Since Watergate, it’s been the cliché that it’s the coverup, not the crime, that leads our public officials to perdition. And that’s basically the position regarding the Rep. Sestak scandal taken by Chris Cillizza in The Fix. Cillizza quotes some nervous – naturally anonymous – Democratic strategists:
“How do you make something out of nothing?,” asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. “By acting guilty when you’re innocent.”
Another senior party official said that the White House “has a lot of egg on their face” and described the events as a “PR nightmare”.
Of course in the case of Sestak and his putative job offer, we have no idea what actually happened. But we do know the sleaze factor is high – and not just because of the presence of Bill Clinton whose SQ (Sleaze Quotient) may be even higher than his IQ. Clinton is merely a product of “The Culture of Narcissism.” Obama et al are the product of something worse – “The Culture of Chicago.”
Frankly, I have a tad of nostalgia for Clinton because, Monica excluded, he was a much more sensible (and honest – believe it or not?) man than Obama and far less of a threat to our country and the world. Not nearly as much went wrong under eight years of Clinton’s watch than in less than one year of Obama’s. It’s pathetic, actually, that Bill is now so willing, as apparently he was, to carry water for the new President in this kind of cheesy operation. Can you imagine George W. Bush doing such a thing for some Republican president? I can’t.
But the real issue now is not the “Deep Dish Sleazemeisters” from Chicago. They are who they are. Rod Blagojevich, Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama are all cut from the same cloth.
The real issue is our media – the Fourth Estate that we all are supposed to depend on to vet these people. When Nixon was President, they did so with an alacrity hitherto unseen. With Obama, as we all know, it has been completely the reverse. The press’ record on investigating the President – as a candidate and in office – has been nothing short of embarrassing. Even at the recent press conference, the first in months, only Fox News’ Major Garrett and ABC’s Jake Tapper disported themselves as genuine journalists. The rest appeared like Izvestia wannabes at a Moscow presser circa 1962, only slightly better dressed.
So now the time has come. The public has turned against the President. The media has nothing to lose but its sad preconceptions and its laughable elitism. And there plenty of things to investigate. Sestak is the least of it (minor league). So too is the oil spill (an accident). These are not even the big stories. The big ones are about an economy that is in free fall, a foreign policy that allows dictators to flourish around the world and a justice department that has gone miles off the reservation. (PJ Media will be looking into that last one. Stay tuned.) Will new Woodwards and Bernsteins appear in the mainstream media to investigate any of these subjects? Or are they too much “true believers” to dare? So far, there is no reason to be optimistic.
What utter nonsense. Just goes to show you that if you repeat something often enough there are plenty of people (mugs?)to believe it. Especially when said by someone famous or in the club, someone with “clout”. Didn’t — and almost NEVER does — apply to pets of the establishment, e.g. W.J.Clinton (nostalgia for Clinton, one of the more destructive of the recent Chief Executives who “charmed” the audience from their reason ?).ALL those beloved Kennedys, of course Obama the newest pet of the bien-pensants, and now Richard Blumenthal. OH BUT SAY ANYTHING FAVOURABLE ABOUT SARAH PALIN, OR THAT ARCH VILLAIN RICHARD NIXON, THE KNIVES ARE IN FULL SWING. NOw it’s a question of whether the “elites” who spout the rubbish really believe it or are merely following the fashion in “intellectual” and “high-level” social circles, AND THE TEACHINGS /SERMONS OF THEIR CLERISY. HO-HUM!
I hate to say this, but it’s times like this that I kinda feel embarrased for Hillary Clinton.
I agree with the article about Bill, what the Hell is he doing, getting involved in Obama’s back room shenanigans?
Yep, it looks like the WH thought Stesak could be bought. And that is what the public will take from this. Now we wonder just how much of this goes on. Well, look at the Health care horse trading schemes. Interesting. Leaves a funny taste behind.
What’s at the root of the problem with the liberals in government, media, or academia is that they’re beholden to only one ‘principle’, and that has to do with what benefits them and their fellow travelers.
Government corruption or mismanagement? How can they offer an opinion until they know the politics of the accused? Deficit? Doesn’t matter the size – just tell them who’s running it and then they’ll tell you if it’s good or bad. An entitlement to choice? First tell them the issue and the sex, race, and politics of those desiring choice. You want diversity? As long as we’re not talking conservatives in the university, in the news room, in the op pages or on the radio. Discrimination, hate crimes? Can’t say til they know the races of the people involved and on what side of the disagreement they stand. And now we get “oh, there’s always been corruption in politics…” Do you think that phrase would or will ever be uttered if they found any kind of corruption on the other side of the aisle? In opposing the AZ law, they say it MIGHT be abused? Will they offer to remove from the books the laws they favor that actually HAVE been abused?
Leftists are completely unembarrassed when they hypocritically apply different standards of conduct to democrats and republicans. A flexible morality is much more effective for them. They just want what they want and the idea of responsibly working to further a higher principle is kryptonite to them.
Sestak was offered an unpaid advisory position and then it turned out he was ineligible because he serves in congress so the whole thing is moot. Could someone explain how being offered a volunteer position constitutes bribery? He makes $174000 a year and was offered a part-time position that pays $0. Of course it’s not bribery.
There’s nothing to “cover up” because there’s nothing there.
It’s not Watergate and there won’t be an impeachment.
The far right needs to calm down and take a deep breath.
It’s not bribery,but what it was was a feeler put out to find out what he might want. And he didn’t want. So it wasn’t bribery only because he didn’t fall for it.
“it wasn’t bribery only because he didn’t fall for it”
There was nothing to fall for. Even if it had been a paid position and he had accepted it, it would have been legal. This is just one of a hundred phony “Obama’s Watergate!” stories that have been hyped by right-wing blogs and talk show hosts since he became President. It will be forgotten and replaced with another silly story next week.
And a note to Republicans – referring to things as “Obama’s 9/11″ or “Obama’s Katrina” only serves to remind voters of Republican failures. The constant references to Watergate by Republicans is amusing, as it keeps reminding us 40 years later of a hideously unpopular and corrupt Republican president. The George W Bush references – Katrina, 9/11, Iraq etc. – are not hurting the current Democratic president. They only serve to remind us of how bad things were before the new administration took over.
Oh yeah, that works. Don’t talk about this ‘president’ because it will only remind voters about that president. Why offer that advice if you’re so sure the comparison hurts the other side? The voters are recognizing that your guy is a poseur who can claim success only for making manageable problems worse. He can’t hide behind Bush forever and every time this administration tries to do it, I’m reminded how incompetent and childish the whole crew is. Fear November.
Yeah, thanks for the “concern,” troll.
You and victory need to get a grip. Nothing and I mean absolutely nothing is offered by a politician to another politician to quiet them without some kind of gain for the bribee. Just because you two want to be lead around by the nose doesn’t mean we all do. AND the fact he “didn’t go for it” doesn’t mean there isn’t a case for attempted bribery which is also a crime. Clinton was used simply so Obama could deflect blame by palying ignorant.
Corruption is corruption, doesn’t matter which party holds office. Clinton showed Bush that lies would be recognized and accepted by the voter. So Bush lied bigger and then along came the current talking head and he takes graft to new heights. I think the next one, whichever party, will make the 3 previous editions look like boy scouts.
lol, actually accident with monika just proves that those times policy was really transparent …