Will the Beltway press follows Stephanopoulos' lead, cont'd
December 22, 2008 10:41 am ET by Eric Boehlert
From Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, the answer is a resounding no.
Technically, Isikoff's Blago piece, which takes breathlessness to new heights, was likely written before Stephanopoulos' Sunday scoop about how there may be no 'there' there re: Emanuel and Blago; the angle the press is praying provides some actual spark to the soggy saga. But even if Stephanopoulos' scoop completely deflates Isikoff's almost comicly innuendo-driven report, it's still worth a look just to understand the sad state of Beltway journalism, where concocting what-if's about Democrats has become a full-time profession.
Isikoff's headline: "If I Had Subpoena Power: Five Questions for Obama."
Note right away Newsweek invokes the spector of Obama being dogged by subpoenas, which is interesting considering prosecutors have made clear they don't think Obama or Emanuel did anythng wrong in the Blago case. But Newsweek wants to create the Clinton-like impression of the Democratic president seeing supbeanas at every turn.
Isikoff's lead:
Invoking his wartime commander-in-chief authority, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham has granted yours truly, a lowly investigative correspondent, sweeping subpoena power to demand that President-elect Barack Obama and his transition team answer all my questions about their dealings with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who stands accused of putting Obama's vacant U.S. Senate up for sale to the highest bidder. (He vowed on Dec. 19 to fight the charges "until I take my last breath.") It remains unclear whether Obama's assorted spinmeisters and lawyers will honor these subpoenas-or even return my phone calls. But in the meantime, the public at least deserves to know the most crucial questions.
A couple things are telling here. Note the almost fooling around/ha-ha tone at the top; Iskikoff's editor has granted the "lowly" reporter subpeana power. See, it's a game. Newsweek's just having a laugh while it smears the president-elect by painting a false picture of him at the center of a criminal investigation, which he is not.
Second, don't you love how at the end Isikoff claim's he's only wallowing in what-if's because the public deserves to know. See, it's not the Village that's obsessed wtih the Blago story, it's the public. (We have our doubts about that.)
But this part is also priceless: Isikoff thinks the public needs to know what the most crucial questions are. Not the answers, but the questions. Why is that key? Becuase any journalist can sit around and dream up Blago-related questions. That takes no actual reporting, which is why the Blago story remains such a big hit. Answers, though? Those are much harder to produce. (Credit Stephanopoulos, he seems to have uncovered some.)
As for the hyped five questions Isikoff would ask if he could put the president-election under oath (gee, nothing presumptuous with that premise, right?), trust us, his five have been floated, literally, by every other Blago-obsessed pundit in the Beltway over the last two weeks.
Behold your press corps at work.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Such an easy game...
Revealed = Fabricated
Not even Bill Kristol is buying it anymore.
If, and this is a big if, Obama did something illegal, he should stand trial for his crimes, just like anyone else.
Thing is, Fitzgerald, you know, the prosecutor, has told us all, that he has done nothing wrong, and neither has his staff. Rahm in trouble? For what exactly? Talking to Blago? Try again Newsmax guy. I know folks like you love this sort of stuff, because it sort of maybe makes Obama look bad (even though, it really doesn't). Who it makes look bad, is Blago, and his little ring of cronies and crooks.
Blagojevich and Obama are just symptoms of the disease in Illinois politics. They investigated Blagojevich for three years before he was arrested. And no, Fitzgerald did not say that Obama did nothing wrong. He said that he doesn't have any evidence. He specifically made it clear that the U.S. Attorney's Office is not in the business of clearing people. The links between Obama and Blagojevich often go through Tony Rezko. The more this gets stirred up, the worse it stinks. Evelyn Pringle wrote a great series of articles about this. You should look them up.
I'll ask again and I would appreciate a straight answer. Barack Obama spent his entire adult life living in a political whorehouse. Do you really believe he's still a virgin?
How could John McCain have come out of the political cesspool in Arizona clean? Who could possibly believe that Bobby Jindal from the notoriously corrupt state of Louisiana is not dirty? No state can top Alaska when it comes to graft. How crooked does that make Sarah Palin?
