May 28, 2010

The White House and Joe Sestak -- so what?

I was just scoping The Corner and virtually every post of the last few hours deals with this [supposed] scandal. Then I happened upon this comment from Nangelator at CSPT:

Digby explains:
But here’s the thing. [snip] There is no winning with these noise machine pseudo-scandals. They have an alternate media structure that is designed to stoke scandal fever and the way they keep the mainstream media on the hook is with “smell tests” and demands that the person address the claims, apologize or make amends, none of which will be deemed adequate and all of which necessitate another round of investigations, demands etc. With every impossible requirement that isn’t met, the press will become more convinced that the person must be hiding something, is too hot to handle and will eventually agree that he has to step down or quit the race because “the scandal” is devouring him.

It seems that the law that might have been violated is sufficiently vague enough that, as Digby stated, nothing will ultimately come from this. Obama will come off looking like the typical hack politician (something he promised NOT to be -- big time), and some official may offer his/her resignation (to "spend more time with his/her family"), but what would the GOP (in this case) ultimately hope to gain? Obama's impeachment? Really??

I wouldn't even begin to attempt it.

One, the GOP is poised to gain BIG this coming November. There'd be no better way for Obama and the Dems to mobilize their base than by a Republican overreach.

Two, Bill Clinton's impeachment hurt the GOP in the long run. They lost seats in 1998 (when they were supposed to gain), and IMO led to the overconfidence and arrogance that cost them in 2006 and 2008.

Three, many many liberals still want George W. Bush impeached (and convicted) for anything from lying to war crimes. Since that can't happen now, they'll settle for the Hague trying him for whatever. Impeaching Obama for violating some law worded with typical labyrinthine legalese -- while articles against Bush got absolutely nowhere -- will backfire big time.

Four, Obama is inept enough. If he were a Republican, the press would have eaten him alive three times over already. Let him continue doing what he's doing. He shown he's no different from any other politician -- indeed, he's probably worse than a lot of them. Continuing to press for straight answers regarding this mess is sufficient, and since the MSM isn't likely to hound Obama for the truth, use this campaign hypocrisy against him in November.

The public is thoroughly fed up with the same old political crap-as-usual. Granted, the GOP isn't much different, but keep in mind Obama promised everyone "change" and swore that he was different.

He swindled us, period. It's time to remind him of this fact in Novermber.

Posted by Hube at May 28, 2010 05:11 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Couldn't agree with you more Hube. The election in November is a once in a lifetime opportunity for small govt supporters to put a stake right through the heart of big govt lovers.

We should not get distracted or off message.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at May 29, 2010 01:13 PM


Then you think Tom Corbett, the PA AG, should
drop the idea ( if he ever had such a thought ) of a grand jury to investigate this matter, as the blowback would hurt the GOP ?

Say it ain't so Joe

Here is new angle for those who are alraedy skeptical
Setak was ineligile for job Clinton offered

Posted by: Fred Gregory at May 29, 2010 04:13 PM

Fred: I was only commenting on a possible impeachment of Obama. Any such talk would be counter-productive, IMO.

Posted by: Hube at May 30, 2010 08:33 AM