The Sestak scandal grows More questions raised about an alleged White House quid-pro-quo

WASHINGTON, DC—In a memo released by the White House in regard to the allegation that a job offer was made in exchange for dropping out of a senate race to Congressman Joe Sestak by the White House, the administration stated the job offer was for an unpaid position and therefore, no illegal actions were committed.

The latest news is the offer was made to Congressman Sestak by former President Bill Clinton to sit on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary race against Arlen Specter.

As Bryon York pointed out in a piece in the Washington Examiner, Sestak being a current member of Congress could not sit on the presidential advisory board as it violates the board’s rules. And there are questions being raised about Bill Clinton’s level of authorization as well as scrutiny of violating 18 USC 600.

Inside the beltway deals like this occur on a regular basis in Washington, but Sestak broke the cardinal rule of don’t ask don’t tell. In his ambition to pursue a senate seat, he let the cat out of the bag. While there are calls for an official investigation on both sides, partisanship will prevail over the rule of law and come November, this may be a distant memory. If it does not wane, the economy, oil spill and immigration belligerents plaguing the democrat party will be irritated further and voters will not be kind.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Follow Owen…

Twitter

Facebook

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Crying over spilled oil 36 days into BP’s Gulf of Mexico spill, fingers are being pointed left and right

GULF OF MEXICO—Florida Governor Charlie Crist declared a state of emergency weeks ago and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal just completed a tour of Plaquemines Parish with its president, Billy Nungesser. Yet that is about the extent of help BP seems to be getting from politicians. Mr. Jindal has been steadily criticizing the Obama administration for not acting to curb the Gulf oil spill that is threatening Louisiana’s shores.

The public has been clamoring for action, but the so-called fixes have done nothing to stop the spill. What is most curious is the fact the Obama administration’s handling of the disaster which is to say, its non-handling.

I think myself to be a bit correct in my earlier assertion that the administration doesn’t want its fingerprints on this and is perhaps leveraging a political “we told you so” against future drilling. On May 4^th, I wrote, “…it would seem quite plausible the Obama administration’s delayed response and laissez faire approach may be another calculated strategy to allow the federal government a path into the oil industry…”

This point I maintain as it now seems more likely. However what many fail to understand (myself included) is the political fallout that’s already beginning. The longer the Obama administration waits to take over, the more damage it will do to the president.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Follow Owen…

Twitter

Facebook

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Crist loses his lead; primaries seen as a foreteller of November Polls aren’t favorable for rhinos, spendthrift republicans, or liberals

WASHINGTON, DC—Appearing of FOX News, Charles Krauthammer said about Tuesday's primary elections, "I think what is more likely is that it's basically anti-big government, anti-Obama, anti-the left wing agenda. It's not so much anti-incumbent. That's an element of it. But I think the major element of this campaign is the pressure from the right."

What do Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, and Harry Reid all have in common? Certainly not party affiliation, but each did endorse Barack Obama’s agenda. The infamous hug Crist and Obama shared over the stimulus package was the catalyst for the Florida Governor’s primary woes against Marco Rubio who again leads the three way senate race over Crist and democrat candidate Kendrick Meek 39, 31, to 18 percent respectively.

What’s more is a prediction by the Director of University of Virginia’s Center for Politics Larry Sabato who sees the GOP gaining seven senate seats and twenty-seven house seats in November given the fiscal irresponsibility of the democrat majority in Washington.

Of course, there have already been three major republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts and each was predicated on opposing and defeating the Obama agenda. With the jobless rate remaining close to 10 percent and continued terrorist attack attempts, that pattern is not likely to change.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Follow Owen…

Twitter

Facebook

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Kagan: "vapid and hollow charade"? President Obama’s pick to succeed Justice Stevens

WASHINGTON, DC—President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to replace retiring John Paul Stevens is precisely what one would expect a liberal president to do. Kagan, though not a sitting judge, she has a record (albeit a sparse one and certainly a reason she was choosen) to indicate what type of justice she would be—an activist when hearing cases dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities clause, perhaps a bit hostile to the Second Amendment, and certainly a proponent of protecting or expanding the scope of Roe v. Wade.

