Coulter: 'Did You Plug the Hole With a Blue Dress Yet, Daddy?'

This is great column by Ann Coulter: "Did You Plug the Hole With a Blue Dress Yet, Daddy?"

Oil is spewing from beneath a British Petroleum oil rig into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of about 1 million gallons a day. There's no end in sight -- although White House officials have made it clear their goal is to stop the leak before the midterm elections in November.

Obama now spends at least half of every day answering pointed, increasingly aggressive questions about the oil spill, most of them from his daughter Malia.

The president finally went down to take a look at the oil disaster last week –- which is weird because I didn't even know there were golf courses near the Gulf. To show his concern, Obama is thinking about returning some of the nearly $1 million the oil industry donated to his campaign.

Ha, ha -- just kidding. He's not returning any oil money. But the situation has gotten so urgent that Obama did take time off from his golf game to praise the Phoenix Suns for protesting Arizona’s new immigration law.

He really did endorse the Phoenix Suns, which -- like most of his endorsements -- has resulted in their being eliminated by the Los Angeles Lakers over the weekend. (Did I dream this, or was it just yesterday that President Obama was congratulating Al and Tipper Gore on their long and happy marriage?)

The media have been crowing that Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote forever if they support enforcing laws against illegal immigration, such as the Arizona law. To great fanfare, a poll was released last week showing that 67 percent of Hispanics oppose the Arizona law.

The headline on that poll should have been: "One-Third of Hispanics Support Arizona Immigration Law Despite Frantic Media Campaign to Convince Them It’s a Racist Plot Against Hispanics."

Funny and smart.

Coulter also covers the Joe Sestak "problem" for the Obama administration.

After a 10-week investigation, the Obama White House concluded that Bill Clinton, acting on his own, offered Sestak a nonpaying, advisory job with the administration.

It sounds like something Bill would tell Hillary after sneaking back into the house in the wee hours of the morning. "Honest, honey, I wasn't out with a tawdry cocktail waitress. I was offering some guy I barely know a job at the Obama White House."

So yeah, I know it sounds fishy, but if Bill Clinton says this is how it happened, that's good enough for me. Why, Clinton hasn't lied under oath in front of a federal grand jury for more than a decade.

Incidentally, why do so many Bill Clinton stories end with the words "nothing improper happened"? As I recall, the definition of "proper" gets pretty elastic when you're talking about Bill Clinton.

It's too bad Sestak turned down the offer, because if he had said yes, Obama could claim to have created at least one job, albeit unpaid.

Really good stuff.

Joe Sestak, Andrew Romanoff, Rod Blagojevich

An editorial in the Washington Times calls for a special counsel to investigate the Joe Sestak White House job offer bribe, but it also suggests that the probe be broader in scope.

Sestak offer was no 'one-off'

For the Obama administration and illicit job offers, apparently once was not enough. The Justice Department not only should appoint a special counsel to investigate a purported White House job-offer bribe to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, but also should broaden the probe to include remarkably similar allegations about the Senate race in Colorado.

A single job offer for somebody to abandon a Senate race is nefarious enough. But if this has happened twice or more, it starts to show evidence of a mens rea - a "guilty mind," or a specific intent. Moreover, if the president's disgraced home-state former governor, Rod Blagojevich, Illinois Democrat, is to be believed, something in the same ballpark may have happened a third time as well.

By now, the Sestak story is in headlines across the country. Mr. Sestak has repeated too many times to count that somebody from the White House offered him a federal job - perhaps secretary of the Navy - if he would drop his challenge to party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter. Mr. Sestak did not drop out, and he eventually defeated the turncoat Mr. Specter. Federal law 18 U.S.C. Sec. 600 forbids public officials to "directly or indirectly, promise ... any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit" to any person as a "consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party."

In short, Mr. Sestak says the White House broke the law. The White House says it didn't - and now says former President Bill Clinton merely had informal bull sessions with Mr. Sestak. Maybe it depends on what the meaning of "informal" is. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., as has become his stupendously obstructionist practice, refuses to investigate. Hence the call from seven Senate Republicans for the appointment of a special counsel.

