Forever Wrong


Governor Ed Rendell, spinning on behalf of the Obama administration, says the job offer to Joe Sestak was fine because it’s just business as usual.

… it’s happened in politics for time immemorial. I did the same thing in 2006 to ask a former congressman, Joe Hoeffel, to drop out of the race against Bob Casey in the primary.

But Obama was supposed to be an angel who would wave a wand of magic and make the scuzz disappear. The Governor of Pennsylvania says ya, that’s what he’s doing, except for the dirty business that we view as essential to maintaining a ruthless hold on power.

I think Barack Obama has brought a new level of ethical standards to Washington. Has he changed some basic hard-knuckle politics? No. You need hard-knuckle politics to succeed.

Debating Rendell on Fox News Sunday was Rep. Darrell Issa, who has been the point man for the GOP in pushing for an investigation into whether the White House broke the law when it offered a job to Joe Sestak.

it’s very clear that what they were doing is they’re — they’re now coming up with a non-plausible answer. It’s the reason the FBI needs to investigate this. An independent — independent from me, independent from the president — needs to investigate and get to the bottom of this and — so we can all move on.

While Issa argues the White House behavior was clearly illegal, it seems what he’s really angling for is an examination of the cover-up – who lied and when, and what did the president know and when did he know it.

The question is has this been transparent. No. Has there been stalling? Yes. Is there a possibility that what we’re being told now is not true because it’s not so plausible? Yes. Should there be independent investigation so we can move on? Yes.

Having a prosecutor poking around the Oval Office trying to find out if Obama is the new Nixon would be a joy for the GOP, and would force a halt to the socialization project that the regime represents.

One Response to “Forever Wrong”

  1. I’m all good with this because the President promised on Thursday, May 27, 2010 that White House would provide an official explanation “shortly” regarding the Sastek issue.

    Hmmm… what is the Webster (not Obama) meaning of the term “shortly”?

    Main Entry: short·ly
    Pronunciation: \ˈshȯrt-lē\
    Function: adverb
    Date: before 12th century

    2 a : in a short time

    And what is meant by “short”?

    Main Entry: 1short
    Pronunciation: \ˈshȯrt\
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sceort; akin to Old High German scurz short, Old Norse skortr lack
    Date: before 12th century

    2 a : not extended in time : brief

    And brief leads to concise, which ultimately means pointed and direct – not obtuse.

    So, five days and counting is “shortly” in Obama’s mind. Gee, do you think Obama gave America the brush-off with that response last Thursday? as they say in Minnesota – “You betcha!”

    I just hope the explanation, when it arrives shortly, is more inventive then us depending upon what our defintion of “is” is…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: