In particular, let's take yesterday's White House admission that former President Bill Clinton was enlisted to approach Joe Sestak (D-PA) not to contest turncoat Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) seek to extend his decades-long career in the U.S. Senate; apparently the inducement was the privilege of moonlighting on an unpaid, mostly ceremonial role on a Presidential board while still serving as Congressman.
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and others are continuing to press for a special prosecutor, even reaching the possibility of an impeachable offense, even though from any objective analysis of what we now know, Sestak's claim, which many thought was perhaps was the former admiral being named Secretary of the Navy, had been absurdly exaggerated and used to promote this pretentious bravado of the underdog battling the President and the Democratic establishment (while at the same time voting for Obama's agenda).
Consider what the Republicans got from Sestak's candidacy against Specter. First of all, Sestak's 7th district is a historically Republican seat, with a plurality of GOP registered voters, in a change election year. Pat Meehan, a former US attorney, is a strong, well-funded candidate to retake the seat. Second, Sestak has a left-of-center, high-spending voting record. Toomey has consistently led Sestak in polls until the last few weeks, and Sestak only holds roughly a 3-point lead after a high-profile race against Specter. Whereas Toomey would prefer to run against Specter, whom was a long-term incumbent in an anti-incumbent election year, Toomey can't be tied to Obama's unpopular policies; in fact, Critz (D-PA) won Murtha's seat by running against the health care bill and for culturally-conservative issues (e.g., abortion and guns). Third, Bill Clinton has greatly damaged his own prestige by being seen as little more than a party hack acting on behalf of the Obama Administration.
As for the purported deal, we need to know any administration has positions to fill, quite often with former existing or former lawmakers. These decisions were not always to the Democrats' local strategic interests; for example, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is the former Arizona governor; she was succeeded by Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R-AZ), now with an incumbent's advantage in this fall's election; Interior Secretary Salazar opened up his Colorado US Senate seat in a purple state in a change election year. (On the other hand, last year's famous NY-23 special election resulted from Republican John McHugh's nomination as Army Secretary.) It's very clear why the Obama Administration wanted to retain the advantage of incumbency for both Sestak's and Specter's seats, and we can't forget that Sestak's lead over Specter emerged fairly late in the primary campaign, long after Sestak turned down the offer.
In fact, the President is the leader of the Democratic Party. Party leaders often try to field competitive candidates for seats. Sometimes it backfires as in last year's NY-23 where party leaders nominated a liberal Republican to succeed John McHugh. Technically, Obama really didn't need to "bribe" Sestak; generally speaking, a President has a number of ways to reward a Congressman; for example, he can help raise money and mobilize political support, push a legislator's bill, invite the legislator to the White House, etc. It doesn't have to be a specific favor: doing something a President wants puts the legislator in the enviable position of the President owing him a favor. It's possible the legislator himself may himself ask the President to return the favor in the future in a manner and timing of his choosing. Is this the way politics should operate in an ideal world? Of course not. In the ideal world, the President and the legislator come together based on the best interests of the American people, without regard to ideology or self-interest. What Friday's revelation showed is that this was not the Blagojevich scandal redux.
I think the GOP would be well-advised to take the moral higher ground and not sweat the small stuff. I think if anything, Sestak, Obama, and the Democratic Party have hurt themselves with this. I think Sestak's integrity has been irreparably harmed: why did Sestak fail to disclose the Clinton offer from the get-go? Stonewalling the press and the Pennsylvania voters is no badge of political courage or straight talk; it was protecting the White House, little more than politics as usual. Not to mention this "big prize" that the White House was waving in front of Sestak was a spot some advisory board, with no real compensation or authority? And the Obama Administration, in this post-partisan "new politics", is engaging in petty political wheeling and dealing?
The BP Oil Spill Disaster: What Could Obama Have Done?
I don't intend here to present a comprehensive analysis, but I do want to provide a starting point for discussion. In particular, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) expressed great frustration over the failure of BP and the federal government to keep the oil spill from reaching some of Louisiana's most sensitive coastal shores and wetlands; he saw the federal government as stonewalling his request to dredge and establish barrier islands. He expressed frustration, saying he might act first and apologize later in the face of federal government analysis paralysis. During the President's recent press conference, Obama announced that the US Army Corps of Engineers had approved a partial fulfillment of that request based on certain cost factors.
I was very frustrated while watching the news conference because it was very clear that Obama wasn't being challenged on some very basic points obvious to any student of business and economics. For example, he assumed the legitimacy of the US Army Corps of Engineers' belated response to the Jindal request. Are we to assume that the concept of dredging and barrier islands was an analysis de novo? That the same government which designed and constructed the levees in New Orleans never looked at the benefits of barrier islands? That they never considered the contingency of a major oil spill in an area which accounts for about a third of our oil production and prone to hurricanes? That bureaucratic analysts attempt to reach some idyllic consensus, even as tar balls wash ashore?
The general gist of what I got from Obama's press conference is that bureaucratic processes take as long as bureaucratic processes need to take, regardless of circumstances. We have another episode of "Big Government Knows Best", where Obama assures us that the federal government are taking into account the best and brightest minds in the world in addressing such crises. Now, of course, he doesn't quite explain how the best and brightest minds never considered the special engineering issues related to a catastrophic failure a mile below the surface of the gulf and why the government never required data on relevant failover procedures?
Instead, we are led to believe by Obama that the Big Nanny Congress required "unrealistic" 30-day approval deadlines for oil and gas exploration and bureaucrats simply waived approvals without impact studies and that the real reason that government failed, with failure to address internal controls and the like, is because of some Bush Administration anti-regulatory conspiracy, that poor Interior Secretary Salazar was running himself ragged trying to put out fires left behind by the Bush Administration. All of this is, of course, little more than contemptible political scapegoating and grandstanding. I don't deny, given the massive size and scope of government there may be gaps, redundancies and structural problems in regulation. But unconscionably smearing the integrity and reputation of public servants working under the Bush Administration is unworthy of a legitimate American President.
Obama in his press conference abused his power by uniformly suspending or canceling lease sales, instituting lengthy review periods, etc. This is not based on intrinsic factors but was purely political. The vast majority of offshore installations do not pose the same issues; we did not stop the shuttle missions after a tragic mishap during the Reagan Administration.
Political Cartoon
Walt Handelsman is making a play on words, in terms of the patently broken promise to make government legislative and executive processes more fully accessible to the voters and the press and the President's own lack of demonstrable leadership (with 2 brief visits to the Gulf coast). The Obama Administration wants to assure us that behind the scenes government bureaucrats are diligently working on and resolving the crisis, that Obama can manage BP activities just as well as he has managed the bankrupt auto companies, AIG, and the GSE's. (Some might think the rhetorical confidence of the President, whom is on track to increase the national debt by an amount comparable to the entire federal debt through the end of the Clinton Presidency in just one term in office and whom has added yet another health care entitlement under the most deceptive smoke-and-mirrors accounting in the history of the nation not even factoring into that, even while two existing entitlements, Medicare and social security, are on the verge of insolvency, is little more than hubris.)
Quote of the Day
A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.
Henry Adams
Musical Interlude: The AFI Music Top 100
#53. "Goldfinger"
#54. "Shall We Dance?"
#55. "Flashdance" (an all-time favorite: perfect song, arrangement, vocals, video!)
#56. "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" (Amen! "They grow up in the most delightful way...for without them, what would little boys do?")
