Sestak's two big problems in job offer to get out of campaign scandal, copy of White House response to Sestak and Sestak's statements

Sestak has two problems. If he knew about a crime, isn't it his job as a public official to report it? Apparently, despite his claims about upholding "accountability," Sestak doesn't seem to think so.

Yet, he has repeatedly dodged questions about this crime, even when directly informed that people are concerned about a crime having occurred.
Here he is telling Neil Cavuto at about 1:48 into the clip about the job offer issue: "with 31 years in the United States Navy, I believe in accountability, experience, and honesty." Here are other places where he is dodging the questions.

This clip is almost painful in Sestak's unwillingness to answer the questions posed. It goes on for 17 minutes.


The second problem is the inconsistency between the WH and Sestak's stories. Here is what was said in the interview with Larry Kane from Comcast (from the first youtube clip shown above.

Larry Kane: Where you ever offered a Federal job to get out of this race? Sestak: Yes

Kane: Was it the Navy Sectary? Sestak: No comment. I would never get out for a deal.

Kane: Was there a job offered to you by the White House? Sestak: Yes . . . Someone offered me a . . .

Kane: It was big right? Sestak: Ya, it was . . . let me not comment on that.

You can read the White House response by clicking on these images immediately below here:


Here are several problems.
1) Was it a "big" job or an "uncompensated advisory board option"?
2) Was it by Clinton or "by the White House"? Was it possible that there was more than one conversation: one with Clinton and one with the White House?
3) The White House's own memo raises a question (see memo above). It refers to "Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 . . ." Yet, they only detail one discussion between Clinton and Sestak.
And here is the media bending over backwards to accept the White House's interpretations of what happened.

Here is an interview that Sestak gave the press on Friday. Where are the tough questions on the inconsistencies noted above? One really has to wonder if these reporters care about investigating these issues.


UPDATE: The follow up.


A transcript is available here.

UPDATE: Andrew Romanoff offered option of three jobs to drop out of Colorado Senate race. See the email from the WH here.

Ethics complaint against Sestak

During the primary campaign Rep. Joe Sestak trotted out a few times the charge that the White House had tried to bribe him into not running for the Senate.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform committee, said Sestak needs to explain what job he was offered and who at the White House was involved. Sestak, who beat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Democratic Senate primary on Tuesday, said on a Philadelphia radio station in February that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the race. . . .

Either a bribe was offered or it wasn't. If it was true, Sestak will be in trouble for not properly reporting it to the right channels. If he made it up, well . . . .

Sestak makes it official, will challenge Specter next year

The question is whether Sestak is too liberal for Pennsylvania. U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak (D), who represents Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional voting district and most of Delaware County, has one of the most politically liberal voting records in Congress.

On the right, the American Conservative Union says Sestak voted conservatively zero percent of the time. According to the Americans for Democratic Action on the left, Sestak voted liberally 95 percent of the time. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also on the left, has given Joe Sestak an overall grade of 100.

Sestak votes down the line with unions. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, people who work for the government, said that Sestak supported them 100 percent of the time in 2007. The AFL-CIO gave him just a slightly lower rating, saying he voted with them 96 percent of the time in 2007. A conservative business orientated group such as the Club for Growth gave him a rating of just 2 percent.

The League of Conservation Voters said that he voted every single time for more environmental restrictions in 2008.

With the national debt no exceeding $10 trillion, people on both sides of the aisle may be troubled to learn that Sestak is given an “F” by the National Taxpayer’s Union because he voted virtually always for more spending.

The Washington Times has his announcement that he is running here.

My son Roger Lott on his local congressman, Joe Sestak

The Delaware County Times published this letter by Roger:

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democrat who represents Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District and most of Delaware County, has one of the most politically liberal voting records in Congress. It’s time to ask if Sestak actually represents this district that so recently had a Republican congressman.

On the right, the American Conservative Union says Sestak voted conservatively zero percent of the time.

According to the Americans for Democratic Action on the left, Sestak voted liberally 95 percent of the time. The American Civil Liberties Union, also on the left, has given Joe Sestak an overall grade of 100.

Sestak votes down the line with unions. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, people who work for the government, said Sestak supported them 100 percent of the time in 2007. The AFL-CIO gave him just a slightly lower rating, saying he voted with it 96 percent of the time in 2007. A conservative business orientated group such as the Club for Growth gave him a rating of just 2 percent.

The League of Conservation Voters said he voted every single time for more environmental restrictions in 2008.

With the national debt now exceeding $10 trillion, people on both sides of the aisle may be troubled to learn that Sestak was given an “F” by the National Taxpayer’s Union because he voted virtually every time for more spending.

Sestak is not helping future Americans by leaving behind a massive debt. He’s been concerned with fulfilling his personal agenda and satisfying current voters without considering the future consequences of his actions. When it has come to raising our taxes and digging the American people into an ever-deeper hole, Joe Sestak deserves blame. . . .

The rest of the letter is available here.

Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak (D-7th) Proves that he "supports" the Second Amendment by pointing to gun control that he supported

Extremely Liberal Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania recently became a co-sponsor of re-enacting the assault weapons ban (Sestak has a perfect liberal voting record so far in congress). Is this congressman just completely clueless on what the law actually involves? Sestak claims:

However, the fact of the matter is, we shouldn’t be asking our police to go into the community facing the same weapons that are being used by insurgents in Iraq. We don’t ask them to go into our streets against armored Bradley vehicles or Abrams Tanks out there. This should not be any different.

The fact that the assault weapons ban banned civilian versions of these guns doesn't seem to be known by a congressman who is co-sponsor of the legislation. Responding to a question about whether Sestak supports the Second Amendment offers this evidence that he does support it ("I am a proponent of Second Amendment Rights"):

I firmly believe in the rights of responsible Americans to own guns for sports, recreation and leisure activities. For example, when Congress worked on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act in the wake of the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, . . . . That common-sense legislation, which restricts those who are mentally ill from purchasing or owning a gun, passed with large bipartisan consent and was subsequently signed by the President into law.

Translation: I support the Second Amendment as evidence I support gun control. He claims that supporting this regulation, which by the way wouldn't have stopped the attack at VT because it had nothing to do with banning the guy who committed the attack, was pro-gun because the NRA, which was responding to the political wave after the attack, also supported it.

Sestek's extreme liberal voting record can also be seen from other congressional voting indexes. The liberal League of Conservation Voters says that he has a perfect liberal voting record on environmental issues. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action indicates that he has a virtually perfect liberal voting record (one vote less than perfect). Perfect liberal voting records are also indicated by the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce.