MSNBC's Hall rejects GOP strategist's efforts to characterize Obama and Blagojevich as good friends
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Tamron Hall forcefully challenged Republican strategist Doug Heye's characterization of President-elect Barack Obama as a "good friend" of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's. Hall challenged Heye on his "assessment of 'good friend' because," Hall said, "I don't want these things to linger out there without you kinda backing them up."
During the December 11 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Tamron Hall forcefully challenged Republican strategist and TheHill.com blogger Doug Heye's characterization of President-elect Barack Obama as a "good friend" of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D). Hall cited her 10 years of experience as a reporter in Chicago in challenging Heye's assertions, specifically challenging Heye on his "assessment of 'good friend' because," Hall said, "I don't want these things to linger out there without you kinda backing them up."
The day before, on MSNBC's Hardball, Clarence Page referred to the Blagojevich scandal as "fresh meat for that [conservative] smear machine," but added, "I don't think it's going to last long."
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the December 11 edition of MSNBC Live:
HEYE: Let me just say one thing, Tamron. You know, Peter Mirijanian [Democratic strategist] is one of the best professionals when it comes to public relations in Washington, D.C. He knows that whether there's any there there or not, this is not what the Obama transition team want to talk about. And I'll name you one good friend that Governor Blagojevich has had throughout his tenure as governor. It was Barack Obama. He endorsed him when he first ran for governor.
HALL: I mean, would you, I mean --
HEYE: He endorsed him for re-election. This is not what he wants to talk about.
HALL: -- is "good friend" fair? I lived in Chicago for 10 years. I don't know if "good friend" is a fair assessment, and I've covered both of them.
MIRIJANIAN: I don't think so either, Tamron.
HALL: You want to use the words "good friend?"
HEYE: If you look at the statements that Obama has made two years ago, four years ago, six years ago -- absolutely. You know, maybe this was just a governor who lived in his neighborhood, but this is not what the Obama transition team --
HALL: Well, he doesn't live in his neighborhood. They actually live on opposite sides of town.
MIRIJANIAN: No, he doesn't.
HALL: Well, Peter, I'll let you defend him.
HEYE: But this is not what he wants to talk about.
HALL: Were they good friends?
MIRIJANIAN: No, they -- they weren't. Tamron, here -- here's the issue. I mean, I appreciate Doug's efforts, and I appreciate the compliment, Doug, so drinks are on you next time. But the fact of the matter is that, you know, the -- the governor has been out there. He was under investigation, and he decides to then have these conversations, some of which everyone who's been -- a lot of the folks who have been named -- deny ever these arrangements ever being offered. So the fact that we sort of take the governor's position as being the facts in this case is really unfair to everybody involved.
HALL: Well, I mean --
MIRIJANIAN: And I don't think, you know, I --
HEYE: Oh, I agree completely.
HALL: But Doug, and quickly back to the --
MIRIJANIAN: And -- and I don't think the burden is on President-elect Obama, frankly.
HALL: Hang on, Peter. Because Doug, back to the assessment of "good friend," because I don't want these things to linger out there without you kinda backing them up. He didn't speak at the Democratic National Convention. I mean, we know that - listen --
MIRIJANIAN: That's right.
HALL: -- Chicago politics is very complicated. You have some strange friends in strange places, but to say that these guys were good friends, I don't know if that's actually fair.
HEYE: Well, he certainly -- you know, look, President -- President-elect Obama certainly supported his election and his re-election. I don't think there's anything that we've seen -- and I'd agree with Peter, that we certainly can't take the governor's word on this -- that that really implicates Obama. Absolutely. But it is important for the Obama transition team to move past this. They'd rather be talking about Tom Daschle being nominated to the Cabinet --
HALL: Sure, yeah, of course. Right.
HEYE: -- than Rod Blagojevich.
MIRIJANIAN: Of course they would. The -- the issue of what they'd rather be talking about is not the -- is not the question.
HALL: Not the issue.
MIRIJANIAN: It's how close were these two individuals, and how --
HEYE: And the sooner they move that ball forward and get this behind them, the better it is.
HALL: OK, guys, I gotta go on this one, but thank you very much. Good friends.
HEYE: Thank you.
MIRIJANIAN: Good to see you, Tamron.
HALL: We certainly appreciate it, in the true sense of the word.
Not THAT good!! She should have kept that idiot on his toes to make him say how they were good friends when he knows they were not. The crap throwing has only just begun from the republicans.
Agree. That blowhard used as evidence that Obama supported Bagojevich, but given that Bagojevich was a Democrat, that is obvious.
HEYE: "And the sooner they move that ball forward and get this behind them, the better it is."
That's rich coming from a Republican. I think he knows damn well that while Obama may move that ball forward, Fox News and the right-wing professional liars broadcasting on hundreds of radio stations will milk this for Obama's entire presidency if they have to.
I totally agree. Blago is going to be put on the list of guilt-by-association strawmen and hammered with increasing volume until 2012. Nonetheless, I was happy to see this reporter call this guy out a little at least. How much better would life be if reporters would just do that little call-out to these blow-hard talking points guys.
The country may be headed for a major economic meltdown; we're still spending billions of dollars a week on a foolish war; the new president hasn't even taken office; and these jokers are already ramping up the smear machine with absolute fabrications for the 2010 mid-term elections. Hey, Rod Blagojevich is a dirt ball governor. Convict him if he's guilty and put his corrupt butt in jail. But to continue to gratuitously smear the new president with lies is not in the country's best interest at this particular moment. The election is over, guys...you lost. Get over it...
They will not.
Just wait, it's not even Feb '09 yet. Thats when the blinkers come off and the slimy republican greyhounds come out of the traps!!!
They never got over losing to Bill Clinton. They did everything they could, and I mean everything, to try to get himm out of office. I can see eight years of slimy crud coming our way.
WITH?
Because AA will believe they are good buds now and will further his latest conspiracy theory.
What I've been picking up in the media is that the brighter ( or more easily ashamed) right wing yappers are figuring out that this is a more desperate than usual smear attempt, so they're getting Plan B into the mix; If it's shown that Obama was not aware of Blago's attempts to get his dirty deals going, Obama will be portrayed as naive or a dupe. They're setting up a false choice between criminal or Pollyanna.
