Robert Gibbs won't rule out Slaughter Solution for future bills

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned by Fred Lucas of CNS News yesterday about whether the Slaughter Solution would be used to pass large bills in the future.

Gibbs' dancing around the question speaks volumes about Democrats' plans to get around Republicans in the future. The Slaughter Solution, also known as "deem and pass", is a congressional procedure by which a bill is deemed to be passed by the House if an amendment receives a majority vote. It's been used to ram bills through since the 1970s, but usually only on amendments to legislation. The latest proposed use on the entire package of reconciliation amendments to ObamaCare is unprecedented.

The health care battle has soured relations between both political parties. If Democrats want to pass anything in the wake of ObamaCare, they may have no choice other than deem and pass.

Robert Gibbs essentially confirms Obama tried to bribe Joe Sestak

Rep. Joe Sestak is locked up in a tight Democratic Senate primary race in Pennsylvania with White House ally Arlen Specter. Sestak has claimed that the White House tried to bribe him to drop out of the primary by offering him a high-profile job. White House press flack Robert Gibbs refused to comment on Sestak's accusation on three different occasions, claiming he was still gathering the facts. At yesterday's press conference, he got slightly more specific.

“I’ve talked to several people in the White House. I’ve talked to people who have talked to others in the White House,” Gibbs said in response to a question from liberal commentator Bill Press. “I’m told that whatever conversations have been had, are not problematic. I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is – whatever happened is in the past and he is focused on this primary.”

CNSNews.com followed up asking if the White House counsel looked into whether the matter was legal. Gibbs responded, “I would refer you to my previous comment.”

Fox News reporter Wendell Goler followed up, “Sestak still says he was offered something.”

Gibbs responded again, “I would repeat what I just said.”

If Sestak were lying, the White House would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by denying his claim. Sestak is unlikely to win the primary and has already positioned himself against Obama by running against White House darling Specter. Instead the only denial has come from an anonymous White House official who spoke to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Nobody will put their name to refuting Sestak's claim, even though the president's honor has been attacked here. There's a general rule in Washington: Whenever someone issues the sort of weasel-worded statement that Gibbs just did, using vague adjectives like "problematic", they're covering something up.

According to U.S. Code 18, Section 595, someone who “uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under the title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” The stakes are high here. Republicans are circling and Specter himself has already said that, if Sestak's claim is true, the White House committed a crime. Whoever Obama makes take the fall for this could potentially spend a year in prison.

White House officials facing prison time over Sestak bribe?

Last week, Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak claimed that the White House had offered him a top position in the government if he would drop out of his Senate race. Sestak is locked in a brutal primary against White House ally Arlen Specter, who Obama coaxed over from the Republican Party. Now two members of Congress have expressed concern that the White House may have committed a crime.

[Senator Arlen] Specter said [on MSNBC], “There is a specific federal statute, which makes it a bribe to make an offer for a public office. When I was district attorney, if somebody came and told me that, I would say, well, name names. Name dates. Name places. That’s a very serious charge. It’s a big black smear without specification. I’m telling you there is a federal crime, punishable by jail. Anybody who wants to say that ought to back it up.

Congressman Sestak has gotten a lot of political mileage out of that. It’s really an attack on the administration.”

...

Meanwhile, Rep. [Darrell] Issa wrote a letter on Wednesday to White House Counsel Robert Bauer citing U.S. Code 18, Sections 211, 595, and 600 regarding the bribery of a public official. Section 595 says someone who “uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under the title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Whoever made this bribe, likely someone high up in the administration, could go to prison for a year if convicted. The guilty party was likely one of the president's political advisors. Patrick Gaspard seems too clever and elusive to stick his neck out like this. Rahm Emanuel is the main suspect, but Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe are also possibilities. It's also improbable that the briber was acting without the express permission of Obama, although the president will undoubtedly claim ignorance and let someone else take the fall.

Should we believe Sestak? The only denial of his claims by the administration thus far have been from a single anonymous official. Robert Gibbs has ducked the question three times. If no one is willing to attach their name to this, it's hard to believe they have nothing to hide. It's also hard to believe Sestak, a former Navy admiral, would want to make enemies at the White House before he even entered the Senate.

