A Flyer fan like no other – Shawn Hill:
Bill being (1) out of the administration and (2) without power to meaningfully offer Sestak a job makes him the perfect fall guy.
Would there technically be a crime if Bill promised something he was in no position to offer?
IIRC, Jimmy Carter stepped beyond his bounds negotiating with North Korea. What’s to say Bill Clinton wouldn’t do the same with Sestak?
I don’t believe it for a second.
When asked about it, the job offer was always “from the White House” or “within the Administration”…. and Sestak always answered with a simple “yes” followed by, “that’s all I will say.”
Clinton is a) no longer in the White House b) in no position to give out jobs unless he was directed to do so by someone who was.
Montgomery County Commissioner Chairman James R. Matthews said he would campaign for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett and has offered to serve in his administration if the state attorney general wins in November.
If the Pennsylvania attorney general wins and Matthews can’t secure a cabinet post in the administration, he plans to run for re-election as commissioner, the chairman said following Thursday’s meeting. Though adamant he would not change parties to become a Democratic candidate, he didn’t rule out running as an Independent.
“I’d love to join the general (Corbett) and serve his office in any capacity,” he said. “I think I’d do a great as (Secretary of) General Services, certainly to (Secretary of) Banking.”
This is all part of his twenty-four / seven campaign mode story. Floating outlandish ideas to project an image of involvement… see also the Lt Gov campaign of 2010.
No one wants him.
Certainly not Republicans, and soon to be Joe Hoeffel. Whose vaunted “bi-partisan” administration landed him in fourth place statewide in a Democrat primary… and not quite half the Democrat vote in Montco.
“It has been presumed that I would run as a Democrat if the so-called censure continues, but that is not the case,” Matthews said. “I cannot and would not run as a Democrat. Does that preclude running as an Independent? No, it doesn’t preclude running as an Independent, you have Gov. (Charlie) Crist in Florida, who’s a Democrat, running as an Independent.”
Funny that he compares himself to Charlie Crist. Crist was a Republican, Jim. Something you claim(ed) to be too.
According to the Daily Caller it was Bill Clinton who was sent by the Obama administration to try to talk Sestak out of running against Arlen.
Read it here.
The New York Times has a fuller account that makes Obie and his gang look completely innocent [here].
Don’t believe it. It took them several days to work out a story that would absolve Obama and his top people. Bill Clinton is taking the blame because he is bulletproof. He holds no official position in government and nothing he does now could affect his reputation. So Obie and Rahm and all the rest are off the hook.
Sestak confirmed that negotiations over the story were going on yesterday and that his brother [who is on the campaign's payroll to the tune of 66,ooo bucks] was conducting them. Read it here.
Sestak chimes in — from MSNBC:
“And right on cue, Sestak just issued a statement confirming what the White House had released.”
Read it here.
Maybe a little dramatic, but Peggy Noonan is good.
The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It’s not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of “the indispensble nation” be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.
A column by Nicholas D. Kristof appears in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the subject is that of a Catholic nun who incurred the canonical penalty of excommunication latae sententiae for taking part in a direct abortion. As expected, the anti-Catholic bigots are out in full force complaining about how evil the Catholic Church is and how great this nun is for saving her patient’s life. Naturally, Kristof takes the opportunity to throw in a few jabs at the church over the sexual abuse scandal.
But what I find really interesting is this article in Forbes about the same situation in which the author, Jenna Goudreau, cited Kristof as a source. It requires line-by-line refutation:
Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix, Ariz., was excommunicated from the Catholic Church
That is inaccurate; she was not excommunicated from the Catholic Church. She incurred the canonical penalty of excommunication latae sententiae for taking part in a direct abortion. The Catholic Code of Canon Law states that anyone who procures a direct abortion, or who participates in said abortion, automatically excommunicates him or herself. Meaning, it was not the bishop who excommunicated her, but rather she who excommunicated herself by her actions.
after approving an abortion that saved a woman’s life.
Life saving or not, direct abortion is never morally licit. In this case, the hospital should have attempted to treat her condition, pulmonary hypertension, rather than abort her child.
The controversial move has raised eyebrows, causing many to take a second look at the institution’s antiquated ideology.
“Antiquated ideology”? The bigotry already begins to shine through.
The nun was on the Ethics Committee of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, which oversaw the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a 27-year-old woman who would have otherwise died. The mother of four had a medical condition called pulmonary hypertension, and doctors agreed that continuing her 11-week pregnancy probably would have killed her.
So in one sentence we go from certain death without abortion to probable death without abortion. Where is the part about how they tried to treat her pulmonary hypertension and failed? For some reason, I can’t find any mention of that in all of these articles.
Catholic leaders teach that an abortion is always sinful
Direct abortion is always sinful, and that is because it is the intentional taking of an innocent human life.
and that the baby’s health should be prioritized over the mother’s.
100% wrong, radical feminist bullcrap. Catholic teaching is not that a baby’s health or life is more important than that of the mother. Catholic teaching demands that a doctor do everything possible to save every life, and that a doctor not intentionally take a life through direct abortion or any other means.
Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted automatically excommunicated this nun
How can a bishop automatically excommunicate someone else? The only person you can automatically excommunicate is yourself.
–described by hospital staff as kind, humble and saintly–
If she is kind, humble, and saintly, then she will have no problem doing what is necessary to obtain absolution and thus return to full communion with the Catholic Church. What the anti-Catholic bigots who write these columns often fail to realize is that excommunication is not forever, and that those who wish to be absolved of it can receive absolution.
because the medical decision to abort countered that ideology.
Treat the condition. “Pregnancy” wasn’t her condition. Her condition was pulmonary hypertension.
