Peter Ferrara of The American Spectator certainly thinks so. He argues his case persuasively, (and I am inclined to agree):

Months ago, I predicted in this column that President Obama would so discredit himself in office that he wouldn’t even be on the ballot in 2012, let alone have a prayer of being reelected. Like President Johnson in 1968, who had won a much bigger victory four years previously than Obama did in 2008, President Obama will be so politically defunct by 2012 that he won’t even try to run for reelection.

I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it that far. I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012. Like my previous prediction, that is based not just on where we are now, but where we are going under his misleadership.

Ferrara proceeds to list a few of the latest scandals, screw-ups and general mismanagement of the Obama administration:

• The Sestak scandal: (are Dem Presidents above the law?)

…indirectly offering the job through former President Clinton still violates the statute, as does the offer of an unpaid position. That is why Issa, Mark Levin, and others are saying that what the White House is publicly admitting still amounts to a federal crime, which is an impeachable offense. Democrats are going to have to decide if they really believe that presidents are not above the law.

The Romanoff scandal is finally starting to blossom, as well.

 Misfeasance or Malfeasance?: (Is the Obama administration’s mismanagement of the Gulf oil spill due to general incompetence and laziness, or a case of not letting a crisis go to waste? Could  Obama have delayed the federal response because he thought the spreading spill would advance his anti-drill, pro-cap and tax political agenda?

What if evidence arises that Obama failed to respond to Jindal for partisan political reasons? As slimy as that sounds it wouldn’t be the first time a  Dem had used an environmental disaster to score political points:

In the response to Hurricane Katrina, federal law specifically provided that the then Democrat Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans were in charge. The federal and FEMA role was to “support…state and local assistance efforts” with the necessary, primarily financial resources. Nevertheless, in the days after the hurricane, President Bush’s federal government was the only functioning authority, as the Coast Guard rescued 30,000 people off of rooftops. Hundreds of school buses that could have been used to whisk those people out of harm’s way were left ruined under water due to Mayor Nagin’s inaction in response to federal hurricane warnings. The partisan Governor acted only to deny and delay President Bush’s control over the state’s national guard for political reasons.

But the Gulf oil spill emanates from federal waters, which means President Obama is directly in charge, not state and local officials. And his derelictions are losing his own supporters.

 Geometric Downward Spiral:

Now and for the next six months, we will be enjoying the high point of the Obama economy, the tippy top of the Obamanomics, Keynesian, roller coaster. If Art Laffer’s Coming Crash of 2011 arrives next year, or if the economy just dips into another downturn, President Obama no longer enjoys the political base to survive it. With African Americans suffering Depression-level unemployment for over a year now, even that most solid of all political bases will weaken and waver in the face of a renewed downturn.

 Inviting war through weakness:

Devilishly pursuing the opposite of every one of Reagan’s policies, instead of Peace Through Strength, Obama is inviting War Through Weakness. If Iran launches a bloody attack on Israel, open calls for his resignation will be widespread. If Iran uses a nuclear weapon in that attack, or in any other attack against American interests, the Obama Administration will be over politically.

• Reneging on tax pledge:

When the President directly violates the pledge that got him elected by openly endorsing such a tax increase, his resignation will immediately become a central political issue. The above problems and vulnerabilities will come together to increase the pressure for resignation to unbearable levels.

I believe we are already seeing the signs of a weakened and discredited Presidency. When Obama supporters from Peggy Noonan, to David Gergenand James Carville jump ship…when the thrill up the leg is replaced with nausea  for Chris Matthews - you know there is trouble in paradise…the Utopian dream giving way to reality. And reality bites for small, petty, corrupt, Marxist Chicago politicians. It bites for the rest of us, too, because we are the unfortunate beneficiaries of his incompetence and malfeasance.

Today in PA, a slew of Democrats were invited to yet another Obama speech, and they scattered  like the Grim Reaper was approaching.

Congressmen Jason Altmire and Tim Murphy have previous engagements. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and Rep. Mike Doyle are out of town on anniversary trips with their wives. Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato will be campaigning in Philadelphia.

When President Obama and Sen. Arlen Specter land at Pittsburgh International Airport today, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl will receive them by himself.

The rest of the region’s top elected officials declined White House invitations to attend Obama’s speech at Carnegie Mellon University this afternoon, their offices said.

And that was in a blue state.

Linked by Michelle Malkin in Buzzworthy, thanks!

See Also:

A good discussion among the Potluck bloggers on the chances Barry will bail. The general consensus is approximately 0% that he’ll resign before his term is up.

Just to be clear, I  believe  Obama’s Presidency is doomed to failure. It’s not in his psychological makeup to admit his shortcomings, and I suspect he lacks the flexibility to change course.  I seriously doubt he’ll resign in disgrace. But whether he runs in 2012, or is persuaded by his party not to; I think he’ll be a one termer.

RELATED:

The Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Obama’s Islamic poll dance

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Can’t remember the last time a president was heckled this stridently in such close quarters. I’m sure it happened to Bush over and over, but I’m drawing a blank on any high-profile instances. In any case, considering that it was shot on Memorial Day and that The One had hopped aboard the bus merely to thank people for having come to his rained-out event, the clip’s going to operate as a political rorschach. Some will cheer it as a virtuoso truth-to-power performance, others will cringe at jeering him while he’s trying to say a few words about fallen troops. After you watch, take the poll below!


Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Alternate headline: “Sestak story just getting started.” The news here isn’t that Andrew Romanoff was offered a job to help clear the way for Michael Bennet in the Senate primary; the Denver Post reported that allllll the way back in September of last year, citing multiple sources in the state Democratic leadership. The news is that the White House denied it at the time and that unnamed “administration officials” are formally un-denying it now. From last September:

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said…

The White House said that no job was ever offered to Romanoff and that it would be wrong to suggest administration officials tried to buy him out of the contest.

“Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.

That was the lie, and now comes the truth:

Administration officials dangled the possibility of a job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forego a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, his rival in an Aug. 10 primary, administration officials said Wednesday.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations…

Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted.

The Denver Post was strikingly silent about the job offer after their big scoop last year — until today, when the editorial page declared that it was time for both sides to come clean. (Romanoff told them “unequivocally” that he never received any offer, so now we know he’s a liar too.) Presumably the “administration officials” who ‘fessed up this afternoon were worried about Colorado media revisiting the story in the wake of l’affaire Sestak and decided to try to short-circuit the coverage by admitting what happened. Except that … by refusing to say what job he was offered and who offered it, they’re going to kick off all sorts of new speculation. If you’re going to come clean, come clean. The million-dollar exit question: How many more Sestaks and Romanoffs are there?

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Alternate headline: “Sestak story just getting started.” The news here isn’t that Andrew Romanoff was offered a job to help clear the way for Michael Bennet in the Senate primary; the Denver Post reported that allllll the way back in September of last year, citing multiple sources in the state Democratic leadership. The news is that the White House denied it at the time and that unnamed “administration officials” are formally un-denying it now. From last September:

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said…

The White House said that no job was ever offered to Romanoff and that it would be wrong to suggest administration officials tried to buy him out of the contest.

“Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.

That was the lie, and now comes the truth:

Administration officials dangled the possibility of a job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forego a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, his rival in an Aug. 10 primary, administration officials said Wednesday.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations…

Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted.

The Denver Post was strikingly silent about the job offer after their big scoop last year — until today, when the editorial page declared that it was time for both sides to come clean. (Romanoff told them “unequivocally” that he never received any offer, so now we know he’s a liar too.) Presumably the “administration officials” who ‘fessed up this afternoon were worried about Colorado media revisiting the story in the wake of l’affaire Sestak and decided to try to short-circuit the coverage by admitting what happened. Except that … by refusing to say what job he was offered and who offered it, they’re going to kick off all sorts of new speculation. If you’re going to come clean, come clean. The million-dollar exit question: How many more Sestaks and Romanoffs are there?

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Republicans are going to keep hammering away at the Joe Sestak job offer allegations. 

 

Reps. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, and Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, sent another letter to White House Counsel Bob Bauer on Wednesday, asking the White House to disclose specifics about any job offer to Sestak (D-Pa.) in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.

 

By June 9, Issa wants the Obama administration’s legal records, memos to the press office, and e-mails and phone records in relation to the Sestak job offer. Issa and Smith also are asking for notes and transcripts of interviews with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, former President Bill Clinton, Sestak and Sestak’s brother Richard, who serves as his campaign manager.

 

“The American people elected a president who promised to change the status quo and business-as-usual practices of Washington. Has this White House become a part of the establishment they once opposed?” the Republicans wrote in the letter. “The Sestak matter represents a chance for this White House to live up to the high standard of transparency and accountability they set for themselves.”

 

Smith and Issa also accuse the White House of violating the criminal code, “tampering of evidence, witness tampering and evasion of the legal process” for dispatching Clinton to offer Sestak a spot on a presidential intelligence advisory board.

 

Sestak, who for months would not disclose any details of the offer, addressed it last week outside the Capitol in Washington. He answered questions and insisted that there was nothing unusual about his talk with Clinton; he said it lasted between 30 and 60 seconds.

 

Democrats have also been trying to get Sestak to dodge questions about the offer. Several of his Pennsylvania colleagues in the House have suggested he simply not answer questions about the offer, and one suggested he talk instead about the economy.

 

Aides to Sestak have also noted to reporters that he has never voluntarily brought up the offer during the course of the primary or general election and he has merely answered questions when asked.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.

"Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. "There were some initial conversations with him but no job was ever offered."

The new revelation of a possible political trade again called into question President Barack Obama's repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals.

The Colorado episode follows a similar controversy in Pennsylvania. An embarrassed White House admitted last Friday that it turned to former President Bill Clinton last year to approach Rep. Joe Sestak about backing out of the primary in favor of an unpaid position on a federal advisory board.

Sestak declined the offer and defeated Sen. Arlen Specter late last month for the Democratic nomination after disclosing the job discussions and highlighting it as evidence of his antiestablishment political credentials. He said last week he rejected Clinton's feeler in less than a minute.

In a two-page report on the Sestak case, the White House counsel said the administration did nothing illegal or unethical.

Republicans have strongly criticized the offer to Sestak and challenged Romanoff to answer questions about his own dealings with the White House.

"Romanoff would be well-served to explain all of the details surrounding his discussions with the White House, the positions they proposed and the individuals who contacted him immediately," said Amber Marchand, a spokeswoman for the Republicans' Senate campaign committee.

Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted. Also unlike Sestak, Romanoff was out of office and looking for his next act after being forced from his job because of term limits.

Romanoff had sought appointment to the Senate seat that eventually went to Bennet, publicly griped he had been passed over and then discussed possible appointment possibilities inside the administration, one of the officials said.