Some of her comments and writings have traveled across the Internet, but reveal only what one would think a leftist jurist would think—the Constitution ought to be a flexible, with-the-times, or 21^st century constitution. As for her views about the nomination and senatorial hearing process, Kagan wrote, "Senators effectively have accepted the limits on inquiry." And has stated the process had become "[a] repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis."

On this point, we agree with the nominee. But as for her political disposition, we do not. Mr. Obama’s nominee ought to undergo the normal senatorial hearings and be challenged as to what she truly believes the role of the court (and more particularly judges) is in regard to interpretation or activism.

We expect Miss Kagan to be confirmed and thereby replace one liberal justice with another, and for those who have misgivings about her after supporting this president’s candidacy, we remind them elections have consequences.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Follow Owen…

Twitter

Facebook

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

The elephant in Massachusetts

Scott Brown has gone from an obscure state senator to US Senate seat could-win in a race, if held a year ago, would have replaced Senator Ted Kennedy with another liberal democrat. But in the latest polling, Mr. Brown is either within the margin of error or ahead of his opponent, the Bay State’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley.

Coakley’s campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning of the race, electing to rely on defacto support from the historical left-of-center electorate. But a little published fact is Massachusetts’ voters don’t have a majority of registered democrats, that belongs to independents (or non-affiliates)—51%, while democrats make up 37% and republicans a minute 11%—which dovetails precisely with national polling, showing independents’ falling support for President Obama.

Coakley seems to be suffering from Mr. Obama’s unpopularity. Her attacks on Mr. Brown as being a obstacle for the President’s health care reform has only led to more support for her opponent—apparently, the Bay State doesn’t much consider that a deficit. What’s more, Coakley has even gone so far as to attack Brown as being an appendage of Bush/Cheney. After fact checking, it appears Messrs. Bush and Cheney don’t hold any elected office currently, making the claim a bit difficult to believe.

Meanwhile, Mr. Brown hasn’t had to reach back to the past to find political affiliations—Deval Patrick, the democrat governor of Massachusetts is widely unpopular, as are the national party’s leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That has translated into a seismic shift in the latest PJM/Cross Target poll, giving the conservative 10 point lead among likely voters, 52% to Coakley’s 42% and an out-of-margin-of-error lead in the latest PPP poll, 51% to 46%.

The special election is being viewed by conservatives as a referendum on the Obama Administration, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has state they “are not on the ballot” (even though the President has gone on a last minute push). Mr. Gibbs may technically be correct, but with GOP wins in both Virginia and New Jersey, the elephant in Massachusetts may stampede into the US Senate.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

The democrats can’t win for losing, but the GOP can

There is no doubt the American people are not favorable to government health care reform. The issue tanks in approval polling and has the democrat party fractioning.

To spite the public disapproval, the latest end-around strategy by the democrats is to get something, anything through the Senate and House somehow, no matter what and no matter how. One wonders just what it is the democrat majority is doing on this kamikaze path.

Rasumussen Reports shows that while 50% of Americans are against government health care reform, 44% are for it. The problem for the 44%, who responded favorably, is what are they for? At present, there are several different bills between the House and Senate and the only one with news-making headlines, the plan proposed by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) doesn’t yet have any legislative language to define exactly what it would and wouldn’t include.

What is so puzzling about this debate is the opposed to this or that plan are doing so because they know full well once anything is passed it will be the eye of the needle through which a fiscal albatross passes. On the other hand, those in favor of health care reform don’t seem to be at all concerned with the consequences, whether they are fiscal, privacy concerns or quality of care.

And that may be the greatest consolation for the unpopular majority party – they are working hard to get their base something their base wants. But that as it stands now, that will almost certainly cause them to lose big in 2010 as they head strongly ignore the economy and pay little more than lip service to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While this may be good news for the Republican Party, it’s only as good as they make it. Should the GOP win big in 2010, they will have done so (at present) simply for not being democrats – kind of like the President winning the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. This will be a precarious place for the republicans – especially if they win a majority in the House. Any opposition to Mr. Obama plans will be labeled partisanship and it will be said that racism is yet to die among the voters.