Yet the sole focus on Mr. Sestak is misplaced. If the Sestak allegation is serious - and it is - the similar story about former Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff is equally important. In September, the Denver Post cited "several top Colorado Democrats" who said that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina "offered specific suggestions" for an administration job if Mr. Romanoff would agree not to challenge Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrat, this year. Reported the Post: "Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said."

On a parallel track, on April 22, Mr. Blagojevich demanded a subpoena of President Obama to testify at the former governor's corruption trial. "The president is said to have explicitly recommended current White House adviser Valerie Jarrett for his Senate seat," reported the Hill newspaper, "that a supporter offered a quid pro quo if Jarrett was appointed to the Senate, that Obama kept a list of suitable Senate candidates." And so on.

Even White House political guru David Axelrod admitted that if the Sestak tale is true, it would "constitute a serious breach of law." The story from the Windy City's Mr. Blagojevich brings to mind a line from the Ian Fleming character Goldfinger: "Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago - 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.'"

It would be wrong to ignore what appears to be a "serious breach of law" by the Obama administration.

The Sestak matter cannot be dismissed as a 'one-off.'

Sestak, Obama, and Chicago Politics: 'Nothing Improper'

Emanuel, Clinton, and Sestak: Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600

Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, writes:

Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.

And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.

That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level 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".

Is this just a "PR nightmare"?

Is this a matter of "acting guilty when you're innocent"?

Obviously, that's the Obama administration's spin. But I guarantee you, if this were the Bush administration, the Dems and the lib media would be drooling, smelling blood in the water.

From the Wall Street Journal:

It's possible that all we really have here is a case of the Obama White House playing Washington politics as usual, which the White House refused to admit for three months because this is what Mr. Obama promised he would not do if he became President. However, this is clearly what he hired Mr. Emanuel to do for him, and given his ethical record Mr. Clinton was the perfect political cutout. So much for the most transparent Administration in history.

Then again, George W. Bush merely exercised his right to fire a handful of U.S. Attorneys, and Democrats made that a federal case for years even though it has since gone nowhere legally. The Emanuel to Clinton to Sestak job offer still needs a scrub under oath by the Justice Department and the relevant Congressional committees.

I agree.

The Friday of Memorial Day weekend news dump by the White House shouldn't be adequate to make this mess go away.

The statement from Robert F. Bauer, White House Counsel, is weak.

Review of Discussions Relating to Congressman Sestak Recent press reports have reflected questions and speculation about discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak in relation to his plans to run for the United States Senate. Our office has reviewed those discussions and claims made about them, focusing in particular on the suggestion that government positions may have been improperly offered to the Congressman to dissuade him from pursuing a Senate candidacy.

We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.

...There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic 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.

"Lack a basis in the law"?

Really?

Here's the law: Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600.

Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The White House is spinning, and many are accepting, that the Sestak matter amounts to little more than a simple mishandling by the Obama administration of a trumped-up controversy.

I don't think Bauer's statement and the Memorial Day weekend distraction should be enough to put an end to this issue.

If it is enough, then I guess Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600 is a law that was made to be broken.

Once again, Obama falls far short of his promises to have the most ethical, transparent administration in the history of our country. The guy has failed miserably when it comes to rejecting Washington politics as usual.

Is this really supposed to be that Promised Land?
___________________

A related story, about past encounters involving Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton, and Joe Sestak:

Emanuel was constantly on the phone to candidates--coaching, reassuring, tormenting. In an August call to candidate Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, Emanuel promised that Bill Clinton would help him raise money. "Joe Sestak, this is your rabbi, Rahm," he intoned playfully. "Clinton. I'm close to having him do an event for you in Philly. ... Clinton will put his arm around you and say, `He's my man.'"

In a fairly typical sign-off, he concluded another call to Sestak: "Don't [mess] it up or ... I'll kill you. All right, I love you. Bye."

Oh, Rahm!

