote. They wanted their guy (Specter) to be the voice of the people instead. So, they tell Sestak not to run because we think you may win which means the majority of voters in your district wanted you to win, not the other guy. Does this happen all of the time? Without a doubt. Is it wrong? Without a doubt.

Because your boss isn't trying to thwart/circumvent a country's election process of public officials.

To me the whole meat of the matter is the fact the WH must have thought that Sestak had a good shot at winning the majority of the people's vote. They wanted their guy (Specter) to be the voice of the people instead. So, they tell Sestak not to run because we think you may win which means the majority of voters in your district wanted you to win, not the other guy. Does this happen all of the time? Without a doubt. Is it wrong? Without a doubt.

If this happens all the time without a doubt how is Lord Obama thwarting/circumventing the country's political process of public officials?

All of this is he said she said at best.