The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a decidedly liberal tilt, so their endorsement of the Democrat candidate in any electoral contest is neither surprising nor impressive.
During the primary campaign, Sestak publicly stated that the Obama administration offered him a high-level job to drop out of the race against Arlen Specter (watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSORKTIyP1o ).
After Sestak won the primary, his claim attracted the attention of the press because such an offer would constitute an illegal bribe. For months, the White House refused to answer questions about the matter. Then Bill Clinton suddenly stepped forward to say HE had offered Sestak an UNPAID position on a presidential ADVISORY BOARD if Sestak would quit the Senate primary and instead run for re-election to his seat in the House of Representatives. Sestak immediately confirmed this version of events (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802330.html ).
These announcements came ONE DAY after Bill Clinton met privately with President Obama in the White House, and also ONE DAY after Sestak’s brother received a phone call from the White House: “They got ahold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House . . . about what’s going to occur,” Sestak said (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052705245.html ). The story seemed carefully crafted to make it possible for Sestak’s prior statement to be “sort of” accurate without implicating the Obama administration in a bribery scandal. One problem: The rules of the presidential advisory boards prohibit ALL government employees (including sitting members of the House of Representatives) from serving on them.
Either Sestak lied DURING the primary (to inflate his standing in the eyes of the voters) or he lied AFTER the primary (to protect the Obama administration from the consequences of their unethical and illegal activity). Why would anyone want to have a known liar (and a lifelong government employee) representing them in the U.S. Senate?
First let me compliment the writer for a well crafted “hit job” in the last days of a very tight political race. The compliment is much the same as I would make to a a brilliant jewel thief; well done, however dishonest.
Lets start at the beginning; Joe Sestak said he was offered a job by the White House if he quit his primary challenge against Arlen Specter. He also said he declined the offer. Both statements have been confirmed and documented, first by the White House admission concerning the offer, and second, by the direct evidence that he declined the offer to quit the race in that he did run in the primary. So nothing here except the absolute truth from Joe Sestak about the major two facts of the case; a White House offer was made and Joe Sestak declined.
So, next, this very clever and very professional writer “suggests”, with the clear insinuation of a charge, (without offering any documentation) that Sestak may have lied when he confirmed the White House and Bill Clinton’s statements. What? Why would he lie about what he had said all along? But, Ah, says the writer, he may have lied about the nature of the specific offer made. How would the writer know that? What evidence does he offer? None.
So the writer ends this very clever “hit job”, not with a logical or in any way documented conclusion (he documents only what is readily admitted), but with a completely unjustified and actually demonic suggestion, (still cleverly not a direct charge), ‘Why would anyone want to have a known liar representing them in the US Senate?” Absolutely outrageous!
But for all his (or her) cleverness the writer completely gives away his political/ideological bias by throwing in, as an equal question, “Why would anyone want to have (a lifelong government employee) representing them in the US Senate”. I suppose being a liar would, in his view, be equal to being a Policeman, Fireman, School teacher, Judge, career soldier, or any number of “lifelong” careers in government.