Oh, Obama!

Obama News Conference (Transcript)

Read the full transcript.
_____________

Why didn't Obama hold this long, long-awaited news conference in prime time?

His team knew it would be an oily mess and Obama wouldn't perform well. Good call.

With teleprompters in place, Obama began his news conference by discussing the oil spill in the Gulf, now bigger than the Exxon Valdez.

He blamed BP for the disaster and said that the U.S. government will hold BP accountable for the damage.

Obama then went on to say that his administration has been completely involved and will continue to be involved in cleaning up BP's mess.

He said he wanted to be clear that BP is operating at his administration's direction. The company can't make a move without the government's approval.

Obama spoke of "appalling" corruption in the industry prior to his election. In other words, blame Bush.

He said for years there has been "a scandalously close relationship" between regulators and the oil companies.

Obama's message on responsibility for the spill can be summed up in three words: Cheney, Cheney, Cheney.

About offshore drilling in the U.S. --

Forget it.

The first question was about the Obama government's slow response to the disaster, giving Obama the opportunity to defend himself.

He said his administration was "singularly focused" on stopping the leak from the moment the crisis began.

What a laugh!

Obama said it must be understood that the crisis has been his "top priority."

I don't buy that. Doing political damage control is Obama's top priority.

There's no question that Obama was on defense. He looked more frightened than cool. I think he realized that he actually was facing media that weren't going to coddle him, though I'm sure some in the media will spin his responses as strong and heroic and refreshing.

His answer to the first question was typically long and rambling, eating up a lot of time.

The second question came from Jake Tapper. He brought up all the help that's been offered from experts around the world from 17 countries, Gov. Jindal's plan, and others - help that the federal government has rejected. Yet Obama claimed his administration has done everything possible to stop the leak. Tapper asked how he could claim that everything possible has been done when that clearly isn't the case.

Obama said the response hasn't been perfect. In retrospect, mistakes were made but everything possible has been done.

Yeah, no.

Chuck Todd asked about all the Katrina comparisons.

Obama said that he'll leave that "up to you guys." Obama continued to push the message/lie that the government has been involved and in charge from Day One of the spill.

He said he's confident history will look back and record that his administration was on top of the crisis.

Steve Thomma, McClatchy, wanted to know if the administration really acted from Day One for a worst case scenario.

Obama repeated that since the crisis he's done all that's needed to be done. The problem was the industry was such a mess prior to the time he assumed office, again shifting blame away from his administration, demonizing Bush and Cheney.

Chip Reid asked about Elizabeth Birnbaum's resignation and whether "other heads should roll." He also asked about the "cozy relationship" and the blame Bush-Cheney line.

Obama said that he tried to clean up the industry but it was such mess due to years of being "cozy" that there was still more to do.

He said he didn't have information yet on why Birnbaum resigned. Very strange. He claimed that he's on top of the situation but he had no idea what that was about? That doesn't make sense.

Julianna Goldman asked about being able to trust information from BP since it was revealed that much more oil has been gushing from the leak than initially reported.

Obama said BP wasn't forthcoming and his administration pushed them to tell the truth.

He said to keep in mind that the lower estimates had no impact on his administration's response.

Helen Thomas was the first to raise an issue other than the catastrophe in the Gulf. She asked Obama: "When are you going to get out of Afghanistan?" She said she didn't want to hear the "Bushism" that if we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them here.

Obama didn't answer. He said it's a "big, messy process." Shamefully, Obama made no mention of the escalating American death toll in Afghanistan.

Back to the oil spill--

About drilling, Obama said he was wrong about the oil companies having their "act together" when it came to dealing with an accident. "Those assumptions proved to be incorrect."

He said, "You never heard me say the phrase, 'Drill, baby, drill.'"

Obama said the fact that it's necessary to go miles down to get to the oil shows that it's too expensive and risky to do. We need other forms of energy.

What is he talking about? Of course, oil is far below the earth's surface.

Macarena Vidal asked about Obama's plan to send the National Guard to the border. She also asked if he would support the boycott of Arizona.

