Right-wing media seize on baseless claim that Obama exchanged job offer for Specter's Kagan vote
Following a report by ABC's Jake Tapper based on unnamed sources, the right-wing media baselessly suggested that Arlen Specter was offered an Obama administration job in return for his supporting Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination. In fact, no one has provided evidence that Specter has been offered a job, let alone offered a job in exchange for his vote, and another report quotes a source denying that any discussion about jobs even took place.
ABC's Tapper reports that "sources" say there are "preliminary" discussions of a job for Specter in the Obama administration
Tapper: "An Obama Administration Job for Sen. Specter?" In a July 15 blog post, titled "An Obama Administration Job for Sen. Specter?" ABC News' Jake Tapper wrote that anonymous sources said Specter told the White House he "would like to consider remaining in public service after his Senate term ends at the end of this session, and White House officials are keeping an open mind about possible job openings for him." Tapper added that "sources said the job discussions are far from anything other than preliminary, and were not part of any 'deal' when Specter switched parties and began supporting President Obama's agenda in earnest." From the post:
Sources tell ABC News that Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania, has informed the White House that he would like to consider remaining in public service after his Senate term ends at the end of this session, and White House officials are keeping an open mind about possible job openings for him.
[...]
Sources said the job discussions are far from anything other than preliminary, and were not part of any "deal" when Specter switched parties and began supporting President Obama's agenda in earnest. Neither the White House nor Specter had any comment.
Talk of such a job, however, has raised eyebrows among Specter's Republican Senate colleagues, who are now eyeing his votes with added scrutiny. For instance, Specter seemed not particularly impressed with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, whose nomination as solicitor general Specter opposed last year. This week, he announced support for her Supreme Court nomination.
Right-wing media run with Tapper's report to baselessly suggest Specter made a deal for his vote on Kagan
Drudge: "Specter's YES Kagan vote; Obama job offer." On July 16, Matt Drudge baselessly suggested that Arlen Specter was offered an Obama administration job in return for his supporting Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination:
Hot Air: "Quid pro quo, Barry." In a July 15 blog post, titled "Specter to Obama: Um, can I have a job in your administration?" Hot Air's Allahpundit ran with Tapper's unsourced claim that Sen. Specter wants a job in the Obama administration. Allahpundit even went so far as to rehash the debunked smear that Obama attempted to "bribe" Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) with a job, in exchange for Sestak dropping out of the Senate primary race against incumbent Specter. From the post:
Alternate headline: "Confirmed: Obama bribed the wrong Pennsylvania Democrat."
[...]
As Tapper notes, it's quite a coincidence that after making so much noise about how disappointed he was in Kagan, Specter's finally decided to vote for her. Quid pro quo, Barry.
NRO: "Who knows, maybe Joe Sestak's position on the Intelligence Advisory Board was still open." In a July 15 post, NRO's Carrie Severino speculated on why Specter decided to support Kagan's nomination and baselessly linked Specter's decision to reports that the administration sent former President Bill Clinton to see if Sestak was interested in an unpaid advisory position:
Specter voted against Kagan when she was up for confirmation to her current post as solicitor general because she was not forthcoming in answering his questions. Nothing of substance of changed. Specter lost his primary even after switching parties in hopes of prolonging his career, so his Senate career ends this year and he no longer needs to curry favor with any party or even his own constituents. So why abandon principle now? Who knows, maybe Joe Sestak's position on the Intelligence Advisory Board was still open. [emphasis added]
There is no evidence of a job offer and even reports of job discussions between Specter and the White House are disputed
Tapper's sources do not allege a job offer has been made, only that "preliminary" job "discussions" have been had. Tapper's report noted that, according to his anonymous sources, Specter merely informed the White House that he was interested in remaining in the public sector after he left the Senate and that the White House was "keeping an open mind" about the possibility. According to Tapper, his sources also "said the job discussions are far from anything other than preliminary."
Roll Call reports that source says "at no time have [Specter and Obama] discussed the possibility of Specter joining the administration." In an article tilted "Source Says Specter Hasn't Had Job Talks With Administration," Roll Call reported that a source said "at no time have [Specter and Obama] discussed the possibility of Specter joining the administration." From the July 15 article:
Sen. Arlen Specter's professional future remains cloudy at best, despite reports that the Pennsylvania Democrat has discussed possible positions with the Obama administration.
According to a source, while Specter has met with Barack Obama several times since he became president last year, at no time have the two discussed the possibility of Specter joining the administration -- and no similar talks have occurred with other administration officials.
Some Republicans have questioned whether the reports of a possible job offer are tied to Specter's endorsement Thursday of Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination. Specter was far more aggressive in his questioning of Kagan than most Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, and the GOP has long suspected that a potential administration slot was used as bait to persuade Specter to switch parties last year.
But the source rejected those arguments, pointing out that Specter, while endorsing Kagan in a floor speech, criticized her but said he found her qualified to serve on the high court.
The source also said that the only positions Obama has offered to Senators have been Cabinet slots -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar both served in the Senate with Obama -- and that there are no open positions in Obama's Cabinet.
The source argued that Specter would not "take a step down" and that it is unlikely that Obama would dangle a lesser slot as a possible enticement for Specter.
Specter's office did not return requests for comment.