After being passed over for the Senate appointment, the out-of-power Romanoff made little secret of shopping for a political job. Romanoff also applied to be Colorado secretary of state, a job that came open when Republican Mike Coffman was elected to Congress. Gov. Bill Ritter again appointed a replacement, and again passed over Romanoff.

Next, according to several Colorado Democrats speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal negotiations, Romanoff also approached Ritter about being Ritter's running mate for Ritter's re-election bid. It was only after that attempt failed, the Colorado Democrats said, that Romanoff joined the Senate contest.

Romanoff still wasn't settled on the Senate race. When Ritter announced in January that he wouldn't seek a second term after all, Romanoff publicly talked about leaving the Senate race to seek the governor's office, though he ended up staying in the Senate contest.

Bennet has outpaced Romanoff in fundraising and support from Washington, although party activists attending the state party assembly last month favored the challenger by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent. The primary is Aug. 10.

Bennet was appointed by Ritter to fill out the final two years of the term of Ken Salazar, who resigned to become interior secretary.

Romanoff's campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to questions.

___

Associated Press writer Kristen Wyatt in Denver contributed to this report.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

PRINCETON, NJ -- At 46%, President Obama's job approval average for the week ending May 30 is the lowest weekly average of his administration, one point below the previous low of 47% measured in April.

Obama Job Approval, Weekly Averages, January
2009-May 2010

Overall, Obama's weekly job approval average has generally been quite stable in 2010 so far, and has been at or below 50% since mid-February. It fell out of the 60% range in early summer 2009 and first fell below 50% in late November.

Obama Rating Lower Than Most Presidents' Comparables

Obama's end-of-May weekly average is lower than the single-survey ratings for all but two of the nine elected presidents since Eisenhower during May of those presidents' second years in office. Ronald Reagan's approval rating in a May 1982 survey was 45%, one point below Obama's current rating, and Jimmy Carter was at 43% in May 1978. George W. Bush's 77% was the highest such reading, reflecting the continuing rally effect that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Presidential Job Approval in May of Second 
Year in Office, Elected Presidents From Eisenhower to Obama

Approval Among Independents Reaches New Low

Obama's current 41% weekly approval rating among independents is by one point the lowest of his administration. His 81% rating among Democrats is tied for the lowest so far among that group, while his current 16% among Republicans is actually up slightly from recent weeks.

Obama Job Approval Rating, by Party

The current 65-point "polarization gap" between Democrats and Republicans in their approval of Obama is slightly smaller than the average 69-point gap so far this year.

Obama Job Approval by Party, Weekly 
Averages, January 2009-May 2010

Solid Support Among Blacks; Steady Among Whites

Obama's weekly average among blacks remains very high, at 93%, while his 39% approval rating among non-Hispanic whites is roughly where it has been since March. There is evidence that Obama's approval rating among Hispanics has been slipping; Gallup will analyze his standing among Hispanics in detail (based on larger sample aggregations) in a forthcoming report on Gallup.com.

Obama Job Approval Rating, by Race

Bottom Line

President Obama's weekly job approval averages have generally been quite stable this year, with a range extending between 46% and 51% since January. At the same time, these readings represent a significant drop-off in approval compared with the 60%+ ratings he had for the first five months of his administration and his overall average of 57% in 2009.

Obama's current 46% weekly average is slightly below where it has been recently. It can be difficult to identify precisely what causes ups and downs in a president's approval rating. There was a great deal of news focus on the BP oil spill last week, and, although it may be tempting to say the spill is affecting Obama's ratings, it is impossible to say this with certainty.

Last week was also a down week for Democrats in terms of their relative positioning on Gallup's generic ballot. It will be important to monitor both the generic ballot and Obama's approval rating in the weeks ahead to see whether last week represented a short-lived drop in Democrats' fortunes, or the beginning of a trend that could carry forward into the intensive fall election season.

Explore Obama's approval ratings in-depth and compare to past presidents in the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted May 24-30, 2010, with a random sample of 3,591 national adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using a random-digit-dial sampling technique.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error is ±2 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted on the basis of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, cell phone only status, cell phone mostly status and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.

"Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. "There were some initial conversations with him but no job was ever offered."

The new revelation of a possible political trade again called into question President Barack Obama's repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals.

The Colorado episode follows a similar controversy in Pennsylvania. An embarrassed White House admitted last Friday that it turned to former President Bill Clinton last year to approach Rep. Joe Sestak about backing out of the primary in favor of an unpaid position on a federal advisory board.

Sestak declined the offer and defeated Sen. Arlen Specter late last month for the Democratic nomination after disclosing the job discussions and highlighting it as evidence of his antiestablishment political credentials. He said last week he rejected Clinton's feeler in less than a minute.

In a two-page report on the Sestak case, the White House counsel said the administration did nothing illegal or unethical.

Republicans have strongly criticized the offer to Sestak and challenged Romanoff to answer questions about his own dealings with the White House.

"Romanoff would be well-served to explain all of the details surrounding his discussions with the White House, the positions they proposed and the individuals who contacted him immediately," said Amber Marchand, a spokeswoman for the Republicans' Senate campaign committee.

Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted. Also unlike Sestak, Romanoff was out of office and looking for his next act after being forced from his job because of term limits.

Romanoff had sought appointment to the Senate seat that eventually went to Bennet, publicly griped he had been passed over and then discussed possible appointment possibilities inside the administration, one of the officials said.