Nicholas Kristof, in his New York Times column published today, rightly points out that the priests who abused young children were not excommunicated; they were suspended and sometimes defrocked, but were still able to take sacrament. Why would a saintly nun who opted to save a woman’s life receive a worse punishment than pedophile priests?
Because killing an innocent person is worse than sexually abusing someone. Most societies recognize that killing an innocent person is just about the worst thing you can possibly do. That’s why the church teaches that anyone who procures a direct abortion – the intentional taking of a completely innocent human life – excommunicates him or herself and must seek absolution to return to communion with the Church.
Moreover, Kristof fervently asserts: “When a hierarchy of mostly aging men pounce on and excommunicate a revered nun
She excommunicated herself.
who was merely trying to save a mother’s life,
Through direct abortion, an action which can never be allowed.
the church seems to me almost as out of touch as it was in the cruel and debauched days of the Borgias in the Renaissance.”
I’m not sure how it follows that the Catholic Church’s unwavering support for innocent human life is as wretched as political corruption among the Church’s hierarchy.
Not only do I agree, I would take it a step further. Religious ideology should not interfere with patient care,
Was not the unborn child also a patient?
and the Catholic Church should step into the present.
A nun who devoted herself to a spiritual life made a difficult decision that ultimately saved the life and family of this woman.
A difficult decision that involved the choice of a direct abortion as a medical treatment.
Meanwhile, priests have committed horrible crimes against living children
LIVING CHILDREN? All you need to know about this woman is right there. The unborn are not “living children”, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to abort them.
and get a comparative slap on the wrist. The hypocrisy makes my stomach turn.
Not surprising, considering that you don’t believe that unborn children are actually alive. If you did, you would be aghast at the “horrible crime” of abortion.
Also, why is someone who hates the Church so much so upset about excommunication? You should be happy when someone is excommunicated from such a wretched institution, no? I also wonder if you would be so upset if you understood that this excommunication, which she enacted against her own self, could be and probably will be removed by her bishop for whom you have nothing but contempt?
Congress is very close to repealing the extremely sensible “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the American military as long as they don’t talk about their sexual orientation. This policy is being repealed as part of the PR battle of radical homosexuals to force government-sponsored homosexual marriage. That’s all there is to it.
You see, it’s not enough for homosexual “marriage” to be legal in the United States, which it is. Anyone is free to rent a hall, hire a “minister”, and have said “minister” perform a “marriage”. It’s just that the government will not recognize that “marriage” as valid. In certain countries homosexual “marriage” actually is illegal, meaning that those who hold private ceremonies in which two people of the same sex are married are punished by the government with fines and imprisonment.
But in the United States, which currently has libertarian and sensible policies regarding homosexuals, the radical homosexuals will not be satisfied until their “marriages” are recognized and celebrated by all people – as demanded by order of the iron fist of government. It’s ironic that so-called “libertarians” support such fascist tactics.
With the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy repealed, the military will be forced to make numerous expensive adjustments, the most obvious of which is that they will probably need to build separate living quarters for the openly homosexual troops, segregating them from everyone else. Why? Because otherwise some wiseguy will make a fuss that if the homosexuals get to sleep and shower with people of the opposite “gender”, then men and women should be integrated as well. After all, the left is all about “fairness”; is it “fair” that homosexuals should get to enjoy eye candy while heterosexuals do not?
I would also not be surprised to see the draft brought back as a result of this change in policy, as it’s likely that many men will choose not to join the military as a result of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell being repealed. I can see the liberals in Congress now decrying these men as “bigots” and “homophobes” as a part of their calls for the restoration of the draft, which has only been recently proposed by liberals like Rep. Pete Stark.
This is a foolish change in policy which will only cause problems within the military, but that is of no concern to the radical homosexuals. Their only concern here is reaching a stepping stone in using the power of the federal government to achieve their ultimate goal of forcing the people of the United States to sanctify and celebrate homosexual “marriage”.
Also, it’s nice to see that Congress has their priorities in order. While the Gulf of Mexico is turning into a giant tar pit, they’re screwing around with social engineering in the military. It’s great to see Obama and the Dems get the biggest pass of all time on that disaster while Bush caught hell, and continues to catch hell, for his response to hurricane Katrina.
This letter says it all:
Rivers Casino’s newest promotion includes the opportunity to play tic-tac-toe with a chicken.
Like all gambling ads, the radio spot ends with the obligatory “If you have a gambling problem …”
Skippy, if you’re playing tic-tac-toe with a chicken, you have a gambling problem.
KEVIN G. BARKES
This is the letter of the year. What a perfect explanation of modern American politics:
It seems when liberals protest, no matter what they do or say, they are merely getting involved, trying to make a difference and exercising their rights as Americans. When conservatives protest, they are proving they are violent Nazis, anti-American and racists.
Liberals never have to debate a policy (or even read a controversial bill) or stick to facts. When they can get personal, mock and vilify, this is thoughtful statesmanship. If conservatives focus on an issue, they are mean-spirited and racist, while the issue is ignored.
Liberals always try to help the little guy; they are noble. Conservatives always try to line the pockets of the rich and are venal, ignoble and racist. When a black person is a liberal, like Rep. Charles Rangel, pointing out his lapses is racist. When a black person is a conservative, like Justice Clarence Thomas, he is a racist and must be insulted and impugned. It is impossible for a liberal to be a racist, even if he was a member of the KKK. It is impossible for a conservative not to be a racist, even if he is black.
Liberals are highly intelligent and above reproach, while conservatives are stupid, the butt of jokes and of low morals. Conservatives can do no right and liberals can do no harm. Does anyone really believe this?
Upper St. Clair
The best part of this letter is Mr. York emphasizing that every time conservatives disagree with liberals on ANYTHING, that it MUST be because of racism. The genius of the letter rests in his repeating the word “racist” over and over and over to the point of parody, which is exactly what the left does.