Obama said again he doesn't approve of the Arizona law.

As far as boycotts, Obama said, "I'm president of the United States. I don't endorse boycotts."

But, Obama said that his administration is examining the law and we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.

Obama was all over the place in this news conference, contradicting himself and rambling.

Obama said the National Guard plan was in place before the Arizona law, but the solution isn't troops. Reform is the solution. He repeatedly referred to holding employers accountable.

Last question, from Major Garrett, FOX News:

"Is your boot on the neck of BP?"

Garrett wanted to know if Obama was comfortable with that metaphor. He said that Ken Salazar has been emotional and angry and he probably wouldn't use that language.

Garrett asked about the Joe Sestak scandal. Obama blew it off, saying that a statement will be coming shortly.

"I can assure the public that nothing improper took place."

Obama ended with an obviously prepared message. He said the spill is the last thing he thinks about before going to sleep at night and the first thing he thinks about when he wakes up.

When he was shaving this morning, Malia asked him, "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?"

That definitely was a planned statement. Did YOU plug the hole yet?

Obama now is prepared to be responsible.

Obama said he takes responsibility for stopping the leak. But don't forget, BP is really responsible and Bush-Cheney are really, really responsible.

"The federal government is fully engaged and I'm fully engaged."

Yes, Obama is fully engaged in political CYA.

Joe Sestak: Lack of Sunlight

Obama has lost the Washington Post on the Joe Sestak matter, sort of.



In an editorial today, the Washington Post comes out against the way the White House is handling "Joe Sestak job offer-gate."

"NOTHING inappropriate happened," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says about the job offer that Rep. Joe Sestak, now the Democratic nominee for a Pennsylvania Senate seat, claims the White House dangled to induce him to back away from challenging incumbent Arlen Specter. "It has been looked into," adds White House senior adviser David Axelrod, and "nothing inappropriate happened."

That may be -- but high-handed, conclusory assurances from the White House are not enough to satisfy legitimate questions about the episode. Mr. Sestak has said for months -- and he repeated this weekend -- that the White House offered him a job if he would stay out of the primary race against Mr. Specter.

...[T]he White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were," Mr. Gibbs said Sunday. "People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way." This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of U.S. attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promised?

It's about time that the lib media start holding Team Obama accountable and demand answers to legitimate questions.

Finally, the bloom is off the rose. Maybe.

We've had a year and a half of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" from Obama and his hacks in the media.

Before Obama took office, the liberal media were derelict in their duty. They've given Obama a pass since he became a serious presidential candidate. Of course, Obama enjoyed every minute of their negligence and benefited tremendously. The media were instrumental in getting Obama elected.

Hopefully, this dark chapter in the lib media's coverage of Obama and his administration is over.

I don't think MSNBC is ready to give up its role as propanadist for Obama, but other outlets do seem to be coming around a bit.

Sunlight now!

Arlen Specter - Beaten

It was painful to watch Arlen Specter give his concession speech after his loss to Rep. Joe Sestak.

He looked worse than tired. He looked beaten.

Robert Costa writes:

While his supporters didn't seem floored by the news, Specter did, as he walked into the ballroom minutes later, his wife Joan and son Shanin at his side. His face was worn and tired, his eyes wet, his steps slow. In his concession speech, he thanked his family, Senate staff, and campaign boosters. He congratulated Sestak and nodded his appreciation to Rendell and Obama for their support. It was classy and brief. But you could feel the hurt — for centrist Democrats and their ilk, this was the repudiation of a lion. For Pennsylvania, it's the end of a political era.

The times they are a-changin'.

Video.

Meet the Press: Arlen Specter

DEMOCRAT Arlen Specter was on Meet the Press this morning.

It seemed that David Gregory left him rather shaken.