After being passed over for the Senate appointment, the out-of-power Romanoff made little secret of shopping for a political job. Romanoff also applied to be Colorado secretary of state, a job that came open when Republican Mike Coffman was elected to Congress. Gov. Bill Ritter again appointed a replacement, and again passed over Romanoff.

Next, according to several Colorado Democrats speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal negotiations, Romanoff also approached Ritter about being Ritter's running mate for Ritter's re-election bid. It was only after that attempt failed, the Colorado Democrats said, that Romanoff joined the Senate contest.

Romanoff still wasn't settled on the Senate race. When Ritter announced in January that he wouldn't seek a second term after all, Romanoff publicly talked about leaving the Senate race to seek the governor's office, though he ended up staying in the Senate contest.

Bennet has outpaced Romanoff in fundraising and support from Washington, although party activists attending the state party assembly last month favored the challenger by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent. The primary is Aug. 10.

Bennet was appointed by Ritter to fill out the final two years of the term of Ken Salazar, who resigned to become interior secretary.

Romanoff's campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to questions.

___

Associated Press writer Kristen Wyatt in Denver contributed to this report.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Politics as usual": To most Americans, it's be come a dirty phrase. To the Beltway crowd, it's the reflexive defense for the White House's dispatching of a former president to try muscling Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

Obama & Co. wanted to clear the primary field for Sen. Arlen Specter, who embodies everything Americans hate about politicians. A party-switching career pol, "Spineless Specter" holds no discernible principles, save his unshakable belief that he is entitled to hold power.

Sorry, but this isn't "change you can believe in."

One wonders if the White House believes it somehow will be left unscathed by the anti-Washington fervor now sweeping the electorate. Dirty deals and establishment politicians are finally out of style.

Remember "the Cornhusker Kickback"? That was "politics as usual," too, and it was met with outrage from the people who would have benefited from it, turning formerly popular Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson into a near-pariah in his state.

Nelson thought that by sweetening his unpopular health-care vote with federal dollars for his state he could effectively bribe voters for their support. It might have worked in the past -- but the times they are a-changing.

Ironically, it was Barack Obama who helped usher in these changes, tapping into a disgust with Washington ways and promising an end to those "politics as usual."

In his campaign announcement speech, Obama highlighted his lack of Beltway experience: "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Or not.

With Rep. Daryl Issa leading the charge, the Republicans are claiming that the Sestak overture was illegal. Based on what has been disclosed -- the dangling of a nonpaying advisory-board post -- a criminal case is a stretch. There has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Republicans. Nor does the law appear to have been created to deal with a situation like this.

So, unless new facts come out (always a possibility), the Obama White House has little to fear -- legally. Politically, it should be very concerned.

The worst case is that the Republicans win control of Congress and launch an investigation. You know the drill: no underlying crime, but you get people under oath and they say something untrue or contradictory and suddenly you have a felony, i.e. lying under oath.

The best-case scenario, which isn't that great, is that the GOP weaves a narrative of Obama as being just another typical Washington politician.

The plot has already begun. GOP talkers are highlighting a Washington Post story that claims Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff said he was offered an administration job to drop out of the Senate primary. (The White House denies this.)

More fodder: The revelation in Jonathan Alter's "The Promise: President Obama, Year One" that Obama offered White House counsel Greg Craig a federal judgeship on the DC Circuit in an effort to ease him out of the White House.

Washington insiders are incredulous that any of this could ever matter, viewing it (correctly) as typical politics that happen all the time. But that's the point.

Obama promised to change Washington's culture. Instead, his White House counsel justified the White House move by pointing out that past White Houses have done Sestak-type deals, though he offered no examples.

Change indeed.

Charlie Cook, analyzing the current political environment, pointed out in a recent report that, "long-serving Democratic members of Congress identified as having 'gone Washington' are especially under threat." Presumably, the same holds for short-serving Democratic presidents. kirstenpowers@aol.com

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

 

In one of the bigger ‘duh!’ headlines of the year, the Times-Picayune observes:

Offshore drilling ban could be a blow to Louisiana economy

 

The president and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s announcement late last week to halt all deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico “at the first safe stopping point” while the Interior Department figures out what regulatory changes are necessary for offshore oil prospecting seemed designed to reassure the nation that drilling would only proceed in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.

But to those who work in the offshore industry and in the communities at the epicenter of the spiraling disaster from the April 20 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil leak, it smacked of a lack of understanding of the role that the oil business plays in the Louisiana economy.

In the 2008 presidential election, no coastal parishes except for Orleans supported Obama; last week’s offshore drilling announcement only seemed to make his administration even less popular in the oil-affected parishes.

Then again, maybe this is payback, Chicago-style.

Within a very short time, [LA Economic Development Secretary Stephen] Moret believes the state will lose 3,000 to 6,000 direct and indirect jobs.

If the suspensions are maintained, it could rise to 10,000 jobs. And if the moratorium persists while oil prices rise, the state could lose 20,000 jobs over the next 12 to 18 months in the form of lost direct and indirect jobs, and missed job creation opportunities because rising petroleum prices stimulate more energy development.

Since it’s unclear what’s involved with the shut-downs, it’s unclear whether companies will keep their rigs afloat in the Gulf with a skeleton crew or move them to Brazil, which is considered one of the world’s biggest deepwater drilling opportunities.

I think Mr. Moret is low-balling his estimate.

2012 cannot come soon enough.

 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Sounds like a fun way to spend the summer, doesn’t it?