Of course, if we applied this to everyone, there wouldn't be a person on this planet in politics or business who was fit for his position. But it'll work on the lower level zombies.
Republican campaign slogan for 2010:
"Nobody's fit to run this country. Why not pick us?"
"The government sucks. Elect us, and we'll prove it."
I thought that that was their slogan for 2000.
WAYH?
This is here because we need to recognize the team of champions emerging from the left who will need our help in fighting the right-wing liars.
Obama announces today that he is going to institute national healthcare in 2009 and all these pukes want to talk about is scandal. Evasion, distraction and guilt by association is conservative misinformation.
It could work, Neon. There's a long thread of comments today that's basically this;
Media:Dems are somewhat less corrupt than Repubs, making them the official party of corruption.
Conservative posters: I don't like corruption at all, and comparing respective levels of corruption is celebrating corruption.Yay Media!
Seriously, there's like 150 comments, and I just summarized them.
It's official: Considering corruption, Republicans will now be grading on a curve.
BTW, don't expect this thread to last. I've flagged my original comment because though it was meant as a reply to yours above, I failed to "reply" correctly. Doh!
It's hilarious how far away this is from a scandal. Even if they were good friends, even if Obama attends the governor's Christmas party, has him over for dinner, shared a dorm in college, and played bingo with him every week, there would still not be the slightest shred of evidence of Obama doing anything wrong. Bush was friends with DeLay and nobody cared.
A tip for the media, since I'm here to help. A scandal is when you do something wrong. It's not when your name appears in a story that has the word "scandal" in it.
It's not like Obama went into business with him like Bush did with the Bin Ladens.
I think a whole lot of repugs see this as their last chance to stop a snowball from becoming an avalanche Barack's high approval ratings are going to translate into legislation that is going to tick off a lot of the extreme right
"Barack's high approval ratings are going to translate into legislation that is going to tick off a lot of the extreme right"
And it will be oh so very much fun watching this un-American, un-Constitutional, inhuman ideology slowly wither away into the dustbin of history (at least as a force in the political areana... as this kind of pathetic ideology sadly enough... will be with us for many centuries to come.)
The Blaggard is on tape calling Obama a M'Fer anb saying "F-him" because he's not "playing ball." Maybe Republicans have "close friends" that talk to them (or about them) that way, but THIS LIBERAL sure as hell doesn't!
Imagine if this was happening in Texas in 2000.......Ok, now imagine the leftists being told there is nothing here and to move on.......
Let's just wait until all the evidence is displayed please, and then draw conclusions. But the nature of people is to question until they're satisfied, and there will be those who will continue this for generations. For goodness sakes, there are whackjobs who regularly post on this site that still believe that 9/11 was Bush's inside job.
If just by wishing you believe this is all going to go away, you are in for a tough time.
We are not going to learn that Obama and Blagojevich are "good friends", but feel free to hold your breath on that.
If just by wishing you believe this is all going to go away, you are in for a tough time
Who is wishing for it to go away? But I am sure the Autoworkers today feel this is such a big deal. So does the single Mother with no health insurance , or the family who are on the brink of foreclosure.
Yeah this is a big deal.
Good Grief what is wrong with you conservatives? Is it all about destruction of anyone you disagree with?
Give me a break. Wingnuts on the left, including many posters here, routinely rejoice when a repub's personal problems are aired, or it's disclosed that he/she is involved in scandal. Save the sanctimony
That's typically a matter of hypocrisy, isn't it? Like "family values" conservatives getting caught committing homosexual acts in public restrooms, for instance?
It's typically a matter of hypocrisy when dems get themselves in trouble as well. Their oath of office makes them hypocrites whenever they lie to the public (this gov, clinton . . . for instance), or whatever. The point is, people on both sides of the aisle are gleeful when it happens to their opponents . . . and it's sanctimonious to pretend that it's only conservatives who rejoice at the "destruction of anyone you disagree with"
Violating your oath isn't the same thing as what I described. It's not like people say "hey, look at this guy! He took an oath and broke it!" It's not the same thing at all.
So what I'm saying is that laughing at someone who gets humiliated in that sort of manner is not rejoicing at the destruction of anyone you disagree with. I laugh at Blagojevich because he was formerly a prosecutor, someone who's supposed to fight corruption as part of his job.
Also bear in mind that we're talking about Obama being destroyed, not Blagojevich. This is what Proudconservative said:"Imagine if this was happening in Texas in 2000.......Ok, now imagine the leftists being told there is nothing here and to move on......." That's about Obama, someone Proudconservative disagrees with.
i don't think that one person on here has defended blagojevich. who they have defended is obama, and there is no evidence, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, that he offered anything to blagojevich. in fact, blagogevich cursed obama for not offering anything. claiming this is some kind of hypocrisy by comparing it to some mythical situation in texas in 2000 is a far reach.
and to be clear, you were not the one who made a comparison to texas.
I agree with you guys about Obama . . . That's not what I was responding to and wasn't addressing Proud Conservatives post suggesting that their's a tie between BO and the Blago. . .
ok, but where the hypocrisy comes in, is when we have blowhards like gingrich carrying on about clinton when he's on what, his third affair? and when the edwards thing came out, most democrats were furious with him that he was doing that during the campaign, when he could have been on the ticket when all that blew up.
thomp.steve wrote:
>>Their oath of office makes them hypocrites whenever they lie to the public (this gov, clinton . . . for instance), or whatever.
Yea, I think the last line in the quote sums up the strength of your argument: "whatever." Translation: I don't have a concrete example, so I'll make an absurd argument. By the way, if lying in office makes you a hypocrite (rather than just a liar, which is what it is called in the world or logic), then Bush is the uber-hypocrite.
Perhaps using "oath of office" was a poor choice of words, but if you can't grasp the gist of the point, then you're pretty obtuse. I said it's typically a matter of hypocrisy when dems get themselves in trouble, not unlike cases when repubs get into trouble. Not sure where you come from, but anybody seeking (or holding) office who I've ever encountered holds themselves out to be virtuous, honest, law-abiding, moral, and when males, good family men . . . . When their subsequent conduct belies these acclamations, then yes, they're hypocrites. Look up the definition, it's not complex, and logic doesn't preclude someone from being both a liar and a hypocrite. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
A concrete example would be clinton, who, although I happen to like him, was both a hypocrite and a liar when he perjured himself . . . There are plenty others.
is there some hypocrisy in this case? what is it?
