But you never really addressed the issues.

Do you watch Rush and Glenn Beck, therefore you can say that I or any other poster is selling the "partisan bullshit"? I don't watch them so what say you? I am not trying to sell you a fucking thing, but don't put partisan bullshit into my posts because we agree to disagree on issues.

So when is the last time you watched Rush and Glenn Beck? and how do you know what I watch? Please be man enough to own up.

Impressive statement Griff.

Rush maybe 4 years ago. Beck, I've seen bits and pieces recently when I eat at a local restaurant. We agree that the spending levels of this administration are unsustainable, but this particular issue is silly stuff which undermines legitimate opposition to policy. We seem to be headed down that morals road we went with Clinton, which I was on board with at the time, but in retrospect seems counter-productive.

It probably says more about the unimpressive nature of the two major parties and their unwillingness to govern to the center and acknowledge the price (moral/economic) of their policies. I still think Obama could be a solid President, but the other major players in his party make that extremely difficult. I also think politicians need to grow up and argue policy rather than spend their days flaming each other in the press.

Fail.
You say that as if campaign promises are not broken after every election. Bush claimed that he would build bipartison concensus, as he claimed to have done in Texas. He didn't even try. His father promised "no new taxes". They're all hypocrits. Like you.

And we had to read his lips to get THAT promise!

It just wasn't prudent, not at that juncture. ;)

Political parties are private organizations, with membership, and will do exactly what you say: they will act in a way that they think will give them the best chance to control the policies of the nation.

:notworthy
Yeh! thats for us to do here. :gray:

This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot.

A "bribe"? Sure. Just as the gnat sees the splash from my teaspoon as a tidal wave. I guess it depends on your perspective. I'm bigger than that and I'm certain everyone else here is too.

If I'm running an organization, I'd want to have the best people working for me. You might say "bribe", others, like me, might say "headhunting" or "poaching" or "recruiting". But even the most dedicated opponent agrees that the law says appointees can not also hold or run for office. So, instead of breaking the law, by telling the person you're seeking to add to your team that, by law, they can not hold or run for office, the administration was obeying the law.

How can anyone fail to understand that?

The only answer to that question I can conceive of is either maliciousness or laziness.

That is but one scenario.
Another - and I'm just hypothesizing here....
Say the polls show that "your guy" would get his butt kicked by opponent "A" but would beat opponent "B".
You want your guy in there so you offer this other guy a job.
OR
You have two guys on your team and you owe one a favor whereas the other, although he is technically on your team, doesn't really sign on for everything you want him to - you can't really count on him... So you offer him some outta the way type appointment - say a Czar type unpaid position for 3-6 months till you can give him a paid job ;)

Link
That sums it up for me much better than I could have.
Is this anything new? - Absolutely not - just further proof that Obama IS just another politician.

And so was Nixon!:D