Specter wants the world to know that he's a Dem, but he's not a "loyal" Dem.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript

MR. GREGORY:All right, let me ask you about this switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party. Back in April of this year on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" you said this: "So I'm trying to bring back those voters to the Republican Party. We need balance and I'm trying to get people to register Republican. We need a second party. Look here, our country is built on checks and balances. The only check and balance in America today are the 41 Republican Senators who can talk and filibuster, otherwise, the White House, the House of Representatives will be a steamroller." Well, Senator, you've now decided to join that steamroller. What changed?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, well, since that time I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate. I'm not going to do that.

Now, with respect to the steamroller, I have shown repeatedly my independence, willing to cross party lines when I thought the interests of the American people in Pennsylvania were required it. Take one example: There's a bill on employees choice known as Card Check, which would take away the secret ballot and impose mandatory arbitration. I said when I made the switch I'm still against that bill. Democrats are all for it, Republicans are all against it and I'm the critical vote. And if see that there are other issues where I feel as a matter of conscience, I will continue a filibuster against legislation.

MR. GREGORY: Are there other issues right now that you can name where you don't see eye to eye with this president?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I'm not going to start to explore a long range of issues. I, I'm not going to do that to...

MR. GREGORY: All right. Well...

SEN. SPECTER: You don't, you, you don't have enough time, David.

MR. GREGORY: Well, hey, we can make time. We're going to get to a few issues in a couple of minutes, but I want to stick to this point, what you're saying, this was politics. This was a cold, hard political reality check. This is what David Broder wrote in his column in the Washington Post, and it was pretty pointed. Look at the headline: "Specter the Defector. The one consistency in the history of Arlen Specter has been his willingness to do whatever will best protect and advance the career of Arlen Specter. ... So, once again, Specter is likely to reap political rewards from his maneuvering. But the Democrats should be open-eyed about what they are gaining from his return to his original political home. Specter's history shouts the lesson that he will stick with you only as long as it serves his own interests--and not a day longer." You're about to stand for re-election as a Democrat. Do you think that reputation hurts you?

SEN. SPECTER: I think it's a, a misreading. I do not think it is true. I can pick up any of the issues and tell you what my reasons were, and I think I have very strong reasons for all of them. There's more than being re-elected here. There's the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan's big tent. When I came to the Senate, you had a roomful of moderate Republicans, Hines and Weicker and Stafford and Chafee and Danforth and on and on. And in recent times I have diverged materially from the Republican line. And the critical factor, David, as most--many people know, was the stimulus package.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. SPECTER: I bucked the Republican line, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and I, and that created a schism. My approval rating dropped 30 points with Republicans as a result of that vote, so that as the pictures has evolved I felt a lot more comfortable as a matter of principle with Democrats than with Republicans.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

SEN. SPECTER: Let me mention...

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEN. SPECTER: ...one other important point, and that is my work in the Senate on medical research. I've been a major--maybe the major spear carrier for the National Institutes of Health. And I'm trying to get more federal funding. I've opened up a Web site, specterforthecure.com. If we had pursued the war on cancer which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today. This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine. And The New York Times today has a column, when you compare my work on medical research it makes party allegiance look pretty small.

What an idiotic thing to say!

Why exploit the death of Jack Kemp?

Specter knows from his personal experience that tremendous strides have been made in treatment of the disease since the Nixon era.

I certainly don't know the details of Kemp's illness, but I'm sure Kemp benefited from the medical advancements of the past forty years as much as Specter did.

UPDATE, May 4, 2009: The Washington Times has picked up on this.

MR. GREGORY: I want to move on, though, to the question of what it took for the Democrats to get you. What were you offered? What inducements have you been given to switch parties?

SEN. SPECTER: None.

MR. GREGORY: None.

SEN. SPECTER: None.

MR. GREGORY: You won't retain your seniority, as you move over, on, on key committees?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, that is, that is, that is true. But...

MR. GREGORY: That's not an inducement, Senator?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, no, that's an entitlement. I've earned, I've earned the seniority. I was elected in 1980. And I think that's, that's not a bribe or a gift or something extraordinary. I will be treated by the Democrats as if I'd been elected as a Democrat.