With Blagojevich? Sure if the allegations are true. I don't see the issue with the word hypocrite. It's not a narrowly defined term. On a general level, if the gov presents himself as someone who will uphold and respect the law, but then goes and secretly violates the law, then he's a hypocrite . ..
obviously, that is hypocrisy. but what i pointed out in a post above is that republicans are usually the ones setting themselves up as the party of fine moral character. and they're just as flawed as anyone.
Okay, but my original response to Brab was that when dems get themselves into trouble, their conduct oftentimes makes them hypocrites as well . .
And I agree with your example above . ..
fair enough.
There is a difference, though, don't you think? You like Clinton, so you might agree that what he did isn't grounds for him to lose a great deal of credibility. Of course you're going to lie about an affair, because there's a tremendous amount of damage that comes from the truth. The infidelity and the denial go hand-in-hand.
On the other hand, if Clinton was known for chastising adulterers or preaching faithfulness, then it goes to a higher level. The former situation is a matter of personal morality, the latter one is a matter of being stupid on top of it. They simply don't have the same effect when discovered.
I see your point, and don't at all think that Clinton went around preaching morality . .. I was thinking hypocrisy in a different, more general way. By swearing to enforce, follow and uphold the law, but then lying under oath . .. Clinton was just an example. It's not my intention to gang up on him here. I do actually like the guy, and I easily could see myself lying if I were in shoes as well, just to spite those intruding on my personal life
Of course, and you're using an accurate definition of hypocrisy. I probably should have qualified with something like "blatant hypocrisy" to make my meaning more distinct.
>>Perhaps using "oath of office" was a poor choice of words
Yes, and quite honestly, this post does nothing to clear up your muddled thinking. Many politicians may be dishonest and hypocritical, but you make a gross overstatement when you claim that all are. Pointing to the definition of hypocrisy is not going to help you out either. Do you really think I don't know the meaning, or are you just throwing anything out there to defend your position.
Cllinton was not a hypocrite when he lied under oat. I guess it's my turn to be snarky and point you to your own definition. In the real world what he did is confined to lying, nothing else.
You can't possibly be this stupid. Did I say all politicians are dishonest and hypocrital? Check again genius. I said when dem politicans get themselves into trouble, their conduct typically brings them under the definition of hypocrite. And you obviously have no clue as to the definition of hypocrite. When clinton swore to uphold, enforce, and follow the laws of the land, but then broke the law by lying under oath, he was a hypocrite. This isn't rocket science. And I'm sure his lying under oath made him a hypocrite by reason of the oaths he must have taken to be a licensed atty as well. This is pretty tedious, but you're steadfast ignorance in this regard is remarkable . ..
>>You can't possibly be this stupid. Did I say all politicians are dishonest and hypocrital? Check again genius.
That's not an argument, tomp.steve. It is simply an insult.
>>And you obviously have no clue as to the definition of hypocrite. When clinton swore to uphold, enforce, and follow the laws of the land, but then broke the law by lying under oath, he was a hypocrite.
No it's not. By your definition, everyone in the world is a hypocrite. For example, when we get a license to drive, we agree not to break the laws. But some of us get caught speeding. That would mean we are hpocrites. I have never heard the word used in this way, to apply to anyone who didn't do what they agreed to or were supposed to. So you are simply wrong. And calling me ignorant doe not really help your case.
From dictionary.com:
Hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Clinton publicy approved the desirably of following the law, but then committed perjury. He was a hypocrite. Again, it's not difficult to follow. The definition is broad, and you are ignorant for trying to circumscribe it
Are you channeling Tommy with this argument?
>>From dictionary.com:
You are still wrong.. Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless, and as I pointed out above, everyone one in the world would be a hypocrite according you your defnition. No one has ever not broken a promise or a standard once in their life. That means everyone time someone gets cauught speeding, he would be a hypocrite. Have you ever heard of speeders being called hypocrites?
And calling me ignorant, as I have to keep pointing out, does not amount to an argument.
Hey Idiot, I'm not the one who defined the term.
Websters online dictionary: Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
And yes, at some point in everyone's lives, I'm sure we fall under the definition. What's your point? Again, my point to Brab was that when dems get into trouble, like repubs, their conduct can typically be called hypocritcal. It's not a big deal, and your ignorance is silly
>>Hey Idiot, I'm not the one who defined the term.
My my, what a temper! No, you didn't define the term, you simply are usually it incorrectly. It is really that simple.
>>And yes, at some point in everyone's lives, I'm sure we fall under the definition.
But that's not my argument. We all may be hypocrites at some time of our life, but we aren't so for simply breaking promises. Show me where speeders are called hypocrites. Words do have meaning; you simply cannot torture the meaning out of a words to fit our agenda. And your point to Brab is wrong. Dems are only hypocritical if they have run on a platform or repeatedly stated they believe in one thing, and then do the other. Otherwise, they are not.
Do you think calling me ignorant promotes your argument, by the way?
And you simply stating that I'm using the term incorrectly doesn't make it so. Using the dictionary definition of the term, explain to me how I used the term hypocrite incorrectly in the clinton example. It's not a hypothetical, like your "speeder" example
>>And you simply stating that I'm using the term incorrectly doesn't make it so.
No, but my example does. You cannot stticly use a dictionary definition to determine the correct use of a word. I see this all the time in students who have the dictionary definiton of a word, and then humousouly use it incorrectly in context.
Your definiton states: "a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs." Clinton never pretended to have the virtue of fidelty. He didn't run on that platform. So he is not a hypocrite.
By the way, you absolutely can use hypothetical situations to defind terms. It is done in dictionaries all the time. So I will restate: when you can show me where a speeder is called a hypocrite, then you would be right. You can't, and you are wrong. I can extend the example to cheating in marriage. When someone gets caught cheating in marriage, they are not called a hypocrite, even though when they made their vows, they vowed to love each other forever. Or, to make even a better case, if one were to get a divorce, one would (according to your wrong use of the term) be called a hypocrite. But that is not the case.
Definitions are dervied by how people use langague, and no one uses hypocrite the way you say.
