[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

The fact that you are making this argument quite frankly demonstrates that you have no legal training.

You didn't need to to see that statement to know that. Perhaps my legal training comes from the University of "DUH" but to me this law is not nearly as complicated as you make it sound.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Now perhaps I'm a legal novice at best, but when I read that law its pretty clear to me that it was violated, and I would have to hear a very strong case to understand how is wasn't violated. But as you said, perhaps that's just my inexperience talking, but the more I understand law, the more I find that those that work in law misunderstand its philosophical intent, and tend to use it as a means to get away with horrible behavior rather than encourage good.

Do I think it's acceptable? Yes.

I'm glad to have the clarification. I don't agree, regardless of the continued "but he did it" arguments. And for the record I never called for the indictments of anyone, just the resignation of the person who orchestrated it. I would call for the same action from ANY administration regardless of party affiliation. This partisan tit for tat argument you keep bringing up is not politically healthy.

And it's not a phenomenon we can really get rid of either. In fact, you could argue that we shouldn't completely prohibit it. Governor Jim Huntsman of Colorado was appointed to be Ambassador to China. Yeah, it so happens that he was talked about as a Republican Presidential contender in 2012 and he got taken out of the running by this appointment. But he is also a hugely successful businessman who worked as a missionary in China when he was younger and is fluent in Mandarin. I honestly can't think of a better person for the job. It would be ludicrously naive to think that political considerations had nothing to do with his appointment, but we got a politically savvy, economically knowledgeable and well-qualified ambassador to China out of the bargain. Yes, I think that's perfectly acceptable.

I don't think these were comparable, at least as far as we know. Do we know that Huntsman was offered the position specifically so he wouldn't run in 2012? No. We know this with Sestak. You can't take action on a hunch or even an educated guess.

My tolerance for the underside of politics has worn considerably. I am done supporting or defending this type of nonsense from any party. The political process to be for those that are represented, not to continue a machine whose only ethical defense is "but its what we've always done."

Oh, and in case anyone simply thinks I'm being a partisan hack, I am no longer a Republican or a Conservative (listening to that obnoxious theocrat Santorum cured me of that disease). The best way to describe my current political ideology would be Constitutional Libertarian, I guess.