Joe Sestak

Notes from North of 49ºN

The above AP video shows Pennsylvania House of Representatives member Joe Sestak, who beat White House supported Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary talking about an unpaid job offer discussed by Bill Clinton last year. The skinny is that Rahm Emanuel greenlighted Bill Clinton offering Joe Sestak an unpaid position of influence in consideration for not running against Specter in the 2010 primary. Sestak declined. This wasn’t enough for Republican Rep. Darrell Issa or pundit Liz Cheney. Issa is claiming that this will be Obama’s Watergate and citing 18 U.S.C. § 201 on bribery and wants an investigation. {As an aside, Issa was instrumental in the 2003 California Gubernatorial recall election that replaced Gray Davis with Arnold Schwartzenegger}. Cheney wants the same, accusing the White House of a smokescreen::

The U.S.C. bribery statute clarifies what consists of a bona-fide bribe, which hinges on the influence of an “official act”. What is an official act? Here is is:

“the term ‘official act’ means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.” [*]

The idea is to limit influence on law, not a decision to run for office. While I’m not a fan of Emanuel or these types of tactics, I see this as politics-as-usual and within the scope of the law. I think pressing this one is a lost cause and more blowing smoke, but it may well be “run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-who-salutes” season. Happy Memorial Day.

And they call Toronto The Big Smoke.

Song:: Ben Folds Five-‘Smoke’

Twitterversion:: [blog – #ThickCulture] Sestak-Clinton-@WhiteHouse controversy. Whose smokescreen is it anyway or much ado about nothing? @Prof_K

Arlen Specter, longtime 6-term Republican who switched to the Democratic Party is out. He lost his bid for re-election in yesterday’s primary. The emerging pattern is that the people aren’t interested in politics as usual and that incumbency may be a heavy liability in the November midterms.

Usually, incumbency offers advantages and even in the bloodletting midterm elections of 1994 and 2006, incumbents were re-elected at a relatively high rate—just not as high as usual. My thinking is that some incumbents will have a harder time than others with the key driver being how ties they are to the establishment.

Sestak was behind the 8-ball in early polls, but I agree with the analysis that ideology didn’t drive the turnaround. It was a desire for a fresh face. Here’s the ad {“The Switch”} by Joe Sestak that started Arlen Specter’s decline in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary::

The ad linked Specter to the establishment.

It will be interesting how the races in California play out. There are two Republican ex-Silicon Valley CEO political outsiders vying for the statehouse and Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat. Millionaire Carly Fiorina running for Governor and billionaire Meg Whitman setting her sights on the U.S. Senate, if they get through the primaries, are hoping to give marquee-name Democrats {Boxer and Jerry Brown, respectively} a run for their money. I don’t think their messages will get much traction in California this year, but never underestimate the power of a substantial warchest. I’m sure Jerry Brown’s sister, Kathleen, still remembers what happens when you run out of money in a campaign, as she did in 1994.

Song:: Green Day-‘American Idiot’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Specter loses Senate bid—PA primary. Will incumbents face a “throw the bums out” mandate this fall? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/67xy  @Prof_K