Why we should believe Eric Massa

Eric Massa has proven himself to be a huge thorn in the Obama Administration's side lately and Robert Gibbs isn't happy. The pompous press flack went on Good Morning America today to open fire on the renegade congressman. "I think this whole story is ridiculous. I think the latest excuse is silly and ridiculous..." he said. "We’re focused not on crazy allegations, but instead of making this system work for the American people, rather than work for insurance companies.”

Other more serious people have also questioned whether Massa is telling the truth. Nobody likes to be seen promoting conspiracy theories after all. Massa may have handled the whole affair sloppily and his claims may seem outlandish, but his account of what happened definitely seems accurate. Here's why.

Massa was a key vote against ObamaCare. The New York congressman had pledged definitively to vote against health care reform because he wanted a single payer system. Obama and Rahm Emanuel don't have any wiggle room on this. Centrist Democrats are bailing off ObamaCare as fast as they can. Contrary to what is being written, ObamaCare isn't making a comeback, it's in its death throes. What we are witnessing is a final desperate attempt to pass a piece of wildly unpopular legislation. Obama is willing to do whatever needs to be done to get this passed and that includes sacrificing as many congressmen as necessary. Massa, who was already under Emanuel's skin, was especially expendable.

Massa's ethics complaint is small potatoes. The fact that Ted Kennedy had such a long career proves one thing: Politicians don't resign over remarks made when they're sloshed. The liberal wing of the House fought tooth and nail to defend Charlie Rangel against far more serious corruption. Rangel still hasn't resigned. Notoriously corrupt congressmen like John Murtha and Alan Mollohan never felt any pressure to leave. Most reps who appear before the Ethics Committee get away with a slap on the wrist. The Pelosi leadership doesn't give a damn about grand corruption, but we're supposed to believe that they took a principled stand against five minutes of drunken carousing?

Massa's district will almost certainly be picked up by a Republican now. Massa won in conservative western New York in 2006 because he was a tough, independent former Republican. The GOP is targeting Massa's district in 2010, according to the New York Times, which reported, "For months, Republican Party operatives have kept a close eye on Mr. Massa, the district’s freshman congressman, as he attempts to balance the conservative leanings of his district with the demands of his party’s liberal base." With Massa humiliated and gone, Republicans will almost certainly pick up his seat. Normally the House would have fought to protect such a vulnerable incumbent, but they didn't. Why? They needed him out of the way.

Massa's ethics complaint was leaked to the press. Steny Hoyer leaked the accusations against Massa to the press even though he'd already known about them for a month. As Massa himself wondered, since when do your political allies alert the media about your personal troubles? And why would Hoyer wait until the health care debate was back in full swing to attack Massa?

All of this smells too fishy to just be a coincidence. We already knows the Obama administration practices Chicago politics. These are the same people that tried to deny Jon Kyl's state stimulus funds after he spoke against the bill. They're the same bunch who tried to kneecap Fox News with a Mao Tse-tung apologist. Of course they would try to railroad Massa. With him out of the way, the number of votes Nancy Pelosi needs to swing a wrecking ball at our health care system is down to 216. Be sure to tune in to Fox News' Glenn Beck tonight for Massa's first televised interview since he announced his resignation.

Is Rahm playing CYA on health care?

For weeks, we've been wondering what Rahm Emanuel is up to. The fiery chief of staff has been leaking stories to the Washington Post arguing that he's the only one at the White House who has a clue. According to the articles, if Obama had listened to Emanuel's more moderate advice, he wouldn't be sinking in political quicksand today. In particular, Emanuel emphasized that he wants the administration to quietly abandon health care and start talking about job creation.

Previously, we've wondered if Emanuel is just trying to stave off the radical left, which hates Rahm right now for his pragmatism. Now, we have a different theory. Obama is mounting one last attempt to try to ram through his health care legislation, which the public overwhelmingly despises. He may as well lead congressional Blue Dog Democrats onto a plane and then fly them into the side of a mountain. Moderate Democrats, with their eyes on the election calendar, are starting to buck the president. A single ObamaCare bill needs another majority vote in both the House and the Senate to become law. It almost certainly won't happen.

Rahm, who wants to shift the focus to jobs, no doubt realizes how incredibly stupid this is. When ObamaCare fails again and Republicans clean up this November, Democrats are going to start looking for a scapegoat. Rahm's message? "It sure as hell wasn't my fault. I tried to stop this crazy thing."

It almost makes you pity Emanuel. We've noted before how the president's three other closest advisors -- Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett, and David Axelrod -- all see Obama's election as manifest destiny for radical progressives. Poor Rahm is a realist surrounded by left-wing whackjobs who think Obama is a secular Christ figure. He's also a moderate check on their extreme views, which means we should hope he keeps his job for as long as possible.

Obama's 2010 strategy: Bribe your way to victory

Kickbacks galore this morning! Republicans are smelling blood in Pennsylvania in 2010, where a Senate primary battle is raging between Democrats Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak. Arlen Specter is the incumbent and former Republican who White House operatives lured to the Democrat side after it looked like he might lose the GOP primary. Specter is now facing a less dangerous, but still potent, primary threat from the Democrat Sestak.

That's not going to sit well with Obama, who wants to control the political landscape. According to Sestak, the White House offered him a high-ranking job if he dropped his challenge to Specter. Sestak refused to name the job specifically, but many believe it was Secretary of the Navy. You do this for us and we'll make sure we take care of you. Since Sestak revealed the noxious bribe, Robert Gibbs has twice refused to deny that what Sestak said was true. An anonymous White House official "vociferously" denied Sestak's claim to the Philadelphia Inquirer, but it's easy to lie when you don't put your name to it.

Sestak should watch himself. This White House doesn't usually ask nicely. Just look at what happened to Harold Ford in New York today, "bullied" out of the race by Democratic henchmen. Then again, Sestak probably doesn't scare easily. He's a highly decorated former vice admiral and tenacious congressman. Obama may have picked a fight with the wrong guy.

More on Rahm

Here's an update on our last post on Rahm Emanuel. Dana Milbank's piece, which defended Emanuel and attacked his critics like Leslie Gelb, got its information from a leak in the administration somewhere. Where else but from Emanuel himself? It looks like the famously combative Rahm is doing a little self defense.

ObamaWatchNews has previously reported that the president's brain trust consists of four people: David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett, and Emanuel. Interestingly, Milbank attacks all of them, except Rahm, as being "in love with the president" -- information that could have only come from the inside. It almost makes you wonder if Emanuel wrote the whole piece himself.

Emanuel must be very isolated in the administration right now. If he's going so far as to leak inside information to reporters in order to defend himself, resignation seems like the next logical step. Once he goes, there will be nothing standing between the president and his administration's radical leftists.

Like we said, the White House is being run by Chicago

Edward Luce of the Financial Times has an incredible article up on Barack Obama's White House, an absolute must-read for all Obama Watchers. Luce talked with dozens of Obama's allies and discovered that the old Chicago gang is running the show in Washington. Of course, we told you that months ago, but it's great to see a journalist finally do some legwork on this. Luce found that, other than the president, the people who command the president's attention are Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Robert Gibbs. This Gang of Four has unprecedented power in Washington. Luce writes:

"And barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle."

With the exception of Gibbs, the members of that inner circle are all old cronies from Chicago.

"The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present."

Emanuel used to be a congressman, but how the hell do the other three know anything about national security?

Luce also reveals that Obama's cabinet members are often shut out in favor of his Chicago dream team, particularly Emanuel who has alienated many others in the administration with his bullying and profanity.

John Kennedy trusted his talented brother and attorney general Bobby. Richard Nixon was advised most closely by the brilliant Henry Kissinger. George W. Bush turned to Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. When Barack Obama needs advice about governing, he turns to three old Chicago hacks and a pompous press flack from Alabama.

Obama disowns another radical with a wink and a nudge

Barack Obama has become the master of a political two-step. Disown radical friends and business partners to the public while soothing their nerves in private.

Last week, SEIU union boss Andy Stern said that opponents of health care reform and card check like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson were "terrorists". Obviously Stern has been feeling the pressure as majorities of the American people turn against his radical liberal agenda. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs firmly repudiated Stern's comments and said they "make no sense."

It's a pattern with this president. When his friendship with Bill Ayers surfaced during the campaign, he condemned Ayers. When his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright came to light, he gave an entire speech distancing himself. Then several months into his presidency, the White House guest list came out. Ayers and Wright were both on there. The newest offender, Stern, was the most frequent guest.

So the president may pretend to regret Stern's radical comments through his press flack. But no doubt the two of them will remain attached at the hip going forward.