“Why did the White House let this whole Sestak affair become such a large scandal?” That is the million dollar question that I’ve heard on the lips of every major pundit on Fox News–from Charles Krauthammer, to Megyn Kelly, to Juan Williams (not to mention, Redstate’s Moe Lane as well–see his comment in the diary that I linked to). In other words, why didn’t the Obama Administration immediately leap out in front of this story months ago and smack down Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, by calmly explaining that he was offered a particular job that he was highly qualified for (like for instance, Undersecretary of the Navy or some position in the Department of Homeland Security or Defense)–and that there is “nothing to see here”? And then, they could have further stated that, “Hey, the Congressman is mistaken. We offered him this job, because he was the one most qualified for it, and we needed the position filled–not because we were trying to bribe him.” At most, this would have been a two day story because it would have been a “he said-she said”–not to mention, it would have been extremely difficult to prove. Furthermore, politicians have been engaging in this type of quid pro quo since the time of the Caesars, so none of this is really very shocking to anyone (at the very worst, it undercuts Obama’s whole message of “not doing politics as usual”, but I think that train left the station a while ago). So, what gives?

Well, a couple of days ago, I read a fascinating column in The Washington Post that compared Bill Clinton to Michael Clayton, and referred to him as Obama’s “Mr. Fix-it”. Now, for those of you who don’t get this analogy, “Michael Clayton” was an excellent movie (see the trailer below) about a slightly shady guy who cleaned up messes for a law firm–he was their roving, perpetually on-call “Mr. Fix-it”. Oh, and in my opinion, “Michale Clayton” has one of the top ten best lines in recent movie history when the title character (brilliantly played by George Clooney) says to the evil, murdering trial lawyer (played perfectly by Tilda Swinton)—

“I’m not the guy that you kill, I’m the guy that you buy!”

….But, I digress.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Gateway Pundit
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is tied to 16 earmarks worth $8.5 million dollars in the Obama budget bill that is being debated in the US Senate this week.
The Seattle Times and Free Republic reported:

Although President Obama has repeatedly pledged to ban congressional earmarks, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has 16 such projects, worth $8.5 million, in the bill the Senate is to begin debating today.

The earmarks include money for a Chicago planetarium and a Chicago suburb. Obama has been relentless in criticizing the use of earmarks; in his address to a joint session of Congress last week, he boasted how the economic-stimulus package was “free of earmarks.”

By the end of this week, however, Obama’s likely to sign a separate $410 billion spending plan that keeps most domestic programs funded through Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. It’s a plan that contains about 9,000 earmarks.

President Barack Obama is tied to an earmark worth $7.7 million dollars in his budget bill.
Obama’s name was being removed from the earmark by fellow senators although the earmark will remain in the bill.
Newsmax reported:

President Obama and top members of his administration appear to be sponsoring hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks in the 2009 budget that Obama is trying to push through Congress, CQPolitics.com reports.

In the congressional report that accompanies the budget legislation, Obama is listed as a sponsor of a $7.7 million earmark for “Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions.” Obama’s co-sponsors on that earmark include Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

President Obama pledged to fight the addition of pork-barrel earmarks to legislation during the presidential campaign. Last April, for example, Obama released a statement stating: “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project.”