|
Paul R. Hollrah
A Cancer is Growing on the Presidency
June 1, 2010
In the recent Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, Congressman Joe
Sestak, a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral, defeated Arlen Specter, a five-term
member of the Senate who left the Republican Party in 2009 to become a Democrat.
The rare Republican-to-Democrat switch was in response to polls indicating that
Specter would lose to conservative Pat Toomey in the 2010 GOP primary.
Specter’s willingness to abandon the party that had repeatedly
"fallen on its sword” for him for more than thirty years left Barack Obama and
congressional Democrats salivating with glee... and for good reason. Specter’s
defection represented far more than just one more vote on the Democrat side of
the aisle. It represented the all-important 60th vote that would give them the
filibuster-proof Senate they needed to force Obama’s neo-fascist agenda through
Congress.
Of course, the significance of his defection was not lost on
Specter. One of the conditions he reportedly placed before the Democrats was his
desire for a clear shot at the 2010 Democratic nomination. He did not want a
primary opponent and, judging from the slavering obeisance of the Democratic
hierarchy, from Obama on down, it seems clear he was given that assurance.
Most politicians understand that, while a switch from Democrat to
Republican is almost always a "wash” (Democrats will hate and despise the
defector, while Republicans will welcome him/her as one might welcome a
recovered alcoholic), almost no one respects a turncoat who switches from
Republican to Democrat. In Specter’s case, his defection only confirmed what
Republicans had always suspected about him, while those in the Democratic Party
would always question his motives...continuing to think of him as a "closet”
Republican.
However, now that Sestak has won the primary and Specter can
slither off to wherever it is that old liberals go when they are no longer a
danger to society, Sestak has confirmed what he has been saying for months,
which is that the White House offered him a top-level government job if he would
agree not to run against Specter.
In a February 2010 interview with Philadelphia newsman Larry Kane, Sestak was
asked, "Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Sestak, clearly a
poor liar and completely caught off guard, answered, "Yes.”
Kane asked, "Was it Navy
Secretary?” Sestak replied, "No comment.”
Sestak said that he "was
called many times,” asking him to pull out. Then Kane asked, "So you were
offered a job by someone in the White House?” Sestak answered, "Yes.”
If Sestak was offered a top position in the Obama Administration,
it is all but certain that the proffer would have come through either Rahm
Emanuel or David Axelrod. And since it is unthinkable that Obama would allow
even his most trusted Chicago henchmen to bargain away a cabinet-level or a
sub-cabinet-level position without his personal okay, there is no doubt that
Obama himself approved the offer...and that equates to an impeachable offense.
Now it appears that Obama and Sestak finally have their stories
straight...or so they thought. After months of Sestak claiming that he had been
offered a top level job; after months of stone-walling by the White House; after
an Oval Office meeting between Obama and Bill Clinton; and after a telephone
call from the White House to Sestak’s brother, briefing him on the details of
the story that the Obama staff had concocted, we now have an admission by the
White House that it was Clinton, the impeached former president, who transmitted
the bribe offer to Sestak.
As the story goes, Clinton reportedly reminded Sestak that a
primary run against Specter would be a "tough” campaign, and suggested to him
that an appointment to an "unpaid” position on a presidential advisory board
might be available. With Obama, the crown prince of the most corrupt political
machine in America in the role of "fixer-in-chief,” and Clinton, the poster boy
for southern redneck politics serving as his "bag man,” the Sestak affair begins
to read more and more like a Faulkner novel.
But these questions will all be sorted out by the politicians and
the courts, with a little help from the media and from the blogosphere. A far
more interesting question is this: Why would a man who graduated second in his
class at Annapolis, who rose through the ranks to become a three-star admiral,
retire from military service to enter elective politics as a Democrat?
