I’m hesitant to defend anybody in the Blagojevich Scandal until more of the facts are known, but BarbinMD has posted exactly what I wanted to say on the matter. It appears that the event that precipitated Blago’s downfall was a phone call Barack Obama made to president of the Illinois Senate Emil Jones Jr. in September requesting that Jones Jr. throw his support behind a new ethics bill. The ethics bill quickly passed and is set to go into effect in January. Blagojevich reacted to this by ramping up his corrupt efforts to raise cash before the new law precluded him from doing so. When Fitzgerald got wind of Blago’s efforts, he was able to secure a wiretap warrant. The rest is history.
In spite of this, there are a host of articles out there that attempt to tarnish Obama’s reputation and good name by tying him to the governor’s corruption. But the facts we have right now are exculpatory.
1. It was Obama’s successful push for an Ethics Bill that precipitated the governor’s downfall.
2. The prosecutor explicitly stated that there is no hint of wrongdoing by the president-elect.
3. Barack Obama denies haven’t any direct discussions with the governor.
4. The governor said, on tape, that the Obama Team was “not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.” He also called Obama a ‘motherf*cker’.
Based on the set of facts we have right now, Obama looks admirably unscathed. In fact, it looks like his advocacy of higher ethics standards is what led to Blago’s exposure as a rank crook.
It’s always possible that some new facts will emerge that change this narrative, but it’s the height of irresponsibility to use the available facts to suggest guilt by association.
Of course one expects the wingnuts like Fox and the brain-dead gossips like Politico to try and make the connection, but it’s the casual sloppiness of real news organizations that gets me. NPR, for example, had to ask, right at the top of their Blago report what effect this might have on Obama. The answer was, nothing that anybody knows of, but the question itself does subtle damage. The rest of the “responsible” media seems to be following the same pattern, no doubt spurred on by “concerns” voiced by the rightwing noise machine. Nothing will come of this, but the eagerness to make something out of nothing is reaching new and shameful heights among usually respectable media.
BTW, Boo, you forgot one other large fact: Obama doesn’t have a horse in this race. He may prefer one over another, but it’s sure nothing he’s going to take the slightest risk for even if he was so inclined. Which he isn’t. In the language of Illinois politics, what’s in it for him?
you might overstate the case a bit, Dave. I think Obama is within his rights to take an active interest in who will be replacing him in the Senate.
I am sure that his team was making a case for someone, and it appears that they quickly realized that the governor was not someone they wanted to negotiate with.
Of course he has a right to prefer one over another, and to make a case if he wants to. My point is, this is not a mission-critical decision that he’d feel demands any great effort. He’s going to get a Dem in the seat in any case. He has much bigger fish to fry.
…it’s the height of irresponsibility to use the available facts to suggest guilt by association.
Height of irresponsibility? Did somebody say AP?
I usually get nervous about these things because I doubt peoples capacity to understand the scandal. I fear people hear “Obama” “Chicago” and “Corruption” and draw a conclusion right away. I’ve grossly underestimated this capacity before, though, and frankly, with colorful details like “that motherfucker,” I think Obama’s going to come out of this smelling like roses.
right now who just makes me seethe. He’s a young guy, early thirties, just out of the military, and thinks that whatever Hannity says is like straight manna from heaven. Can’t see that black and white is sometimes really gray. It’s taken all I can not to disrupt training sessions and flat out call him a moron.
Today the twerp was claiming that Obama didn’t have control of his people. “Just whose people,” I asked loudly, knowing that Blagojevich was hardly any friend of Obama’s. “Oh, he (and Axelrod) are just making Mafia-style statements.” Next thing you know, Hannity will be preaching that Jesse Jackson, Jr. or Sr. was Obama’s bagmen. Idiocy reigns.
Any politician right now cursing out Obama, on tape or off, would be out of his mind. The public is giving the man a lot of leash to let him work. Obama ain’t even set foot permanently in the White House for the Faux Noise-makers to try to hang a scandale du jour. around his neck. I will say, however, that it doesn’t look good for not only Blagojevich but for any one of the numbered candidates who was caught on tape playing footsie for the post.
And if the Reverend and/or his son is knee-deep in this muck, as I am surmising, both of them will not live this down. Jesse’s ambulance chasing and womanizing apart from his years-long advocacy have garnered more embarrassment than praise lately.
This will teach all you coastals to call us the flyover. Life in Illinois has become a daily carnival, the set for the apocalypse movie about the final battle between the black messiah and the white devil. C’mon down, y’all — you don’t know what excitement is until you experience life in the Land of Lincoln.
PS — this morning the Trib opined that Mrs. Blago might be “a modern-day Lady Macbeth”. Lovin’ it.
They do sound like a delightful couple.
One day it might be interesting to see a book on the “Chicago Machine”, and how it manages to remain in business generation after generation.
I wish so that the Dems could show themselves as the Party of higher morals and ethics, but have to cynically admit that Politicians are Politicians, and a significant number of them should be in Jail, after the State seizes their assets…..Democrat or Republican.
I agree that politicians are politicians. Politics is inherently corrupt and sooner or later in order to keep their jobs even the most idealistic and high principled politicians have to compromise their principles.
I’ve seen it happen a number of times in democracies (or “democracies”) and monarchies/dictatorships. Good person with great ideas for the country and its people goes into politics “to make a difference”. If he wants to have a chance to implement his great ideas for the country and people he has to keep or improve his position, so over the years it becomes increasingly about keeping his job or advancing, and decreasingly about implementing his great ideas for the country and people until pretty soon it is all about keeping his job or advancing and not at all about “making a difference”.
And politicians who will not play the games at all never gain the kind of power and influence as those who do play the games.
With a rug like that, who can blame him for ramping up his, umm, funding efforts?
the sad thing is, I think that’s his real hair.
Just a quick gut reaction to something Hurria wrote:
To compromise is not necessarily to compromise one’s principles.
One can compromise on a issue or on legislation, giving something to get something or to make the final result palatable to enough people to become workable, without compromising principles or honor or integrity.
Whether Gitmo is closed in two weeks or two months really is not the issue. Closing it is. Now, if it’s not closed within, say, six months, then it becomes time to talk about principles and promises.
I hear what you are saying. However, in my experience eventually they will be forced to compromise principles.
Regarding Guantanamo:
Why bowdlerize the second obscenity and not the first?
I’m not suggesting you should have, but why the inconsistency?
Six dirty words?
You had #3 so why not #6?
one was in quotes.
Ok. I see it.
My favorite today was JJJr, in his news conference, clearly stating that he did not “authorize” anyone to offer anything to Blagojevich.
His spokesman also said that, even now, if Blago appointed him to the seat, that he would not turn it down. That should be reassuring to his supporters.
What really happened is probably what happens several times a year in several different places. Our governor in CT was in jail a few years ago. How they get chosen is the part that I don’t understand. Why do we continue to chose these leaders? I’m sure their unethical methods have been used in their climb to position of governor. It is not the first time of showing their muscle. Yet we the people get locked in to an image of them that hides or ignores the real crook. Should we have made an example of Nixon? Should we make an example of Bush and Cheney by sending them to Leavenworth. Maybe then others would see where corruption leads.