The GOP will walk a fine line if they gain a significant number of seats or win outright; simply to oppose the president won’t be enough, they’ll have to put forth better alternatives and demonstrate why they’re so doing.

The democrat majority appears to be on an electoral suicide mission, but that mission will be complete if they can enacted a foothold in the door toward universal health care – once in, there will be little to no chance of slamming the door shut.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Too smart by half

Too smart by half

The President ran on a platform of hope and change, problem is, now he has to deliver. His camp set the bar high on reform and post partisanship but nine months into his presidency, the American people are loudly rejecting his centerpiece reform of health care and by all indications of his policy leanings, he is decidedly to the far left in a center-right country.

Mr. Obama’s present troubles largely come from what he promised during his campaign. The now infamous Fred Armisen/Saturday Night Live spoof hits the nail directly on the head – Candidate Obama over-promised for 20+ months but President Obama has not delivered though he has a democrat majority in both the House and Senate:

• Candidate Obama promised to close Gitmo; President Obama did so yet it remains open
• Candidate Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq; President Obama has not order a withdrawal
• Candidate Obama promised to focus on the war in Afghanistan; President Obama is waffling on his commitment
• Candidate Obama promised transparency; President Obama has largely been stealthy
• Candidate Obama promised to reduce the deficit and reign in spending; President Obama signed a budget busting “stimulus”
• Candidate Obama promised to bring back jobs; President Obama presides over 9.8% unemployment figure that continues to rise
• Candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget line-by-line and make cuts; President Obama doesn’t have line-item veto power

In my last post I outlined what the President should be doing. Instead of pushing health care reform, he ought to be engaged on three fronts: the economy and jobs, the war in Afghanistan and Iran. Should he take decisive action on these issues, the poll numbers would swing his way.

The problem for the President is he can’t do any of those things without alienating his base: giving corporations tax breaks and other incentives to up productivity and begin hiring won’t go over well with democrats and most independents. Taking a tough stance on Iran will make the left apoplectic and sending more troops to Afghanistan will cause the anti-war crowd to go insane. By contrast, republicans and center-right independents would support such policies, but at the cost of his base.

Candidate Obama ran on a slogan of change we can believe in and his supporters believed him. With such lofty promises, Candidate Obama has made President Obama’s job near impossible.

White guilt and 2012

President Obama’s approval ratings are slipping and support for his policies are likewise sliding; this has caused an early but seemingly plausible forecast for both 2010 and 2012.

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Dick Morris pointed out that Mr. Obama is in the same boat Bill Clinton was in his first term – tacking too far to the left after running as a center-left moderate and then staying there in hiding until the republican’s won the majority in the House in 1994. Morris also pointed out this made Bill Clinton reassess his presidency and we all know what came of it, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay got their agenda through the White House. Bill Clinton was now a bi-partisan, centrist president.

Fast forward to 2009, wherein President Obama finds himself in the same dilemma; just as in 1993, Congress’ approval ratings were also tanking as they are now. The momentum has shifted since 2006, and the republicans look primed to pick-up many seats, if not outright win the majority in the House.

And herein lays the road to 2012: should the republicans win control of Congress, Obama can win a second term, should the republicans not win control of Congress, Obama may still win a second term.

How so? One answer: white guilt.

Should the republicans win control of the Congress and move against Mr. Obama, come 2012, white liberals will rally to their President because of the mean, dastardly republican majority. Any problems won’t be his fault, after all he tried to fix this or that, but the right-wingers in Congress just wouldn’t let him. And let’s not forget the black and Hispanic vote; they’re well likely to share the same sympathy – not letting the first black President succeed.

Should the republicans win a Congressional majority as they did in 1994, Mr. Obama would likely have no trouble throwing his party under the bus, move to the center and ride bi-partisan popularity to reelection.

In the event that the democrats keep control of Congress that too could work in Mr. Obama’s favor. The sympathy wouldn’t be all that different – just replace a republican majority with boogie man right-wing zealots and the huge mess George W. Bush left behind.