Given the vast moral, ethical, and cultural gulf between Democrats
and Republicans, it seems totally inconsistent that intelligent and capable men
such as Wesley Clarke and Joe Sestak...both of whom spent their careers in a
profession where a
core belief in duty, honor, and integrity
governed their every thought and action...would
then do a complete reversal, devoting their lives to a political party which
embraces hypocrisy, moral flexibility, and ethical ambiguity.
Democrats are, individually and collectively, people who want
something from government, while Republicans are generally people who
look to government as a force for protecting the lives and property of
individuals and for creating an atmosphere in which individual citizens can
achieve their highest potential. And whereas Republicans see politics as a
means to an end, the means by which we establish government,
Democrats tend to view politics as an end in itself.
So why would men such as Clarke and Sestak attach themselves to the
Democrat Party? In a recent communication with readers I asked their opinion on
that particular question. The consensus was that, since Democrats are considered
weak on national defense (many may even appear to despise the military), they
find themselves
desperately short on
military credentials. Consequently, military men such as Clarke and Sestak, both
highly ambitious, may feel that they will be a more valuable commodity to
Democrats than to Republicans.
In reviewing Sestak’s Navy career, we find that he had his ups and
downs, politically.
He was a two-star admiral in 2001 when then-Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
Vern Clark, assigned him the task of anticipating what the Navy of the future
might look like. Sestak, who served the Clinton Administration as a senior
policy official at the National Security Council
in the
mid-90s,
when the number of Navy ships was reduced from 550 to approximately 300,
proposed further cuts in the size of the Navy, including an additional reduction
of about 60 ships.
It was not an idea that was well received among the Navy officer corps. After
being appointed Deputy Chief of Naval Operations in October 2004, Sestak held
that position for just nine months. Then, in July 2005, following Admiral Mike
Mullen’s appointment as Chief of Naval Operations, one of his first acts was to
dismiss Sestak. The reason, according to the Navy
Times, was a "poor command climate” created
by Sestak.
After being released from the Navy, Sestak entered the 2006
campaign for Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District seat against
incumbent Curt Weldon, winning that normally Republican seat with 56.4% of the
vote. However, as a member of Congress, Sestak continued to have a passion for
"doing more with less.” According to a 2007 article in The Hill, a
Capitol Hill newspaper, former Sestak staffers complained that they were
"expected to work seven days a week, including holidays, often 14 hours each
day, going for months without a day off.”
A
Capitol Hill veteran recalled, "There is a revolving door in his office, not
just because of the long hours, but also because he is not particularly nice or
supportive of his staff... I’m sure he would say he is demanding, just as he was
in the military, on both the giving and receiving end. To staffers on the Hill,
though, he is a guy to avoid unless you are desperate for a job.”
Now, after just three years in Congress, Sestak finds himself embroiled in the
battle of his life. Having left the strict regimentation of the Navy culture,
immediately immersing himself in the rough-and-tumble Chicago/Arkansas-style
politics of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, he is fast learning the truth of the
old adage that, when one lies down with dogs, one gets up with fleas.
Anyone who believes that Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel would use an impeached
former president to deliver a bribe offer to a retired Navy admiral, a current
member of Congress, a man with his eyes on the U.S. Senate...offering him a
dime-a-dozen appointment to a presidential board or commission, if only he would
step aside in deference to Obama’s chosen candidate...is smoking something much
stronger than Marlboros.
In his written statement describing the Obama-Emanuel-Clinton-Sestak bribe
offer, White House Counsel Robert Bauer said, "There have been numerous reported
instances in the past when prior Administrations – both Democrat and Republican,
and motivated by the same goals – discussed alternative paths to service for
qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such
discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical
requirements.”
Yes, Mr. Bauer, that may be true. But if such conversations did take place, the
difference between then and now is that those individuals were smart enough not
to admit to them publicly.
Instead of making up lame excuses for public consumption, Mr. Bauer should be
telling Obama exactly what Richard Nixon’s White House Counsel told him, which
is: "Mr. President, there is a cancer growing on your presidency.” |
