Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
May 27, 2010
In This Issue . . .
1. The Sestak Offer Was Peachy -- Or Maybe Im-peachy
2. He Was Rob-bed
3. These Poll Numbers Slide Like They've Been Oiled
4. Addenda
Good Morning,
Enjoy today's Jolt!
Jim
1. The Sestak Offer Was Peachy -- Or Maybe Im-peachy
Joe Sestak has managed the rare achievement of backing the Democrats into a corner where they have to call on the White House to reveal something the White House doesn't want to reveal. Sestak and various White House apparatchiks are trying to argue two seemingly contradictory things: Nothing inappropriate or illegal occurred (even though the bar for bribery is strikingly low by the standards of cynical Washington), and yet absolutely nothing about those conversations can be revealed.
Theory from a reader: The White House is digging in its heels because the offer came from either Obama or Biden.
Michelle Malkin clears up one figure behind the White House stonewall, counsel Bob Bauer: "Bauer's answers? Zip. Nada. Zilch. While the veteran attorney ducked under a table with the president, Gibbs stalled publicly as long as he could -- deferring inquiries about the allegations one week by claiming he had been 'on the road' and had 'not had a chance to delve into this,' and then admitting the next week that he had 'not made any progress on that,' refusing the week after that to deny or admit the scheme, and then urging reporters to drop it because 'whatever happened is in the past.' But the laws governing such public corruption are still on the books. And unlike Gibbs, the U.S. code governing bribery, graft and conflicts of interest is rather straightforward: 'Whoever solicits or receives . . . any . . . thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'"
Clifton B., writing at Another Black Conservative: "Sestak let the cat's head out of the bag. Robert Gibbs confirmed that the cat was peeking out. At this point both sides need to come clean and just say what is what and let the chips fall as they may. The current situation where Sestak says he got a job offer and the administration says yeah but it was legal leaves out way too much detail to end the speculation. Both parties have to come clean or Sestak could go down and Republicans will have something to look into when they get control.Already Rep. Darryl Issa has raised The Impeachment issue. I would caution Issa on that route. Have you seen the order of succession?"
Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, fresh off declaring that the Philadelphia Eagles won't make the playoffs this year, offers this assessment: "'I actually think the White House and Joe Sestak should be a little more detailed and put this behind them,' Rendell said. . . . Rendell said he is sure nothing illegal went on, noting that such conversations have been 'going on for decades.' He predicted that someone at the White House probably told Sestak that if he wanted to do something with his 'terrific background in the military' there would likely be a job for him with the administration. But Rendell said he does not believe it was any kind of a bribe to get Sestak out of Specter's way."
Note that Rendell also said in May 2009 that Sestak would get "killed" in a primary against Specter. I look at that and think, "Hmm. Philly's going to the playoffs this year.")
But when not even the Washington Post's Greg Sargent can defend the code of silence, it's time to give up the fight.
2. He Was Rob-bed
Rob Simmons -- the guy I would have preferred to see be the next senator from Connecticut -- tells NRO that Linda McMahon can't win. Apparently Simmons had second thoughts about his comments: He told Politico that he regretted saying what he said, and that it was "harsh." He also complains about how it was characterized, and Rob Costa politely tells him that when you give straightforward answers to straightforward questions, you're going to get quoted straightforwardly.
The exchange prompts a commenter at the lefty Swing State Project to ask, "Does Simmons have any campaign debt? If he does, I want to contribute. We should seriously be rewarding Republicans who speak out like this. Besides the electoral benefits this kind of story gives us, it's also wonderful to see that some Republicans still have a little bit of humanity and decency." Another commenter responds, "No, the pre-convention filing (5/1) said he still had $1 million on hand and only a couple thousand dollars in debt."
Can anybody really begrudge Rob Simmons a bitter word or two? He's the only guy in the primary who has actually been in office before, he has a sterling resume and is an actual Vietnam veteran with two Bronze Stars -- and the Connecticut Republican party convention prefers McMahon.
There's probably a WWE fan or two in the readership of this e-mail, so they may prefer to skip this paragraph. For all the grief that conservatives give Hollywood, professional wrestling has turned into a twisted parody of the entertainment industry's worst traits. If you wanted to assemble a perfect conglomeration of the types of entertainment that would make Tipper Gore, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, and Bill Cosby have night terrors, you would end up with professional wrestling: There's the simple storylines and the acting that makes the mannerisms on Mexican telenovelas look subtle; the gloating and chest-thumping that makes most gangster rappers look humble; the crude sexualization of women; the attire one step removed from pornography; and, of course, the fact that it's now not a sport or contest of strength but about hitting each other over the head with folding chairs and such. Simmons notes their use of a mentally handicapped character. (I can hear it now: "Go back to Masterpiece Theater, you inside-the-Beltway elitist!" I don't fit most definitions of snob; the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles still makes me giggle.)
Sure, WWE is wildly popular; we'll see if those fans vote. There are about 16 million reasons Linda McMahon is going to be the Republican nominee, and the GOP's hopes in that state rest upon voters ignoring the product she created for the past 30 years and feeling more upset about Richard Blumenthal and Vietnam.
And this morning, Quinnipiac informs us: "Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal leads former wrestling executive Linda McMahon 56-31 percent in the U.S. Senate race and tops the Republican candidate by large margins on every character measure, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. "
Believe me, Rob Simmons, you don't have to apologize for griping about McMahon.
3. These Poll Numbers Slide Like They've Been Oiled
"The oil spill off the Gulf Coast is staining more than Louisiana's beaches. The response to the disaster by energy giant BP, President Obama and the federal government all get terrible grades from Americans in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. Nearly three-fourths of those surveyed Monday and Tuesday say BP is doing a 'poor' or 'very poor' job in handling the calamity. Six of 10 say that of the federal government. And a 53% majority give Obama a poor rating."
The CBS News poll isn't much better: "Seven in 10 of those polled disapprove of how BP has handled the spill. Forty-five percent disapprove of the Obama administration's handling of the spill while 35 percent approve. President Obama's overall job approval rating is 47 percent while 43 percent express disapproval."
James Carville hasn't been this in demand since after the 1992 elections: "The 'political stupidity is unbelievable,' Democratic strategistJames Carvillesaid on 'Good Morning America' today. 'The president doesn't get down here in the middle of this. . . . I have no idea of why they didn't seize this thing. I have no idea of why their attitude was so hands off here.' Carville said the Obama administration's response to the BP oil spill has been 'lackadaisical,' and that rather than place the blame on the previous administration, it should've done more to deal with BP and 'inept bureaucrats,' which would've in turn helped boost Obama's approval ratings. 'The president of the United States could've come down here, he could've been involved with the families of these 11 people' who died on the offshore rig, Carville said. 'He could've demanded a plan in anticipation of this.'"
Daniel Halper notes that Obama is likely to respond to worsening situations with the innovative approach of whining: "President Barack Obama, at an exclusive fundraiser last night in San Francisco for Senator Barbara Boxer: 'Let's face it this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s.' This is the most revealing comment Obama has made publicly in a long while. It shows his self-absorption and utter lack of a sense of history. . . . Obama's whining is puerile. One does hope it's been the toughest year and a half he's ever had. He is the president, and it's a job that requires a bit of work. But to treat the previous presidents with so little respect is unbecoming. Sure, he has two wars to fight -- just as his predecessor did -- and a global struggle against radical Islam. But he isn't even focusing (with a few exceptions) on these events. What seems to have him down is that he has a political opposition resisting his agenda."
4. Addenda
Google's changed their logo again. It must be "Jungle Day" or something. |