Wrong again. If a driver publicy espoused the view that the rules of the road should be strictly observed by all drivers, but then himself was a speeder, he'd be a hypocrite. His actions would belie his stated beliefs
Likewise with Clinton. If Clinton espoused the view that being honest and complying with the law should be strictly observed by all gov officials, but then himself breaks the law and lies under oath and in public, then he'd be a hypocrite. His actions belie his stated beliefs.
Note that I mentioned to Brab that I didn't think clinton was a hypocrite for preaching fidelity, but then cheating on his wife.
It is you who is trying to redefine the term. Of definitions are derived from the common usage of a word, which belies your assertion that no one uses hypocrite the way I say
last paragraph should read "Of course . ..
>>Wrong again. If a driver publicy espoused the view that the rules of the road should be strictly observed by all drivers, but then himself was a speeder, he'd be a hypocrite. His actions would belie his stated beliefs
No. In my example, I didn't say that the driver publicly stated he would follow the rules of the road. But by merely getting a license, he is agreeing to this. In the same way, Clinton agreed to follow the law of the land when he became president. In both cases, with the speeder and the president, they did not follow what they were legally supposed to do. But we never hear of a speeder called a hypocrite. Likewise, we never heard Clilnton called a hypocrite.
Definitions are indeed made my common usage, but unfortunately for your case, you cannot provide any examples to back up your claim. The Oxford English Dictionary, considered the greatest dictionary in the world, contains examples for every word ever in the English language. You won't find one for the way you are using the word. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can. (My shorter Oxford certainly doesn't even come close to using your definiion.)
The basis for hypocrisy is that the belief the person espouses, yet does not follow, has to be *central* to that person. As I said earlier, when a man divorces his wife, he is not called a hypocrite, even though when he got married, he made a vow to the church to remain forever faitful. That person only becomes a hypocrite if he has always preeched against divorce.
That person only becomes a hypocrite if he has always preeched against divorce.
Wrong. He also would be a hypocrite if he preached against cheating.
As for Clinton, you're simply off base. Of course he publicly espoused the importance of honesty in public officials, particularly toward the citizenry, as well as the importance of following the law. Politicians do more than merely agree to follow the law. They trumpet the agreeable results which flow from upholding a law-abiding society, and from electing honest politicians. When they themselves lie, and/or break the law, they are hypocrites under the dictionary definition of that term. Again, their actions belie their stated beliefs
>>Wrong. He also would be a hypocrite if he preached against cheating.
No, because the man never cheated before he got the divorce. Are you really trying to make an argument, or, as you were accused of above, just channeling Tommy?
I'm not off base at all. Again my challege stands: find an example usage that backs up how you defind the term. You won't. I just went through all the examples I could with Oxford on line, and couldn't find a single case to back up your way of using the word. So my challenge stands: if you can show why I should believe you over Oxford, please do so. Otherwise, I don't think you are furthering the argument at all.
My example is Clinton. Hypocricy occurs when someone's actions belie their stated beliefs. When he lied to the public, and broke the law by lying under oath, his actions belied his stated beliefs in the importance of being honest to the public and the importance of upholding the law. This example fits squarely within the definition of hypocrite. Again, I honestly do respect Clinton and think he's a good man, but in that instance, he was a hypocrite
And if by asking whether I'm "just channeling Tommy" you mean I'm arguing trivialities, then the same could be said for you. Be that as it may, I quit . . .
>>My example is Clinton.
Which is a perfectly circular argument! I asked your for examples that would back up your first example of how you used it with Clinton. You merely repeat your first example. An assertion backed up by itself: good job, sir! Well played! Way to obfuscate.
You stated that I use the term hypocrite incorrectly. I responded by defining the term as someone whose actions belies his stated beliefs. I then provided you a distinct example that fits squarely within the definition
Notwithstanding, my speeding example, like the clinton example, is on point as well. Surely you'll permit me to use my own hypothetical speeder, rather than adopt yours. If a driver publicy espoused the view that the rules of the road should be strictly observed by all drivers, but then himself was a speeder, he'd be a hypocrite. His actions would belie his stated beliefs
Same goes with the cheating spouse who, before going astray, preached the importance of being faithful. . . . Both of these examples are analogous to the Clinton example and fall within the dictionary definition of hypocrite.
Your posts make less and less sense as this goes on. You're simply wrong here and are too childish to admit it
I also gave you citations for the definition that I used . ..
You're absolutely right. If Bush, the outgoing Governor of Texas in 2000, was trying to sell his position to various people, we would just have to wait and see whether there was a connection between Bush and Bush. It could be a right-brain/left-brain thing, or a split personality. You just don't know until you get all the facts.
Seriously, though, if in your scenario there was no indication that Bush did anything wrong, as is the case here with Obama, then I think most liberals would accept that.
On that note, did you know that Obama personally intervened on behalf of an ethics bill in the Illinois Congress, a bill that Blagojevich vetoed? Why on earth would he have done that, and then enter into a shady deal with Blagojevich? It makes no sense whatsoever.
" It makes no sense whatsoever."
Exactly!
The rightwing corporate media knows no other way... they have been doing this kind of 'news' reporting for the last 12 years...
This Obama non connection to Blagojevich is precisely the kind of thing that much of the coprorate media loves... its 99% inuendo and what-ifs and 1% facts (cherrypicked for the most part)...
At the rate of disgust by We the People... the Fairness Doctrine won't even be necessary... but a repealing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is!
The only reporters/news personalities that will come out of this destruction of the media are likely to be those that stayed mainly freelance (Greg Palast anyone)
barbarino,
I wish that your comments about a Bush scenario with no indication of guilt were true! I don't believe that the left would accept this at face value, it would continue to be something to be discussed and investigated. And this example has taken on a life of its own.
What I stated in my posting was that people need to shut up about guilt or no guilt now. We just don't know the truth. I was not accusing Obama of anything, I don't know what all the facts are. I know that pre-election I voiced great concern about Obama's affiliations with leftists but not with criminals.
It would make sense that he or his intermediaries spoke to the governor about filling his seat, but maybe they were the ones that blew the whistle. I would hope that no one from his office would be this stupid to bring money into these discussions. Let's hope thats what's found out.