But Specter wasn't elected as a Dem, so why should he be treated as a Dem?

Obviously, Specter was in negotiations with the Dems.

The way he talks about his alleged entitlement sure makes Specter sound like a Dem to the core.

Spoken like a dyed-in-the-wool lib.

MR. GREGORY: What about how you stand for election? Has the Democratic Party--Leader Reid, Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania and the president himself--seen to it, have they seen to it that you will not face a primary challenger?

SEN. SPECTER: They have not. Flatly not.

MR. GREGORY: But the president said he's going to campaign for you.

SEN. SPECTER: Well...

MR. GREGORY: Who's going to step up against you when the president's declared his intention in the primary?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, well, that's a different question. You asked me if they've cleared the field, and they have not. There, there are two candidates in the field and there are others on the sidelines; one other, specifically, who's talking about running. I didn't ask them to clear the field. The reality is you can't tell other people what to do. I'm prepared to run in a contested primary. But I don't want to run against a stacked deck like I would have had to against the Republican primary electorate.

MR. GREGORY: You know that Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security and governor of Pennsylvania, is thinking about getting into the Republican primary race. Do you think he could win what you couldn't?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, I think former Governor Ridge is a very able fellow, and I have a lot of respect for him.

MR. GREGORY: One potential challenger is Congressman Joe Sestak, and he was interviewed in the Los Angeles Times talking about exactly what kind of Democrat you would be. And this is what he said: "[Sestak] said that Specter would have to answer a series of questions in the coming weeks, such as why Democratic voters should view him as a leader in their party when he failed to prevent the GOP from moving to the hard right. `What are you running for, Arlen?' Sestak asked. `How are you going to use your leadership to shape the Democratic Party? Is it to the way we believe Pennsylvania should be helped? And the platform we should follow? Are you a Democrat, an independent or a Republican?'" You always talked about core conservative values when you ran for president. What are your core political beliefs now?

SEN. SPECTER: My core views are freedom, a woman's right to choose, consistently voted for increasing the minimum wage, for expanding unemployment compensation, for the nuclear test ban treaty, where I broke with Republicans. I got into politics, David, as the result of the inspiration of my father, who was a Russian immigrant, who was a veteran in World War I. The government broke the promise to pay World War I veterans a bonus. And Harry Specter was a little guy. And you take a look at my record in the Senate, or my record in public life generally, I've always been for the little guy. I say in a sense that I, I'm on my way--I was on my way to Washington to get my father's bonus. I haven't gotten it yet, so I'm running for re-election. But I've helped the veterans. I've broken with the party on, on funding for veterans. I've broken with the party on voting for Social Security increases. My record has been issue-oriented, one at a time. And I think as a matter of principle--listen, the stimulus vote was a mighty big test. It cost me dearly with the Republicans. And I stood with the Democrats because I thought it was right. I thought otherwise this country might have been on the verge of a 1929 Depression. And I knew it was politically problemsome, perhaps disastrous. I represent the people of Pennsylvania, not any political party.

Clearly, Specter's main core belief is saving his sorry political career.

MR. GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president you said, "I will be a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda." Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that's health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government-run public plan to complete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SEN. SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with a 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose cloture on, on key issues. But I...

MR. GREGORY: All right, just to be clear, Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal Jonathan Weisman and Greg Hitt reported that when you met with the president you said, "I'm a loyal Democrat," and, according to people familiar with the White House, "I support your agenda." So that's wrong? You didn't say those things?

SEN. SPECTER: I did not say I'm a loyal Democrat. You know, I read once another mistake in the newspaper, some newspaper.

MR. GREGORY: Let me--I just want to turn, then, to the issue of health care. You would not support a public plan?

SEN. SPECTER: That's what I said...

MR. GREGORY: OK.

SEN. SPECTER: ...and that's what I meant.

Gregory obviously has Specter a bit rattled.

"Problemsome"? Not a word.

Specter is not a loyal Dem.

"I did not say I'm a loyal Democrat."

That's very clear. The White House can't be happy about that statement.