President Barack Obama spent the last year insisting he doesn’t want to turn the American health care system into a carbon copy of the government-run British system.

But Obama’s pick to run Medicaid and Medicare — Donald Berwick — is a pediatrician and Harvard University professor with a self-professed “love” of the British system.

Berwick has called Britain’s National Health Service “one of the greatest health care institutions in human history” and “a global treasure.” He once said it sets an “example” for the United States to follow. And his decadelong efforts to improve the NHS were so well-regarded that Queen Elizabeth granted him an honorary knighthood in 2005.

And given the way that the public hates Obamacare, this should be one heck of a confirmation hearing.  not just because of Sir Donald’s history of wanting to explicitly use ‘health care reform’ as a tool for wealth redistribution, but because he’s so supportive of a British health care system that’s frankly awful.  I look forward to that discussion.  I lookforward to putting Sir Donald under the glare of television cameras and inviting him to explain why he loves a system that is actively importing foreign doctors to cover a shortfall of general practitioners - something that we’re going to be facing ourselves, soon.  I look forward to seeing Sir Donald explain why the NHS is bragging that they’ve reduced the waiting time for in-and-out hospital stays to a mere nine weeks.  And I look forward to hearing Sir Donald wax lyrical on the virtues of the NHS’ redistributing wealth - not that this would include the NHS’ own head, who makes twice as much as the UK Prime Minister.

So yeah.  Let’s go, Sir Donald.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Federal statutes seem to contradict a memorandum from the White House counsel released on Friday that claimed that no law was violated when Rep. Joe Sestak was offered a government post in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blithely dismissed the issue for months. “Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened,” he said. But the two-page memorandum admitted that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Sestak a position on a presidential or senior executive branch advisory board.  Apparently Gibbs and the White House expect us to accept their self-investigation and self-evaluation that nothing “inappropriate” happened.

During his primary run, Sestak sought to elicit support by alleging that someone in the White House offered him a job last year if he dropped his challenge to Specter. However, he practically refused to talk about it and or say who made the offer.  As an elected official, Sestak had an ethical obligation to reveal the details of what happened.  His position that he had “said all I’m going to say on the matter” did not meet his fiduciary responsibilities.  The public has a right to know exactly what happened, and whether a crime was committed.
Some claim that even if Sestak was offered a high-ranking job in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race, it would not have constituted a crime—that’s just “business as usual” in Washington.  But such claims confuse two very different situations: one which is, indeed, business as usual; the other, a potential crime.
A 1980 opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department outlines the key distinction between what is legal and what is illegal under federal law.  What is perfectly legal and what happens all the time in Washington is individuals being offered jobs for past political activity.  A new President has several thousand patronage jobs to fill in the top ranks of the executive branch.  Those jobs are filled based on a mix of professional competence and past political activity and support for the President or his party.  That process does not violate federal law.  Thus, if someone in the White House simply offered Sestak a job and did not tie the offer to anything related to the Senate race, then, that would arguably constitute business as usual.
However, what is illegal and not normal practice in Washington is to promise a federal job or appointment to an individual in exchange for future political activity.  18 U.S.C. § 600 prohibits the use of government-funded jobs or programs to advance partisan political interests.  The statute makes it unlawful for anyone to “promise any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “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 primary election.” As the OLC opinion says, § 600 “punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity.”  Future political activity would arguably include dropping out of a contested primary in order to benefit the White House-endorsed candidate (here, Sen. Specter).
It does not matter that Sestak did not accept the offer or that the offer was, according to the White House memorandum, for an uncompensated federal appointment.  The statute prohibits making such an offer in the first place. There is no requirement even for a tentative agreement.  Like the crime of solicitation, the crime happens once the words trip off the mouth of the person making the offer. 
Another federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 595, prohibits any person employed in any administrative position by the United States “in connection with any activity which is financed…by the United States…us[ing] his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of…member of the Senate.” Any administration position offered to Sestak would be financed by the United States, so Rahm Emanuel offering such an appointment through Bill Clinton to interfere with the Senate race in Pennsylvania would also constitute a possible violation of this statute.
These are not complex statutes.  They are easy to understand and straightforward in their application.  That’s probably why the White House has taken so long to answer these charges.  But their answer, contrary to their claim, does not clear Rahm Emanuel. 
With the White House admission that an offer of a federal appointment was made in order to interfere with a Senate primary election, there is more than sufficient evidence to justify the Justice Department opening a preliminary investigation.  In fact, such an admission would prompt any responsible prosecutor to open at least a preliminary investigation, otherwise he would not be fulfilling his duty and obligation to enforce all federal laws.
The Justice Department has sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) rejecting his request for a special counsel to investigate the allegation.  But Justice’s letter gave no indication that the department has opened its own investigation.  Normally, such an investigation would be conducted by the Public Integrity Section in the Criminal Division.  Any recommendation to open an investigation would have to be approved by the political head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer.  Given Breuer’s political obligations and loyalty to the Obama Administration and Rahm Emanuel, he would seem to have a conflict of interest in making this decision. 
Many will recall Rep. Pat Toomey’s challenge to then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2004 primary.  Specter was endorsed by President George Bush.  If Pat Toomey had claimed that someone in the Bush Administration had offered him a position if he withdrew his primary challenge, the mainstream media would have howled with outrage.  The press would have relentlessly demanded release of all information about the offer, including the identity of the White House “fixer” and whether the President knew about or approved the offer.  And had the Bush Justice Department refused to open an investigation or appoint a special counsel, the Fourth Estate would have feasted on the scandal.
Justice’s refusal to appoint a special counsel or open its own investigation of the Sestak imbroglio, despite the clear evidence of a possible violation of federal law by a White House chief of staff and a former President, signals that the administration hopes to simply ignore this matter until it goes away.  That could well happen if the press lets the matter slide. 
If that’s how the sleazy Sestak saga ends, it will be another instance of 1) the administration letting politics, rather than justice, drive its law enforcement decisions and 2) the media applying a toothless double-standard in its coverage of the Obama Justice Department.