If there is something I find troubling, is the desparity of what I assume would be a feeding frenzy if this were a Republican. Instead what I have seen mainstream media do is quickly make sure that everyone is reminded that Fitzgerald said he was not involved. But the media never gave the same courtesy to the Bush whitehouse after 2 years of investigating by Fitz, even though he never prosecuted anyone but Libby, and that on a crime after the fact, not the outing itself.
The point of the posting is that the rumors are not going to drop away because the left wishes it so. It is what it is UNTIL the facts come out down the road. I would hope at that time, all would as you said, "most would accept that".
If there is something I find troubling, is the desparity of what I assume would be a feeding frenzy if this were a Republican.
Oh please proudcon, you have no basis for this. Do you remember the feeding frenzy during Monica gate?
jaylying,
But with Monica, Clinton in fact did lie. And remember the new question in most pols? Not just grading his job as president but questions like "How do you feel about the president personally" Never happened before but it did allow the media to report on his moral failure without encouraging impreachment.
Let's hope that with Obama the same is not true. But the interest is not going to evaporate until the case is closed and shows he's not involved. Again, let's hope that is outcome.
i love how you just make all these absurd unsubstantiated arguments like "never happened before" like they prove something.
uh oh. proud conservative asks "remember the new question in most pols?" like "how do you feel about the president personally". his claim is that was some media plot to help clinton avoid impeachment. except, this link talks about clinton's "likeability" ratings over poppy bush in 92 and dole in 96. last time i checked, that was well before monica and impeachment. looks like it's not a "new question" after all.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/21/post_206.html
First of all Proudconservative, I didn't go around mocking your name, I would hope you have the same respect.
Second You said If there is something I find troubling, is the desparity of what I assume would be a feeding frenzy if this were a Republican
The feeding frenzy was well before and after the "lie" , which was about sex, not about WMD or a possible pay for play senate seat. You have no basis for your argument.
I always desist when asked nicely to refrain from teasing regarding monikers. No disrespect intended, just a bit of humor.
The very basis for my argument is that when something scandalous or just appears scandalous, you cannot make it stop by wishing. The question is, does the incident warrant a certain level of response? But the answer depends on the level of interest of the audience. Much of the fuel comes from the media and how they play it. I say they are playing this differently than with republicans.
The other aspect of resolving this has to do with the alledged participants. If you make yourself available to answer questions honestly, directly, I think that helps make this die down as well. Problem is the incident will takes months, maybe years to end at a trial or conviction of Blago. Until then, others will be stuck as collateral damage unless they are able to jump to the forefront and clear their names definitively.
"I always desist when asked nicely to refrain from teasing regarding monikers. No disrespect intended, just a bit of humor."
No, you don't. I've asked you repeatedly, nicely. Maybe you should keep a list.
let's see. fitzgerald did say "he was not involved". the tape shows the governor furious that obama is offering him "nothing". what exactly do you want reported? any breaking news?
youlast,
It has only been a few days since this broke. Let's hope that as more comes out, it is more clearly seen who were involved. That won't end until more of the total of evidence, trial, view of all the tapes are seen and again, this isn't ending before then.
People unfortuantely now need to be proven guiltless rather than the other way around. Especially in matters so public.
i'll bet you think it's so clever when you do those little name changes. and no, i don't agree with your standard. there is nothing that shows abama did anything, in fact it show the opposite. it shows that blajogevich was mad because he was offered "nothing". saying obama must be guilty of something because of some evidence out there is ridiculous. when that surfaces, then you can talk.
objectivecaseoffirstpersonsingularinthelead,
I do!
Your point is correct, but practically, media, personal interest, politics, whatever, make it all to easy to assume guilt before innocence in this world.
Unfair it maybe, but it is reality and wishing won't make it disappear. Get Fitz to bring this to a clear definitive end but in the meantime, the freight train is rolling and won't stop easily.
possibly the first time it was clever, though i don't think so. the next 4 dozen times it gets a little redundant. time for a new act.
the only "freight train rolling" is in your mind. careful it doesn't jump the tracks, or on second thought, it already has. the only "reality" here is the fact that the evidence all suggests obama had nothing to do with this. not that anything would put a "definitive end" to this for you and your fellow mouth breathers who can never ever never let anything end. even when there is not a scrap of evidence.
If you find your assumptions troubling, then I suggest you try and assume less.
even though he never prosecuted anyone but Libby
That's because everyone involved LIED and Fitzgerald couldn't get enough evidence to indict. So instead he indicted and #1 liar - Libby.
and bush said he would fire "anyone involved" and then changed that to anyone charged. bush knew from day one they were involved. or then there's the alternative, he refused to ask them. you guys give a agent's indentity to the press? either scenario, bush was covering up.
boyisayboylistenhere,
So are you assuming that Fitz won't get enough evidence to indict Obama either? Maybe he just didn't plain have the evidence you wished he did.
Proudcon wrote:
>>So are you assuming that Fitz won't get enough evidence to indict Obama either? Maybe he just didn't plain have the evidence you wished he did.
Fitzgerald wrote that Obama is not a supsect. You yes to your question.
You brought up Libby, not me. He lied under oath. He was proven guilty. He was sentenced and jailed. It's called due process. Until a proven web of lies protecting Obama can be shown (as was shown for the outing of Plame), then and only then will you have a point.
Well, you cited people who believe Bush was responsible for 9/11 as your evidence of how "leftists" are. Are there a lot of people who believe that? I could just as easily make an argument about "righties" based on the Westboro Baptist Church. And again, nobody's saying there shouldn't be an investigation, but everyone should agree that there's no basis for any suspicion of Obama at this point.
You realize that Libby worked in the White House, right? It's much more plausible that there might be something more to be found among the actions of his superiors, because you don't know whether he was ordered to do something or not. Obama is not Blagojevich's boss. They don't work in the same place.
I could just as easily make an argument about "righties" based on the Westboro Baptist Church.
Ever go to that website and read the disgusting things about our solders in Iraq and Bush? Those people are nowhere near the mainstream right spectrum and for you to even attempt to associate mainstream rightwingers is distrubing and cheap.
I'm not associating mainstream rightwingers with them. That's the whole point. If proudconservative is going to point to a group of people to justify the behavior of conservatives, then that group had better be mainstream. Otherwise, it doesn't work. It's not like I could justify the acts of liberals by pointing to the acts of the Westboro church, and say "hey, you can expect us to do such-and-such because of those guys". Do you see what I'm saying?