Though the tide is definitely against Mr. Obama and his party, the tide is largely comprised of distrust and anger. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, that might be enough for republicans to take back the majority, but it won’t be enough to sustain them through 2012. They’ll need to keep in a leadership mode and continue to offer better ideas. But that may be all Mr. Obama needs to get enough white guilt to eek out a second term in 2012.

-- KillswitchPolitick

With Friends Like These (or, Sympathy for the Messiah)

Amongst the fan-fare and media/electorate honeymoon, once aspiring state senator, and electoral promotion via opponent disqualification to US Senator, the 44^th President became the last man standing in last years national election.

Following what Dick Morris cites as a LBJ inspiration, keeping political enemies closer so they’d be standing inside “pissing outside the tent” rather than in; President Obama trapped the Clintons: the former First Lady as a powerless Secretary of State and pigeon-holed the 42^nd President as a special envoy to Haiti. Former also-twice-ran presidential candidate, Joe Biden became a running mate and has since moved into the Naval Observatory residence.

But in lassoing in his former rivals to hedge his bets, Mr. Obama has to constantly egg-shell walk day by day: he has a Vice President whose gaffes explode without warning, a Secretary of State that’s itching to plunge the knife into his back at the first opportunity, a Press Secretary that bungles his way through one press conference after another, going so far to tell the press core to contact the White House for an explanation of the now infamous Air Force One/NYC photo-op.

And it doesn’t end there.

His Treasury Secretary, like many of his other appointments, has a inexplicable tax problem and runs a field with overreaches on talking head programs, a House Speaker who can’t seem to keep from impeaching her own credibility, a Senate Majority Leader whose re-election prospects are waning fast, a rabid hard-left fringe base that is turning ever more angry and a European fan club that cheered him into office that won’t lend a hand other than to shake and send him on their merry way.

Aside from the personalities, there’s no end of real crisis:

The imploding American auto industry, a seemingly bottomless housing free fall, two wars, a credit calamity, uneasy suits on Wall Street, an insolvent west coast state, ever expanding unemployment and debt larger than any one can possibly count.

Not to mention, a maniacal Persian dictator just itching to start a war with our only true ally in the Middle East and a crazed half-pint NorK who likes to launch missiles as a backdrop to end-of-nuclear proliferation speeches.

14 Day Election Countdown -- Politicking Strategies

So being that the general election is only 14 days away, the republican, democrat campaigns and the media are all strategizing to win.

On the democrat side, Michelle Obama and (perhaps Joe Biden) have been sequestered because of their inability to wisely choose their words. (One of Biden's latest gaffes was a McCain slam gone awry, "Look, John's [McCain] last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word; jobs. J-O-B-S.")

Both McCain and Obama have staked the economy as the centerpiece of the campaign, which practically every pundit has given the advantage to Obama. And McCain has suffered because national security and foreign policy have been off-the-radar.

But two instances have put Obama on defense on both the economy and national security/foreign policy first was Obama's fumbled answer posed to "Joe the Plumber"; second was Joe Biden's unscripted insertion of national security with his remarks about Obama being tested within the first six-months of their administration. As a result, the polls will tighten and shift toward the republican nominee.

According to Dick Morris, Obama may have picked too soon and most astute political observers would have to conclude or conceed that the Illinios Senator is losing ground in the polls and not because of anything McCain has done in-particular -- as with most of these historical phenominoms, the damage has been self-inflicted (e.g. Dukakis' tank ride, George H.W.Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes", Dole's senate resignation, Al Gore's three distinct debate personalities, Howard Dean's scream-heard-round-the-world, Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it".

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" and "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama...watch, we're gonna have an international crisis..." these two qoutes have turned the campaign-focus to where Obama is weakest.

What-is-more is that GOP leaners have learned from 2000 and 2004 wherein both elections were close and allegations of voter fraud, mishandled counting and the like. So this year, they are being proactive in putting the so-called voter registration organizations (particularly ACORN) on defense. And now, with the revelation that ACORN has registered Mickey Mouse to vote, the public will be suspicious of Obama's past and present associations.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is also strategizing for themselves and for the democrat nominee as media bias is now as transparent as could be possible, without being honest. It is plain to see that the network newscasts are and have been favoring Obama.