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department official. Charles �Cully� D. Stimson is a Senior Legal Fellow at Heritage, a former local, state, military and federal prosecutor and defense attorney, and former deputy assistant secretary of Defense. 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The combination of Obama's passivity over the Gulf oil spill catastrophe and his cynical political manoeuvrings could spell disaster for him, argues Toby Harnden

 

The first thing Barack Obama probably should have done was to order the livestreaming Oil Spill Cam to be turned off. As the President insisted to Americans that he was "singularly focused" on staunching the flow, there was that mesmerising image on their television screens of plumes of hydrocarbons gushing relentlessly into the Gulf of Mexico.

When any political leader feels they have to declare that they are "fully engaged" in an issue, it is clear that they are in trouble. Talking about it undermines the very point you are trying to make - not to mention that pesky Oil Spill Cam showing that, 38 days into the Deepwater Horizon disaster, not a whole lot had been achieved.

Even judging Obama by his words, he has fallen woefully short over what has now eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez wreck as biggest oil spill catastrophe in American history. He may have described it as an "unprecedented disaster" in last Thursday's press conference but a week into the crisis he was blithely stating that "this incident is of national significance" and rest assured he was receiving "frequent briefings" about it.

George W Bush's unpopularity and perceived incompetence was encapsulated by the way he dealt with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Candidate Obama branded it "unconscionable incompetence".

Central to Obama's appeal was his promise to be truly different. His failure to achieve that is now at the core of the deep disappointment Americans feel about him. At the press conference - the first full-scale affair he had deigned to give for 309 days - he appeared uncomfortable and petulant.

His approach to the issue was that of the law student suddenly fascinated by a science project. He displayed none of the visceral indignation Americans feel about pretty much everything these days - two-thirds now say they are "angry" about the way things are going - resorting instead to Spock-like technocratic language and legalese. "I'm not contradicting my prior point," he stated at one juncture. During those 63 minutes of soporific verbosity, about 800 barrels of oil poured into the Gulf.

Obama engaged in the obligatory populist bashing of Big Oil and, of course, demonstrated the Obama administration's version of Tourette's Syndrome, blaming the previous administration for the situation when, by my reckoning, it's a full 16 months since Bush left office.

By Friday, he was sticking his finger in the sand at Grand Isle, Louisiana as part of a photo op self-consciously designed to contrast with Bush's famous looking down on the Katrina devastation from Air Force One. It was Obama's second visit to Louisiana in the 39 days since disaster struck. According to C'BS's Mark Knoller, in the same period Bush visited the post-Katrina region seven times.

But perhaps the most dangerous sign during the press conference for Democrats fearful of an unprecedented electoral disaster in November's mid-term elections was the evasion and opacity of the man who promised a new era of transparency and a different kind of politics.

When asked about the resignation of the director of the Minerals Management Service - an agency he had excoriated - he professed that "I don't know the circumstances in which this occurred". She had, of course, been fired.

Even worse was Obama's refusal to say anything about the growing furore over White House attempts to persuade Congressman Joe Sestak to pull out of the Democratic Senate primary contest in Pennsylvania. Obama's advisers had preferred the Republican turncoat Senator Arlen Specter - and Sestak inconveniently let slip that he'd been offered a government job to step aside.

That was potentially illegal and for weeks the White House stonewalled. When, even more inconveniently, Sestak beat Specter, the trust-us-nothing-untoward-happened approach would no longer wash. But still Obama declined to answer the question on Thursday, fobbing the reporter – and America – off with the promise that "there will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue".

This did indeed come the following day – conveniently timed for that Friday afternoon news void before the Memorial Day holiday weekend. Lo and behold, it turns out that none other than former President Bill Clinton was asked by Obama's chief of staff and Chicago enforcer Rahm Emanuel to offer Sestak a place on a presidential board.

Whether or not the law was broken, the cynicism of this is breathtaking. Obama offered a break from the Clinton-Bush past and an end to the shoddy backroom deals of Washington. So what does he do? He tries to deny Pennsylvania voters a chance to decide for themselves by using his former foe Clinton to offer a grubby inducement.

It was perhaps a fitting end to one of the worst weeks of Obama presidency, in which a Rasmussen one poll pegged his popularity at a new low of 42 percent. In an environment in which Americans are disillusioned and cynical about Washington and all it stands for, the Clinton-Sestak manoeuvre could be a political calamity for Obama.

Perhaps he should be grateful after all that the Oil Spill Cam was still beaming up footage from the sea bed.

 

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

President Spock’s behavior is illogical.

Once more, he has willfully and inexplicably resisted fulfilling a signal part of his job: being a prism in moments of fear and pride, reflecting what Americans feel so they know he gets it.

“This president needs to tell BP, ’I’m your daddy,’ “ scolded James Carville, a New Orleans resident, as he called Barack Obama’s response to Louisiana’s new watery heartbreak “lackadaisical.”