Westboro hates everyone, they hate Bush, they say Bush is going to hell. They even said Reagan was going to go to hell . You can not compare that to 9/11 groups on the left who do hate Bush and probably are closer to the Westboro church on that issue.
Casey wrote:
>>Westboro hates everyone, they hate Bush, they say Bush is going to hell. They even said Reagan was going to go to hell . You can not compare that to 9/11 groups on the left who do hate Bush and probably are closer to the Westboro church on that issue.
That makes no sense.
By the way, there are also right wing groups who have 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Name the right wing groups?
You remind me of someone else who has trouble with question marks?
You remind me of Mumia Abu-Jamal
>>You remind me of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Whey does Victor remind you of a Black person wrongly accused?
I will leave it for Victor to get, inside joke.
It's insane and somewhat disturbing.
Here:
link
Corisi is not mainstream and also is not what i would call "rightwing" afterall he hates McCain.
>>Corisi is not mainstream and also is not what i would call "rightwing" afterall he hates McCain.
I never said Corse was mainstream. I would certainly call him a darling of the right wing. Oh, and Ron Paul supporters also have a penchant for 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Ron Paul supporters are not mainstream either.
>>Ron Paul supporters are not mainstream either.
Good grief! When did I ever say they were? That is my point: that we should not smear the left or the right, or any other political group for that matter, based on the actions or beliefs of one group.
That's binary thinking. People who are extremely right-wing would not approve of anyone mainstream.
Can you translate that into English? I can't compare that (Westboro) to 9/11 groups on the left who do hate Bush and probably are closer to...the Westboro church?
No, when you figure it out get back to me. In the meantime keep trying to smear conservatives by comparing them to one of the most hateful groups on Earth.
I didn't compare conservatives to anyone. If you have a point, make it, but I already addressed what you said previously.
Casey wrote:
>>No, when you figure it out get back to me. In the meantime keep trying to smear conservatives by comparing them to one of the most hateful groups on Earth.
Brab did neither. He actually did the opposite: he stated that it would be unfair to smear the right wing by associating them with the Westboro group.
That is my entire point.
The Westboro group could easily be identified with the left wing becuase they hate Bush. They could be identified with the Obama supporters who voted for him in California but voted overwhelmingly against Gay marriage.
The Westboro group is the wrong analogy, they are not conservatives.
Savage doesn't like Bush either, that doesn't make him identifiable as a liberal. He's just that far to the right.
>>The Westboro group is the wrong analogy, they are not conservatives.
That's a matter of opinion or definition. Many would call them super conservatives. They are so conservative that they don't think Bush is conservative enough for them.
Um... proudcon went to the far left fringe with 9/11, so Brab's point works well. Chill.
babartheelephant,
What have I said that says I believe Obama is guilty? I said I don't know what has happened. I want this to come to an end but it is not going to stop because you don't like possible insinuations. Those will die when Blago. goes to trial or pleads and Fitz can release details with the evidence his office uncovered.
The same goes for Jessie Jackson, Jr. He said he's not candidate #5 and #5 seems to have been willing to pay for it. Since he said he's not involved either, I suppose no one is going to speculate about this? Come on, the issue here is how can we see how this played out without seeing evidence beyond what is shown in the indictment and that doesn't mean I think Obama guilty.
My observation is that when a scandal involves a Republican, the media act like they are prosecutors, when a Democrat, they are like defense attorneys.
Did I say you said Obama was guilty?
I don't know about Jackson, but his statement is not evidence of anything. Fitzgerald said that Obama is not suspected, and you didn't address the bit about Obama intervening in that ethics bill. Both of those are indicators, so you can't compare Jackson to Obama.
Seriously? The wall-to-wall coverage of the Lewinsky scandal was like a defense attorney? Are they defending Blagojevich, who happens to be a Democrat?
Proudconservative wrote:
>>I want this to come to an end but it is not going to stop because you don't like possible insinuations. Those will die when Blago. goes to trial or pleads and Fitz can release details with the evidence his office uncovered.
That's a bunch of baloney. You don't want it to come to an end, and even after the trial, right-wing reactionaries won't let it die down. They still go on about Vince Foster, even after investigations showed he did in fact die by suicide. What you want to do is spread dirt on Obama.
Proudconservative wrote:
>>What I stated in my posting was that people need to shut up about guilt or no guilt now. We just don't know the truth.
Ah, yes we do. Fitzgerald--you know, the guy who has reviewed all the evidence--has said that Obama is not involved. By your standard, we should assume Obama is guilty of *everything,* including murdering Elvis. After all, maybe some proof will surface. You are simply creating an impossible level of innoncense that Obama can never attain, which is exactly what you blowhard Republicans want to do.
Is it possible that Obama insulated himself from the obvious corruption in Illinois politics? Is it possible that Obama steered clear of an obvious scumbag like Blagojevich? Is it possible that Rahm Emmanuel, also, was able to operate in state politics without succumbing to political wish lists? I think it is certainly possible, but with the depth that this scandal is beginning to attain, isn't it what our media is for, to ask and hold accountable the people we elect to office? The majority of the posts I'm reading this morning seem to suggest that there be little or no questioning of Obama's integrity in this matter and I believe that to be terribly irresponsible. The fact of the matter is that Obama did have close contact with Rod as any state senator would and Rahm took Rod's position when Rod moved to the statehouse. Given the taudry set of circumstances, anyone in their right mind would insist on an investigation whether it were a democrat or republican---benefit of the doubt has now evaporated in American politics, I don't care who you are!
I don't think posts "seem to suggest" anything. People state what they think. Obama and Blagojevich are not and were never "good friends".
Who's saying there shouldn't be an investigation? The point is that there's nothing to suggest Obama did anything wrong, so the garbage about Obama being "tainted" or being friends with this jackal has no place in honest discourse.
The majority of the posts I'm reading this morning seem to suggest that there be little or no questioning of Obama's integrity in this matter and I believe that to be terribly irresponsible
Obama has been upfront about this, you and your GOP ilk are really reaching.
could you point to the posts where there is "little or no questioning of obama's integrity in this matter"? the posts i see say there is nothing to connect him to any quid pro quo favors. can we have those posts?