No matter, every year the mainstream press features stories about the coming dismal retail sales and every year, sales are higher than forecast. And every presidential election, the mainstream press predicts a race too-close-to-call...well, they've been right at least once.

The Devil is in the details

Many conservative and liberal talking-heads (among them Rush Limbaugh and Howard Wolfson) have said that Barack Obama needs to get specific and come-down from the lofty hope and change politicking; I even have been engaged in anecdotal conversations purporting the same.

It is understandable that many have arrived at this given Obama's sliding poll numbers and the backfire of the high-minded Berlin speech, the absence of a VP bounce and to-date a mundane convention.

But there's one problem with this idea: when it comes to experience, there's no there there.

Let me explain this the way I have in ordinary conversation: I first qualify my question with "Whether you may agree with them or not, do you give credibility to Bill Clinton when he speaks on foreign policy, economics, or American politics?" Then I continue to ask the same about Newt Gingrich. The answer is inevitably "yes".

The answer is "yes", because , they have to their credit, first-hand experience...Clinton was a professor, state attorney general, Chair of the National Governor's Association, and a two-term governor; Gingrich a history professor, congressman, Speaker of the House, and author.

Barack has an unremarkable state representative record and just half a national senatorial term, which translates into a real deficit on credibility.

Should Obama begin to espouse specifics on his policy intentions, the door to questioning his credibility deficit swings wide open into his own face.

He can't get specific because of this fact and if he does and is questioned he can only revert to relating to his time as a community organizer (which will not stand the test of reality) or that he's relying on his advisers and veep (which begs the question, why then is Obama on the top of the ticket).


Moreover, conspicuous by it's absence is any political rung climbing. That is, the run for and holding of lesser offices -- as is the recognized standard. Barack seems to be reaching too far and when one considers how he arrived at his previous office, it looks all the more like a leap of faith (hence the hope and change identity).

So the senator is left to talk high ideals and chant hope and change, sloganeer overcome, but that too makes clear that the democratic nomination when to the wrong gender.

The Hillary 2012 Strategy

The Internet is buzzing with the news that Phillip Berg, a Hillary Clinton supporter, has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the DNC and the FEC claiming that the presumptive democrat nominee is not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

(Berg is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, ex-chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County, PA, past member of the Democratic State Committee, and previous Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania).

We also know that Hillary has not released her delegates and rumors fly that her supporters lobbied the super delegates, which assisted in placing her name in nomination for a roll-call vote at the Democratic Convention.

Likewise known is the lack of support from Obama’s campaign to aid in retiring her campaign debt and her tepid stumping for Obama, while getting prime billing at the convention for herself, Bill and Chelsea.

What is one to make of this?

The most convenient and simplest answer is trying to figuratively secure the nomination for herself. I use the adjective “figuratively” because she is attempting to place her viability before the DNC and the average democrat voter.

The more her supporters are able to undermine Obama’s run for election, the more she looks to be the obvious choice in 2012. One might then contend that her inevitability didn’t bring her nomination to fruition in this go-around.

That is because it’s now painfully obvious that Nancy Pelosi, the DNC and beltway dems tried to jettison her (and Bill) from the party leadership. Clinton fatigue has assuredly set in, and the time was right to rid themselves of the couple from Hope.

However, if her supporters (who are not by-and-large backing Barack) are successful at putting the kibosh on Obama to the extent it costs him the election, she becomes the natural choice in 2012.

And with Obama doing so poorly in the polls (he should be well ahead of McCain by at least 15 points among likely voters), it makes evident the fact he is not connecting with the American public – no matter what the mainstream media has reported.

There are of course other factors that have kept him from running further ahead: his guilt by association scandals, his inability to speak off-the-cuff and his lack of experience make it all-the-more-difficult.

But with all of the ancillary help he’s received (e.g. favorable media coverage, endorsements, the shutting-out of Bill and Hillary, et cetera) he’s still not been able to capitalize on it.

Hillary knows these facts full-well and won’t hesitate to use them in her favor. As we’ve learned about the Clinton’s, that which doesn’t kill them only makes them stronger.