The Big Question: Are job offers wrecking the Obama brand?

Dan Gerstein, political consultant, commentator and president of Gotham Ghostwriters, said:

This is the latest in a long line of trivial, irrelevant, and loopy attacks from the right that only show the depths of the GOP’s consumption with Obama Derangement Syndrome and how screwed up the party’s priorities are right now.

No one outside of the Birthers and the wider circle of folks who already hate Obama cares about this ridiculous story, especially at a time when we have 10 percent unemployment and an entire region of the country’s economy has been put at risk by the BP oil spill.

The prime damage being done is to our public discourse — it’s an idiotic, time-wasting distraction, and the press should be embarrassed for giving so much attention to it.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org, said:

People are trying to manufacture the appearance of scandal; there will be no problem if people do some fact-checking.

Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, said:

No — as with the Sestak story, this is inside-baseball stuff that very few ordinary voters care about. It’s not going to change anyone’s mind about the president.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said:

Obama won by offering a new kind of politics. He’s governing via a very old kind of politics. For a candidate with his message, and with his slender record of actual achievements, this contradiction is very dangerous. His best hope is some sort of major distraction that will take voters’ minds off the difference between what he promised and what he’s delivering. No doubt the White House is working on one of those.

A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist at The Hill, said:

The Obama administration has embarassed itself, having to answer twice in two weeks to revelations from candidates the White House political team tried to push aside. Candidate Obama promised to change the way business is done in Washington, and instead President Obama has cemented his relationship as a Chicago pol who plays by the old unsavory rules but doesn’t even do it well. Republicans and Democrats have done what Team Obama tried to do since the dawn of time, and so far nothing appears illegal. Yet it should be noted that Obama’s political influence is extremely weak at this point – candidates he tries to help lose and candidates he tries to push aside simply tell him no thank you. They aren’t remotely intimidated. Andrew Romanoff, who White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina tried to entice away from a primary challenge to Colorado Sen. Michael Bennett, joins Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) in bucking the president’s men. But recall that embattled New York Gov. David Paterson also resisted the suggestion from the Obama administration that he resign. That’s three strikes.

Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said:

We have an increasing inability to distinguish between the serious and the trivial. Serious criticisms of President Obama include his handling of the oil spill and the national debt bomb, to which he is greatly contributing. Trivial criticisms include the “shocking” practice of politics as usual (jobs to align the ballot well for Democrats) and whether he gave his Memorial Day speech at Arlington or somewhere else. Sometimes a party’s leadership can be too focused on the base, and needs to ask an important question: Will independents roll their eyes when they hear our charges?

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at UC Irvine, said:

No. This is just business as usual, and the public understands that. It’s a minor hit compared to the economy and the oil gush.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Won’t help. Don’t these guys ever watch “The Sopranos”? They look like amateur hoods. Between Rahm Emanuel and Ed Rendell we have a Philadlephia vs. Chicago Stanley Cup in suggestion and innuendo. The South Philly crowd has mastery in this realm. What is interesting in these offers to  Andrew Romanoff and Joe Sestak is the pitiful quality of the offers. They are merely symbolic. What Emanuel and Obama are offering here is really in the shadow of the offer: protection. If you continue the course you are on, they tell Sestak and Romanoff, we will come after you. Get ready. Just like we used to do it in the old neighborhood, Seventh and Pemberton in South Philly. The value of the bribe offered tells the politician (“bribee”) the value they have to the boss; in this case, the value of Sestak (who supported Hillary) and Romanoff is negligible. Rahm Emanuel, like so many “metagons” (which in South Philly Italian translates to “mayonnaise face” and refers to Sarah Lawrence-educated types like Emanuel who want to be gangsters), has no legs; like so many politicians in Philadelphia and Chicago, Emanuel is attracted by the magnetism and subtle art of the gangster, but has neither the legs nor the sacred lineage. (And incidentally, he styles himself like Michael Corleone in “Godfather III.” Coincidence, no?) Sending Bill Clinton out to make the connection, however, was excellent. Brings primal animal dominance, to show Clinton his lack of status in the gang: bag man. Like when the big dog puts his head over the little dogs. To these city boys Clinton is just a country rube. And know what? They are right. Dick Morris played him like a fiddle. Maybe the fat lady is singing as she did at the opening of the Stanley Cup in Philadelphia the other day via video.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch, said:

Yes. The Sestak and Romanoff job offers are not going away anytime soon — nor is the prosecution of Blagojevich. They are all emblematic of “Chicago-style” politics, and that is certainly the “Obama brand.” The consequences for the Obama administration will be an increased public awareness of an administration that talks a good game about “transparency” and “change” — but that hypocritically engages in all of the traditional practices of backroom politics.  

Cheri Jacobus, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

The job offers/bribes are potentially perilous for President Obama. His promise to keep things clean and ethical, yet seemingly engaged in Rod Blagojevich-style shenanigans, may end up being the last straw for a disappointed electorate — especially for Obama’s base, whose support for his candidacy bordered on adoration. The old axiom “The bigger they are, the harder they fall” may fit uncomfortably well, in this case.
 
At a time when top Obama lieutenants are possibly about to be hauled into court to testify under oath in the Rod Blagojevich trial for trading a political job (Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, ironically) for something else of value (cash), the irony and hypocrisy may even be too much for the most ardent Obama loyalists to take (I’m looking at you, Jon Stewart).
 
Worst-case scenario for Obama? The stench of the scandal is so strong and long-lasting that serious Democrats are compelled to start lining up for a 2012 primary challenge.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

Not really. This is how politicians act; it’s who they are. Everybody knows that, and expects it. The question is: to what perceived end? Is he offering jobs to people who have to be gotten out of the way in order to achieve his idealistic but poliitically difficult agenda? Or is he handing the country over to Goldman Sachs, BP and a bunch of crony-capitalists?

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

Yes, the allegations about election-time job offers will have a negative
impact on the Obama administration’s
agenda.  If investigations of what are mere allegations today turn up
factual information about such influence peddling, the negative impact
will grow.
 
Of course, there will be attempts to diffuse any problem with claims
that “everyone does this.”  And that may be true of previous
administrations.  But that doesn’t minimize the wrongness of the
practice.  Let’s recall that Obama promised a very open and transparent
administration, something we are not getting.
 
A major problem related to this discussion is that the federal
government is too large.  There are numerous completely unconstitutional
departments and bureaus that should be phased out of existence:
Education, HUD and H&HS immediately come to mind.  Getting them
abolished would lead to fewer jobs to buy loyalty with and fewer
under-the-table offers being made.