I'm gald I checked back on this thread, very enlightening as to conservative thinking. How do you discuss something with those who treat assumptions, predictions and "seeming suggestions" as fact?
i think the term is "show me the money". until it's there....
The police treat assumption as fact every day. When a married woman is found murdered, the first assumption is it was the husband or boyfriend, and it's usually true. Predictions and seeming suggestions are a little murky but certainly the whole point is that no one to date, myself included, is predicting Obama is guilty of anything or should they. The circumstanses speak for themselves---chicago politics---Rod---Rahm---Obama---"who could ask for anything more....."
The police treat assumption as fact every day. (sigtek)
No, they don't. Unless they're retarded cops. That's one of the most moronic statements I've ever read.
Yes, they do. As in the example I stated, with absolutely no physical eveidence or no eye/ear witnesses or any history of violence or previous altercations, only a dead body, assumptions have to be made to go forward. Only a retarded cop would halt the investigation and simply say, "der aint no home movies of the incident, sarge, so der aint no way we're gonna be able to find out who done dis, uh duh." "You're right Mahoney, looks like this one remains a mystery". Maybe that's the way things are done in Kentucky but not where I live.
So there's a benefit in a case like that, because it might help to solve it.
What's the benefit for assuming Obama's involvement? Where would it help to expedite any justice, exactly?
If there's absolutely nothing at all to work with, then of course you would need to find a direction, and you would turn to trends for that. That doesn't seem particularly analogous to this situation.
I think the trend here is the vacant senate seat left by none other than Obama himself. Rod's tryin' to sell it. Nothing more. Lots of people who are making money off of this incident are gonna expand that, right or wrong.
maybe you could make an argument without your continuous strawman of "halt the investigation". not one person has suggested or implied that. what they've said is there is no evidence obama is involved. no one is halting anything, so it's not honest to keep saying that's the issue.
You can read, possibly as well as I. The majority of posts are crticizing an effort, as is MMFA otherwise we wouldn't have this particular forum, the media's effort to "connect the dots" because there certainly seems to be a lot of dots. Remember, MMFA opened this forum, not me. JLyons says Obama has been upfront and Gov. Rendell just got through criticizing him for not being just that. Brabantio says it is dishonost to report Rod and Barack are buds and victor colorado, obviously close friends with both, puts the rumour to rest.
what dots? specifically, anything concrete that points to obama's involvement in anything unlawful? no speculation, give me your best evidence. and not the fact they're in the same party.
We are not at that point yet and may never get to that point(concrete evidence that points to anything unlawful). To tell you the truth, I honostly believe Mr. Obama is one of the most honost politicians I've seen in a long time(54). But, unfortunately, an ugly can of worms has been opened and given the players involved and their potential impact on national security and the economy and welfare of this country, an exhausting investigation is necessary to protect Mr. Obama when he takes office.
uh, yeah, and that investigation is being carried out. unless something more comes up, all your innuendos about dots to connect and cans of worms is simply that, innuendo. you said you want the media to "hold accountable" those we elect to office. who suggested otherwise? just let me know when there's something to hold him accountable for.
Excuse me?
"The majority of the posts I'm reading this morning seem to suggest that there be little or no questioning of Obama's integrity in this matter and I believe that to be terribly irresponsible."
"Brabantio says it is dishonost to report Rod and Barack are buds"
They aren't good friends. Therefore it's dishonest to report that. If there was anything to support questioning Obama's integrity in this matter, then everyone would have the right to do so. Pointing out the dishonesty does not suggest otherwise.
You say they aren't good friends--how do you know?
---are you candidate #5?
Because Obama made an effort to have Blagojevich's veto of an ethics bill, for one thing. Obama doesn't work in the Illinois Senate. He wasn't obligated to get involved. If they were friends, why would he do that? On top of that, all indications have been that Blagojevich hasn't cared for Obama for a while now anyway. Part of this is that Blagojevich had Presidential aspirations for 2008 himself, but Obama eclipsed him. Then, of course, there's Blagojevich cursing out Obama on tape for not playing along. It's not the tone or language one uses about a good friend.
What is there to indicate they're good friends? If people are going to say so, there should be something to support it.
Anecdotal. You don't really know.
Well, you go with what the evidence shows. That's how objective reality works. From all we've seen, they aren't friends. There's nothing to show that they are. Therefore it's dishonest to assert that they're friends. You could say all sorts of things that "you don't really know" as fact. "George Bush wears women's underwear". Well, you don't really know, so I can say that with total honesty. Your argument is ludicrous.
Are we assuming that people are lying about Obama's intervention in the passage of the ethics bill? Are we assuming that Blagojevich didn't actually say those things about Obama, despite the reports? This sounds like you're suggesting there's a conspiracy going on here.
I understand your point about objective reality but the GW link lacks horsepower. If GW were seen frequenting Merle Norman, those assumptions could be made by someone with little else to do but with Obama, there is a link and that's why the assumptions are made.
No, that's faulty. Knowing someone who works in the same circles does not assert friendship in any way.
I'm "friends" with my boss. I don't socialize outside of work with her, I don't exchange gifts at B'days or xmas, but I do classify my relationship as friends. I've had arguments, screaming matches and positive disagreements with her for years but would reply to anyone asking if she is my friend in the affirmative. Few people see us together for any length of time and the two of us have yet to craft any noticable bi-partisan efforts to date. Yet,..........
You work for her, you have a close working relationship. Where is that dynamic for Blagojevich and Obama?
......and just because they don't agree on everything, especially in politics, it doesn't mean they aren't friends. As for the cursing out on tape, Rod probably knew at that time he was being taped and may have been a thaetrical cover for his very best friend.
What extraordinary favors did they do for each other? Obama supported him for his reelection. So what? Otherwise, what is there?
So let me get this straight. Blagojevich knows he's being taped, so he makes a cover for "his very best friend" (nice, subtle ramping-up there, by the way) while incriminating himself. If he really wanted to protect "his very best friend", wouldn't it make just a little bit more sense not to incriminate himself in the first place? Really, if he's going to do that, why not just admit what he did and then say that Obama wasn't involved?
I was "tweaking" you w/ the VBF. The thought did occur to me and merely saying "Obama isn't involved" isn't very convincing, quite the opposite.