I wonder if Rahm Emanuel has sent Specter a dead fish yet.

Who is Rahm Emanuel?

Barack Obama is bringing change.

He's setting a new tone in Washington.

He's transforming politics. He's transforming the nation. He's transforming the world.

So he picked Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff.

WASHINGTON -- While President-elect Barack Obama enjoyed a few days with his family after a hard-fought election, speculation swirled in the nation's capital around potential administration appointees.

Obama pivoted quickly to begin filling out his team on Wednesday, selecting hard-charging Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff while aides stepped up the pace of transition work that had been cloaked in pre-election secrecy.

Several Democrats confirmed that Emanuel had been offered the job. While it was not clear he had accepted, a rejection would amount to an unlikely public snub of the new president-elect within hours of an electoral college landslide.

...In offering the post of White House chief of staff to Emanuel, Obama turned to a fellow Chicago politician with a far different style from his own, a man known for his bluntness as well as his single-minded determination.

Emanuel was a political and policy aide in Bill Clinton's White House. Leaving that, he turned to investment banking, then won a Chicago-area House seat six years ago. In Congress, he moved quickly into the leadership. As chairman of the Democratic campaign committee in 2006, he played an instrumental role in restoring his party to power after 12 years in the minority.

Emanuel maintained neutrality during the long primary battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, not surprising given his long-standing ties to the former first lady and his Illinois connections with Obama.

To say that Emauel is known for his "bluntness" is an understatement.

From the Chicago Tribune's archives, November 12, 2006:

Rahm Emanuel was seething.

He was hurtling down an asphalt road in upstate New York on the 47th trip of his ferocious campaign to win back the House. A lecture, even from his friend James Carville, was the last thing he needed.

In just 12 days, Emanuel's quest would end in a historic victory--a triumph that almost no one believed possible when he accepted the challenge nearly two years ago--or in colossal failure.

And here were Carville and pollster Stan Greenberg telling him he had to make each of his handpicked candidates shift from attack mode and strike a conciliatory note in their final campaign ads.

"James. No James, YOU LISTEN," Emanuel barked into a cell phone, about to release a string of profane invectives more intense than usual. "Can you listen for one [expletive] minute? I'm working these campaigns all the time. The campaigns all have different textures."

His wiry body tensed, his voice breaking with stress. Emanuel shouted, "If you don't like what you see, I highly recommend you pick up the ... phone and do it yourself."

The moment captured Rahm in full, a portrait in power of a brutally effective taskmaster.

...Democrats had blanched at hardball. Emanuel, jokingly called "Rahmbo" even by his mother, muscled weaker Democrats out of races in favor of stronger ones, and ridiculed the chairman of his own party.

...In a world where congressmen refer to each other as "my distinguished colleague," Emanuel, 46, is sometimes unable to get through a single sentence without several obscenities. His politics are centrist, but his style is extremist. The top of his right middle finger was severed when he was a teenager, adding to his aura of toughness--especially when he extends that middle finger, which he does with some regularity.

Obama picked a thug to be his Chief of Staff, a guy with a "killer instinct."

...Emanuel's thin, unimposing frame still hints at the teen and college years devoted to ballet; his voice sometimes screeches, and his words can get jumbled in public speeches.

But his political style--honed in Chicago and on the presidential campaign trail with Clinton--isn't gentle or uncertain. His reputation as a political street fighter inspires respect and more than a little fear.

Ballet?

Hmm.

A balletic street fighter. How very West Side Story!

As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emanuel was ruthless.

...He knew he was despised. "Look, this is not for the fainthearted," Emanuel said. "Their job is important to them, and I am seen as a threat to their job security. And that's life. And I didn't come here to win a popularity contest with them."

He added, "I wake up some mornings hating me too."

How does Obama the healer, the transformational figure, choose a thug like Emanuel?