Contrary to Hot Air's claim, legal experts have disputed that Sestak offer was a bribe
Washington Post: Unpaid position offered to Sestak not a "bribe." Administration officials reportedly asked former President Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to gauge whether he would have interest in an "unpaid position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board" or if he was still interested in running for Senate. Sestak reportedly was not interested in the position, and, as The Washington Post reported: "Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, says there's no 'there' here. This couldn't be bribery, she says, because the position was unpaid."
Bush ethics lawyer calls claim that a job offer is a "bribe" "difficult to support." In a post on the Legal Ethics Forum blog, former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter wrote: "The allegation that the job offer was somehow a 'bribe' in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support."
Sloan: "There is no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that "several experts tell TPMmuckraker this is much ado about nothing" and quoted Sloan saying, "There is no bribery case here. ... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Sloan also said: "It's not at all about whether there was actual criminal wrongdoing. ... It's about how to go after Sestak."
Right-wing media's history of seizing on absurd White House "bribe" allegations
Right-wing media seized on completely baseless allegations that the White House attempted to bribe Rep. Matheson to vote in favor of health care reform, by appointing his brother to the appeals court. Numerous right-wing media figures repeatedly accused Obama of "selling judgeships for health care votes" by claiming that Obama appointed Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) brother to the United States Court of Appeals in order to get him to change his health care vote from "no" to "yes." The White House, former Bush Judge Michael McConnell, and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) all conclusively debunked the smear. Matheson ultimately continued to vote "no" on both the Senate's health care bill and the reconciliation package.
Right-wing media ran with false claim that White House offered Romanoff a job to bow out of Senate run. Conservative media falsely claimed that the White House offered Andrew Romanoff a job if he were to bow out of the Colorado Senate race, despite the fact that both Romanoff and the White House denied that any job offer was ever made. The White House later explained that Romanoff had previously applied for a position with the administration during the presidential transition, and that Messina followed up with him "to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the U.S. Senate."
Experts: Job discussions "trivial," "garden-variety politics," "unexceptional." Legal experts have pointed out that the Romanoffand Sestak job discussions violated no laws. Moreover, political experts and historians have pointed out that such offers are common. For example, University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato called the allegations "garden-variety politics" and "absolutely trivial." He added, "Let's stop criminalizing garden-variety politics, which is what this is." Similarly, historian George Edwards reportedly stated: "There is no question whatsoever that presidents have often offered people positions to encourage them not to do something or make it awkward for them to do it. Presidents have also offered people back-ups if they ran for an office and lost. All this is old news historically." And Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's political director, reportedly stated, "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington."
No eyebrow raising red flag there.
Mind you, I'm no fan of Specter, but I think this particular contradiction has more to do with those old, tow the party line political games.
I wouldn't put it past him.
I think it's a given that if he wishes to have any political position again he needs to play ball the the Democratic Party on this. One political bridge has been burned. He certainly doesn't want to torch another.
Besides, what future does he have with the Democratic party? None that I can see. Right now he is no more than a useful idiot.
They're making charges with nothing to back up those charges. That's misinformation.
These reports are not saying it is for certain, they can't. They are offering up suspicious circumstances, rightly so. For MMfA to call it misinformation because there is no admission from Specter or Obama is just ridiculous. There will never be that, even if Specter does get some job. It's phony outrage from MMfA.
This site is about journalism. We're not seeing any journalism in these pieces. We're seeing people run with the idea that Specter will soon be out of a job + Specter may one day be considered for an administration job + the vote on Kagan will come soon + Specter will most likely vote in favor of her appointment = BRIBE!
In the meantime, you and I have constructed a far more reasonable equation. Specter is a shameless politician who switched parties + Specter lost his reelection bid = Specter needs to play ball if he's looking for any jobs in the future.
Speculation is not fact. Again I'll say this is gossip rag material. MMFA pointing to it and calling it out is justified.
There are these unnamed sources all the time that come from Washington insiders who don't want to be named. That is the way many of these reporters get scoops and stories, it's a town full of squealers and off the record reporting. This is no different. For MMfA to hold this up to some exclusive standard of absolute proof and anything less than that is "gossip" or lies, is just silly.
Take it for what it's worth, as one should for any of these type stories. If you connect the dots it could very easily be the case.
I do see them taking issue with those who used that piece as a spring board to they're in the middle of hammering out the details as we speak and close to a deal!
The problem with this particular game of connect the dots is the spots on the page aren't numbered and there's nothing that requires you to use only straight lines and to only hit each point once. Futuremore it seems like Drudge, Hot Air, and NRO have purposely spilled ink on the pages, turned it into a kind of Rorschach test blot, and, not content to leave it at that, they're feeding their readers the "correct" answer.
And for all we know, those "sources" might be the janitor in Glenn Back's studio! I could--with absolutely equal validity--claim that "sources" told me that John Boehner is shtuping pre-teen boys in the RFK Stadium rest rooms. All I need is for someone to tell me that, and--presto change-o!--"Sources"! It's a standard tabloid stunt--get some "personal assistant" to a celebrity to say something outrageous about their employer, and--presto-change-o!--"Sources"!
Not if we don't know who those sources are! How exactly do we question a source whose identity is unknown? Psychic projection?...
Of course that's not to say those unnamed sources are unbiased and may well be pushing an agenda of their own (hello, Karl Rove--are you listening?).
Nevertheless, the problem here is that the Tapper piece has been warped from people have been talking about possibilities to BRIBE! And that's the type of wretchedly bad journalism I want to see called out.