You're not answering my questions. What is there to show that they're friends? How does it make sense for the taped call to be merely "theatrics"? If you want to talk about "convincing", you have to make an effort yourself.
I've never seen or heard of Rod Blagejovich before this unfolded, but from all of the news footage and blogs i have read for the las 5 days, it looks as though theatrics is his trademark. The bluster interview boasting how "anyone can tape me" is Hollywood theatrics at it's finest. Conspiracy theory? Yeah, I'm probably grasping but each day of news brings something I didn't anticipate the day before. This story reeks of corruption and I do hope Obama is not involved but as you stated before, the investigation is ongoing(not necessarily of Obama) and nobody at this point knows how far it will reach.
Nobody knows how far it will reach, and nobody's saying otherwise. The point is that it's not reasonable or responsible to try to make them out to be friends when there's no indication of that at all. If something else comes out, then it would become more reasonable.
sigtek wrot:
>>The majority of the posts I'm reading this morning seem to suggest that there be little or no questioning of Obama's integrity in this matter and I believe that to be terribly irresponsible.
No. It would be terribly irresponsible (but completely Republican) to assume that Obama is guilty, given that the evidence points in the direct opposite direction.
I would like to point out that it's logically impossible to prove something didn't happen - a fact ProudConstipated (to play his little name game) and SigTek can't seem to grasp.
One of the basic tenet's of this great country is innocent until proven guilty. There's not even a shadow of circumstancial evidence that Obama is involved with Blago's misdeeds.
Welcome to Repugnantcon World, Steve; proving a negative is a standard tactic...
Can they divide by zero in Repugnantcon World too?
?
Ask somebody who has passed Jr. High math to help you here.You may be at your limit.
Very insulting chickenmeister, zero is a real number and is used extensively in all forms mathmatics, including triganometry. I studied physics with a slide rule '73-76, but you must have assumed I was an illiterate imbecile. (the operable word being "assume").
You can't divide by zero, real number or not. It's also spelled "trigonometry", and it's "mathematics" as well.
Thanks for the spelling lesson, Bra. Wanna test my physics?
...I also dropped the word "of" in front of mathematics and I am positive I've made grammatical errors elsewhere. I've scoured all of your posts and found none of those unseemly mistakes(did you catch the sarcasm?). I never said you could divide by zero, the gist of my "?" was the insult said about me but not to me.
I'm not talking about grammatical errors. I'm talking about claims of higher education while not knowing how to spell the names of subjects.
As for dividing by zero, why not make yourself more clear? Did you think you needed to point out that it was a real number actually used in mathematics?
No, it just worked out really nicely for you to make such obvious errors while protesting that you're not illiterate. And can you divide by zero in trigonometry?
Sounds like an argument with my first wife! Pointing out spelling mistakes is anti-climactic. Those "obvious errors" make me illiterate in your world and no, you cannot divide by zero but you can multiply by zero, so, logically you can state that because division is the inverse operation of multiplication, maybe you could, it just doesn't work out. I often speculate about things people say are impossible and usually come up with the same conclusion, but at least I investigate with an open mind. I certainly, judging by this conversation, cannot say the same for you.
The misspelling came off as inconsistent and phony. I'm not saying it discredits you or anything, but it undermines what you said. It's something to bear in mind.
"you cannot divide by zero but you can multiply by zero, so, logically you can state that because division is the inverse operation of multiplication, maybe you could, it just doesn't work out."
That's "logically"?
What do I have a closed mind about? I never said anything was impossible. I'm talking about all indications as they currently stand. If you understood the point about objective reality, then I don't know what you expect here.
Mathematics is astute logic. It bends to no one. My example was just that. Multiplication and division live together as inverse functions until "0" is thrown in to the mix. The closed mind inference refers to the whole idea that since there are no home movies or security cameras or "smoking guns" of any kind, that they simply can't be friends or there simply can't be any kind of connection between Rod and Obama. I'm not saying there is but I'm not ruling it out.---Gotta go, Brabantio, gotta move furniture with my son. Have a good day, talk to ya soon.
Nobody's said or implied that "there simply can't be any kind of connection". It goes against all that is seen and known. There's no basis for the suspicion.
I'm just trying to figure out the relevance of "you cannot divide by zero but you can multiply by zero, so, logically you can state that because division is the inverse operation of multiplication, maybe you could, it just doesn't work out" as pertaining to the exchange in question. It was a comparison to the point that you can't prove a negative. So if "it doesn't work out", then you agree with the point being made, right? Positive is the opposite of negative, they live as inverse concepts until "proof" is thrown into the mix. So the burden of proof rests with those trying to establish Obama's involvement, therefore it's not "irresponsible" for there to be little questioning of Obama's integrity at this point.
....the ? was for an inane statement directed at me which was merely "posting to the cacophenous choir"
If I'm understanding what you mean by my inability to grasp something, I've never advocated Mr. Obama or any of his staff to prove he didn't do something, only that with the given circumstances beg for an investigation, whether Mr. Obama is implicated or not. The real story here is this is the president elect that's close to the villan involved so it's gonna get the attention it has recieved---no right wing plot---just hollywood style hype---it's gonna attract flies like Cheryl Crow's hand.
They might not be good friends but he came out of the same corrupt political machine. Obama is not "clean" as Biden would have you think.
Where's the proof?
On of the constant tomes of Conservative dogma is that people can lift themselves up despite their environment. Thus, a person who is raised in a poverty and crime should be expected to ignore their surroundings and become a good, law abiding citizen.
So which is it - people are a product of their environment, or can they throw off the shackles. No one dollar bet needed Mr. Duke! ("Trading Places" reference...)
The fact that Obama has pulled himself up by his boot straps is wonderful. But he chose to get involved in Chicago's corrupt political machine.
This is the point where you'd need to show some evidence of Obama being involved in a corrupt political machine. Otherwise, Steve Wyp has you nailed to the wall, and you just look silly.
That was an exceptional point.
Also, Obama worked in Chicago before he ran for office. What was he supposed to do when he wanted to run for office, move to Louisville? And what if someone really wants to make an effort to start cleaning up the system? They can't do it, because you have to be part of it, and you can't be part of it without being somehow corrupt yourself. So the message to people interested in reform is that once it's known to be corrupt, then you'd better forget it, and just accept that it'll never get any better.