Last week, President Obama promised, “I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.” Everything, huh? Well, he certainly wasn’t whistling Dixie…
First there was
Joe Sestak’s accusation, namely that Obama offered him a high-ranking federal job (probably Secretary of the Navy) if he declined to run against vulnerable Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania in the Democratic primary later this year. Then, yesterday, we reported that
Obama nominated Scott Matheson to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Scott, is the brother Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who is currently listed as an undecided vote on the crucial upcoming healthcare vote.
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve — and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
Accusations of political power plays are nothing new in Washington. What’s so surprising is that all these accusations stem from members of the President’s own political party.
It’s hard to know what to make of this story. By all accounts, Massa might be a lying sleazebag. Massa maintains he only made one inappropriate remark at a New Year’s Eve party. Another aide stated Massa had been acting inappropriately (whatever that means) for eight months.
What remains clear is that President Obama is attempting to turn Washington D.C. into Chicago. Since taking office, bribes, partisanship and shady backroom deals have been the order of business. Massa’s accusation seems to fit that narrative, which is what makes it so believable. Politico blogger Ben Smith writes:
Second, Ax's -- and to a degree Obama's -- problem is that they aren't used to governance that requires multi-party and intra-party skills, where the chief executive isn't in absolute control of all levers of government. The "Chicago Way" is profoundly misunderstood. It isn't, first and foremost, about bullying politics; it's about absolute control and the means to achieve it. The "Chicago Way" would never work in DC, and I believe their frame of reference doesn't allow them to see DC otherwise.