Isn't baseless speculation fun?
Mr. Davis
Thanks for your hard work on the Reverend Wright story. You are all over that one! I hope we can count on Newsmax to continue their diligent work in building up the Blago scandal.
So? Obama attended his church. Again. So? If Rev. Wright is so "incendiary", can you tell me why we only hear his 20-30 seconds of his sermon that is so "controversial", and by controversial, I mean, he was a little angry, and lashing out against an entire country who oppressed black people. If Rev. Wright is so "bad" how come all you guys have is a 20-30 clip where he makes a few off the cuff remarks about how he, as a black man, has been treated in America. I'll give you that him saying AIDS was given to the black community by the government is a little off base, but it's not as if things like that haven't happened in the past history of this country (Tuskegee, Native Americans w/ smallpox and such). Good. Bad. Or indifferent, it's OUR history, and we have to accept the good and the bad.
Obama has spent his life in Illinois politics, which according to statistics, is the 11th or 12th most "corrupt" in the country. Can you point to anything that he's done that is illegal or corrupt? You can't. Why? Because as far as we know, and as far as we've seen, he's done nothing wrong. Ever. And by wrong, I mean, illegal. John McCain has pretty much spent his entire life in Washington politics, and that's the MOST corrupt place in the country, as far as politicians go. You know, it is possible to be above board on things, and to be a straight shooter, as I believe Obama is. You guys keep making tenuous ties between Obama, and other "bad" people, but indeed, if he was, and is involved in Illinois politics, how could he NOT come into contact with some, or all of these people? He being President Elect, as well as a former State Senator, employee in a high profile law firm, and later, US Senator.
Your entire point is that where there is smoke there is fire, but you have no freakin' evidence, of, well, anything. You just say, "Well, he knows so and so, so he must be dirty as well." If we're going to play that game, we might as well call George W. Bush a Nazi, seeing as his grandfather did business with them before we entered WWII. I would never make that connection, but that's exactly what you're doing here, and it's false and disingenuous, and I'll say it again, Newsmax is the most morally corrupt, and intellectually dishonest "news" source in the nation. And when I put news into quotes, it means, you're not really a news source at all.
Prove to us that Obama has done something wrong, and I'd listen. But he hasn't, and you can't. I'm sure you were one of the man, who were breathless with all of the "bad" things Clinton did during his time as President, but of course, you guys couldn't prove anything with Clinton either, except that he got a BJ from an intern under his desk.
Essentially, as a state senator Obama passed amendments to Illinois law that enabled Blago's appointees (all of them Rezko co-conspirators) to gain control of certain Illinois state boards that controlled billions in Illinois government funds. They were then able to steer this money and other government favors to their associates. These amendments were passed in early 2003 and quickly signed into law by Blago. Just weeks later, huge campaign contributions from these board members and their wives began flowing to Blago and Obama.
Connect the dots. Pretend for just a moment that we're talking about Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney, and the military contractors who have done so well for themselves in Iraq, and connect the dots.
Regarding Wright, it isn't just one clip. It isn't a momentary lapse in judgment. Wright has made a career out of hateful rants against America and against white people. Obama had Wright officiating at his wedding, baptizing both of his daughters, and blessing the new home that Rezko helped him to buy. He attended that church regularly for 23 years. He steered huge donations to the church when he was serving on the Woods Fund charitable board with Weather Underground founder William Ayers. He took the title of his book from one of Wright's sermons.
Wright's message of hate was not an accident. Obama's association with Wright was not casual. Now the lid is starting to be ripped off of Obama's immersion in the corruption of Chicago politics, where pay-to-play is taken for granted.
If these were Republicans, would you be so lacking in any curiosity about Obama's associations? They say a lot about him. Either he's lying whenever he says "That's not the ______ ______ I know," or he is completely naive about the people he encounters. Neither conclusion leaves reasonable people with any confidence about his ability to lead in such difficult times.