At a press conference, Obama said Malia had asked him, as he shaved, “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” (That hole should be plugged with a junk-shot of Glenn Beck, who crudely mocked the adorable Malia.) Oddly, the good father who wrote so poignantly about growing up without a daddy scorns the paternal aspect of the presidency.

In the campaign, Obama’s fight flagged to the point that his donors openly upbraided him. In the Oval, he waited too long to express outrage and offer leadership on A.I.G., the banks, the bonuses, the job loss and mortgage fears, the Christmas underwear bomber, the death panel scare tactics, the ugly name-calling of Tea Party protesters.

Too often it feels as though Barry is watching from a balcony, reluctant to enter the fray until the clamor of the crowd forces him to come down. The pattern is perverse. The man whose presidency is rooted in his ability to inspire withholds that inspiration when it is most needed.

Oblivious to warnings about Osama hitting the U.S. and Katrina hitting New Orleans, W. often seemed more absorbed in workouts than work. Obama, by contrast, does his homework; he conveys a rare and impressive grasp of difficult subjects when he at last deigns to talk to the news media and reassure those whose lives are overturned by disaster.

The wound-tight, travel-light Obama has a distaste for the adversarial and the random. But if you stick too rigidly to a No Drama rule in the White House, you risk keeping reality at bay. Presidencies are always about crisis management.

Obama invented himself against all odds and repeated parental abandonment, and he worked hard to regiment his emotions. But now that can come across as imperviousness and inflexibility. He wants to run the agenda; he doesn’t want the agenda to run him. Once you become president, though, there’s no way to predict what your crises will be.

F.D.R. achieved greatness not by means of imposing his temperament and intellect on the world but by reacting to what the world threw at him.

For five weeks, it looked as though Obama considered the gushing that became the worst oil spill in U.S. history a distraction, like a fire alarm going off in the middle of a law seminar he was teaching. He’ll deal with it, but he’s annoyed because it’s not on his syllabus.

Even if Obama doesn’t watch “Treme” on HBO, it’s strange that he would not have a more spontaneous emotional response to another horrendous hit for Louisiana, with residents and lawmakers crying on the news and dead pelicans washing up on shore. But then, he didn’t make his first-ever visit to New Orleans until nearly a year after Katrina hit. “I never had occasion to be here,” he told The Times’s Jeff Zeleny, then at The Chicago Tribune.

Just as President Clinton once protested to reporters that he was still “relevant,” President Obama had to protest to reporters last week that he has feelings.

He seemed to tune out a bit after the exhausting battle over health care, with the air of someone who says to himself: “Oh, man, that was a heavy lift. I’m taking a break.”

He’s spending the holiday weekend in Chicago when he should be commemorating Memorial Day here with the families of troops killed in battle and with veterans at Arlington Cemetery.

Republican senators who had a contentious lunch with the president last week described him as whiny, thin-skinned and in over his head, and there was extreme Democratic angst at the White House’s dilatory and deferential attitude on the spill.

Even more than with the greedy financiers and arrogant carmakers, it was important to offend and slap back the deceptive malefactors at BP.

Obama and top aides who believe in his divinity make a mistake to dismiss complaints of his aloofness as Washington white noise. He treats the press as a nuisance rather than examining his own inability to encapsulate Americans’ feelings.

“The media may get tired of the story, but we will not,” he told Gulf Coast residents when he visited on Friday. Actually, if it weren’t for the media, the president would probably never have woken up from his torpor and flown down there.

Instead of getting Bill Clinton to offer Joe Sestak a job, Obama should be offering Clinton one. Bill would certainly know how to gush at a gusher gone haywire. Let him resume a cameo role as Feeler in Chief. The post is open.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

In our earlier thread on Chris Matthews, one commenter asked why we consider the MS-NBC host a barometer of conservative opinion, considering Matthews’ deeply liberal worldview.  It matters because the disillusion of people like Matthews, who sold their audiences on the near-perfection of Barack Obama, are instructive moments to see just how far Obama has fallen in public reputation.  After all, conservatives didn’t fawn over a man who had no executive experience and spent most of his legislative career voting “present” rather than showing any leadership.

Well, most conservatives didn’t, anyway.  At least one who succumbed to Obama’s glamour wonders what happened to the cool competence Obama exuded during the presidential campaign.  Peggy Noonan’s column today in the Wall Street Journal sums up Obama’s biggest political problem — the perception of ineptitude:

I don’t see how the president’s position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president’s political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don’t see how you politically survive this. …

In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—”catastrophe,” etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won’t see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, “I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite.” But his strategic problem was that he’d already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.

In other words, the President has been voting “present” for most of the first five weeks of the disaster.  It’s not as if it’s the first time Obama tried to avoid responsibility for an issue or refuse to show leadership.  Many of us wrote extensively about Obama’s pattern of avoidance during the election — and suggested that Democrats try Obama in a lesser executive position first, such as Governor of Illinois, before nominating him for the top spot, in order to make sure he was up for the job.

Unfortunately, some conservatives such as Noonan rebutted those arguments, choosing instead to see cool competence instead of complete inexperience and a pattern of avoidance.  One can do that as a legislator with few ill effects, because in the end others will choose to lead.  When that person assumes the top executive job, especially without any experience and seasoning for the job, things fall apart when disaster strikes as they have here.  Only those who willingly allowed themselves to be enchanted by charisma and public relations could possibly act surprised when inexperience leads to incompetence.