Central to Emanuel's ability to unnerve his political enemies is his fierce intensity, a quality that wasn't initially apparent as he grew up on the North Shore of Chicago. He played peacemaker between his older brother Ezekiel and his younger brother Ari, and he pirouetted around the house. "Ari would be wrestling, Zeke would be pondering deep thoughts, and Rahmmy would be leaping down the stairs and doing ballet dance twirls," his mother, Marsha, recalled.

Ari even got the top bunk bed when he and Rahm shared a room, even though Rahm was older and could have laid claim to it. "I was physically stronger," Ari Emanuel explained.

But when their parents sent Rahm to study ballet, his single-mindedness emerged. "Intense would be a word I would have used even then," said Kerry Hubata, his former ballet teacher. "I've seen kids with physical talent but didn't work as hard. Others, who weren't as gifted physically but had the desire and didn't mind the pain, succeeded more. He had the drive."

That drive only increased when Emanuel suffered an accident just before his 1977 graduation from New Trier West High School. Working at an Arby's, Emanuel badly cut the middle finger of his right hand. He insisted on going to prom festivities anyway, including a swim in Lake Michigan, and the finger became badly infected. Emanuel, his family recalled, lay near death in Children's Memorial Hospital with a fever of 106 degrees, as antibiotics were pumped into him. In the end, doctors removed half his finger.

Yuck! I'm not thinking Arby's.

...Emanuel was constantly on the phone to candidates--coaching, reassuring, tormenting. In an August call to candidate Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, Emanuel promised that Bill Clinton would help him raise money. "Joe Sestak, this is your rabbi, Rahm," he intoned playfully. "Clinton. I'm close to having him do an event for you in Philly. ... Clinton will put his arm around you and say, `He's my man.'"

In a fairly typical sign-off, he concluded another call to Sestak: "Don't [mess] it up or ... I'll kill you. All right, I love you. Bye."

When Emanuel proved victorious in 2006 and the Democrats took the majority in the House, the street fighting ballet dancer gloated.

...[A]t that moment, Emanuel would not, could not censor his glee, or restrain his distaste for the defeated Republicans.

"Since my kids are gone, I can say it: They can go ---- themselves!"

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Barack Obama's Chief of Staff.

As "Rahmbo" would say, "Republicans, you can go f--- yourselves."

Welcome to Obama's Washington.
_______________

On a related note: Bipartisan outreach promised

After most "change" elections, the winners are quick to claim a powerful mandate for their boldest ideas and fondest ambitions.

But in the aftermath of Barack Obama's lopsided Electoral College victory Tuesday, many top Democrats were sending a different signal, seeking to tone down the loftiest expectations facing the president-elect and vowing to govern with bipartisan outreach and pragmatic restraint.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that "a new president coming in, in my view, must take the country down the middle, solve the problems, to gain the confidence to take us more strongly in a new direction."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the mandate delivered by voters Tuesday was not "for any political party or any ideology, but a mandate to get over those things that divide us and focus on getting things done."

Such carefully calibrated talk is already making some on the party's left uneasy. Liberal activist Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America's Future argued Wednesday that given the crises the country faces, the danger isn't over-reaching, but "under-reaching."

And some Republicans are skeptical about the centrist sounds they're hearing.

"I think he's lowering expectations right now to lull people into believing he's going to be a coalition builder. I don't see that," said Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor and Bush cabinet member.

Right. The Dems are going to make good on their promise to "govern with bipartisan outreach and pragmatic restraint."

Of course meanwhile, the Republicans can go f--- themselves.

What's the difference between a pit bull and Rahm Emanuel?

Nothing.

Except the ballet tights.
_________________

Rahm Emanuel: The Enforcer

Friends and enemies agree that the key to Emanuel's success is his legendary intensity. There's the story about the time he sent a rotting fish to a pollster who had angered him. There's the story about how his right middle finger was blown off by a Syrian tank when he was in the Israeli army. And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting "Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!" and plunging the knife into the table after every name. "When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape," one campaign veteran recalls. "It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you."

Of the three stories, only the second is a myth -- Emanuel lost the finger to a meat slicer as a teenager and never served in the Israeli army.

Scary. Seriously.