I like Peggy Noonan; she was wrong about Obama, and she’s starting to realize just how wrong she was.  She also concludes with some first-class analysis:

What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

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 indispensable 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.

That is precisely why we shouldn’t have elected a man with no executive experience to the toughest executive job in the world.  We need strong leadership, especially in times of crisis, not a man who prefers to vote present rather than lead.  And we probably wouldn’t have elected Obama or even nominated him this time around if the national media had done half of the job vetting Obama that they did with Sarah Palin, an atrocious failure documented best by John Ziegler in his film Media Malpractice.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.

Reuters

President Obama promised on Thursday to hold BP accountable in the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill and said his administration would do everything necessary to protect and restore the coast.

The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.

And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public's fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don't get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.

In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, "I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite." But his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.

Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened. If you're drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does.

How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?

What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama's standing with Democrats. They don't love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president's Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.

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 indispensable 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.

Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama's having gone only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who decided to skip a New York fund-raiser only after the press reported that she planned to attend.

But Republicans should beware, and even mute their mischief. We're in the middle of an actual disaster. When they win back the presidency, they'll probably get the big California earthquake. And they'll probably blow it. Because, ironically enough, of a hard core of truth within their own philosophy: when you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.

(Correction: The EPA chief skipped the New York fund-raiser. An earlier version of this column said that she had attended it.)

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Another one via Breitbart. He didn’t endorse the boycotts either, as you’ll see, so it’s a classic case of Obama voting “present.” But under the current economic circumstances, why do that? How’s this for an answer: “Let me be clear. I sympathize with opponents of Arizona’s law and agree that it’s the wrong way to handle illegal immigration. But boycotts are counterproductive at a moment when we’re trying to put America back to work. They’re bound to backfire by inspiring counter-boycotts and harming Arizona businesses owned by people who had nothing to do with passing the law and who might, in fact, oppose it themselves. We can’t afford this form of mutually assured destruction with unemployment near 10 percent.” That would have given both sides a little something politically and would have the not insignificant virtue of siding with the 82 percent of the population that thinks boycotts here are stupid.

But if he’s uncomfortable with that answer, how about at least giving an honest answer — that he does support boycotts of Arizona, per the fact that his own web organization has been busy defending them. Remember?

Last week, the city council of Austin, Texas passed a resolution to boycott Arizona over its new immigration-enforcement law. For those who don’t know much about Texas politics, Austin is as liberal as the rest of the state is conservative. However, in an embarrassing display of just how marginalized the Austin liberals have become, the local newspaper has run 20 letters from readers regarding the council’s boycott — all of them opposed to it.

While the Austin city council has likely not read the bill — and neither has the White House — Barack Obama’s political organizing group has decided to take action to defend Austin’s boycott. Will they actually read the bill? Are they scheduling protests? Not exactly. In an e-mail from Organizing for America that went out last night (and provided to us by a reader), OfA announces an Astroturf campaign to flood the newspaper with letters supporting the boycott…

Follow the link and take a peek at the screencap if you need your memory refreshed. Meanwhile, in related news, turns out that token National Guard force that Obama’s sending to the border will only police for guns and drugs. Exit quotation: “The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants.”


Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Via Breitbart. Alternate headline: “White House cover-up of Sestak job offer not quite finished yet.”

Want to know something fun that I learned today? According to the Denver Post by way of Newsmax, allegedly Sestak isn’t the first Democrat to be offered a job by the White House in hopes of getting him to bow out of a primary. September 27, 2009:

Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.

Then, the day after Romanoff formally announced his Senate bid, Obama endorsed Bennet.

The White House denied it at the time, natch, but the Post cited “several top Colorado Democrats” for corroboration. Just wondering: How many of these strangely similar allegations, any or all of which could conceivably violate federal law, are needed before Eric Holder decides it’s worth taking a closer look? That’s not to say anything will come of it — Michael Mukasey, Bush’s AG, explained to Dave Weigel today how easy it is to phrase these offers in a way that makes them hard to prosecute — but surely it’s worth finding out what, precisely, was said. In fact, Mukasey himself called for a special prosecutor. How about it, champ?

If you can get past Time’s stupidity of insisting that there can’t can’t can’t be anything criminal happening here, they’ve got a fun piece about how baffling the White House’s logic was in offering Sestak a job in the first place. (A point I’ve made before too.) And look on the bright side: Thanks to the Post article, if this thing does blow up, at least now we know who the fall guy will be. Update that resume, Jim Messina! Or am I mistaken and in fact the fall guy will be Sestak himself, who, according to Ed Rendell, clearly must have misunderstood what the White House meant when it contacted him? New campaign slogan: “Vote Sestak. He’s an imbecile.”

Update (Ed): There is, I think, a slightly more nuanced possibility in determining whether Sestak is a liar or covering up a felony.  I think it’s very possible that Sestak made that accusation without having the slightest clue what it meant, in legal terms.  When Specter entered the race, the Obama administration tried pushing Sestak out of the race.  That allowed Sestak to run as someone outside the “club” in the Democratic Party and as an aggrieved victim of Obama’s leap to embrace Specter, and I’d guess that he embellished his account of the negotiations just a wee bit to make that point.  Now he’s stuck with the accusation, and he’s put himself in the position where the White House has to basically call him an idiot who didn’t understand precisely what was said when they spoke to him about his options.  That’s going to leave a mark in the general election, as Allahpundit says above.  Don’t expect too much to come out of this, in other words.


Currently rated 3.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5