MSNBC's Brewer, Newsweek's Isikoff baselessly speculated about impact of Blagojevich arrest on Obama
SUMMARY: MSNBC Live co-host Contessa Brewer baselessly speculated that Gov. Rod Blagojevich's arrest for, among other allegations, allegedly trying to sell President-elect Obama's Senate seat, might "taint" Obama and "whoever gets named to the Senate seat." Newsweek's Michael Isikoff responded, in part, that "this is a very sticky matter for Obama," adding: "There are a lot of -- a web of interrelationships between Obama and Blagojevich's political world that's gonna make this awkward." Neither noted that, as U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald did later, the criminal complaint "makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever."
Discussing the "broader political impact" of the December 9 arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges during the 11 a.m. hour of MSNBC Live, including the allegation that he attempted to sell former Illinois senator and President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat, co-host Contessa Brewer asked whether or not the situation would "taint" Obama and "whoever gets named to the Senate seat." Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff responded, in part, that "this is a very sticky matter for Obama." He added: "There are a lot of -- a web of interrelationships between Obama and Blagojevich's political world that's gonna make this awkward." Amid the baseless speculation, neither noted that Obama is not in any way implicated in the case; the criminal complaint, as prosecutor and U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald noted during a same-day press conference, "makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever -- his conduct." Indeed, during the press conference about Blagojevich's arrest, which occurred after the comments by Brewer and Isikoff, Fitzgerald cautioned the press to "not cast aspersions on people for being named or being discussed or if you learn they're being interviewed."
During the 11 a.m. hour of MSNBC Live, Brewer teased a segment about the "political implications" of Blagojevich's arrest by asking regarding Obama: "How will it affect his transition effort and his image going forward?" During the segment, Brewer asked whether or not the governor's arrest "taint[s] him in any way." Isikoff went on to speculate that "this is a very sticky matter for Obama." He continued:
There are a lot of -- a web of interrelationships between Obama and Blagojevich's political world that's gonna make this awkward. For one, one of the key witnesses against Blagojevich who has recently cut a -- believed to have recently cut a deal with the prosecutors is none other than Tony Rezko, Obama's long-time fundraiser, a guy that got a lot of scrutiny during the campaign because they bought adjoining houses together -- they being Obama and Rezko. It's also interesting that Blagojevich had previously held the congressional seat that -- that went on to be held by Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff. ... So there are interconnections here that's gonna make this very awkward for the Obama people.
Neither Brewer nor Isikoff noted that Obama was mentioned in the criminal complaint only in the context of Blagojevich's alleged attempts to benefit from naming his Senate replacement. As Fitzgerald said during the press conference later that day: "I should make clear the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever -- his conduct."
Fitzgerald went on to say during the press conference that "people should not cast aspersions on people who are discussed on wiretap or bugged tapes or conduct when other people are scheming to figure out how to approach them for different things." Fitzgerald continued: "We hope you'll bear that in mind and not cast aspersions on people for being named or being discussed or if you learn they're being interviewed."
From the 11 a.m. hour of the December 9 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: I'm Contessa Brewer at the politics desk tracking the political implications of this arrest -- a massive corruption case at the very top of the president-elect's home state. How will it affect his transition effort and his image going forward?
[...]
TAMRON HALL (co-host): For more on the broader political impact outside of Illinois, let's hand it over to Contessa Brewer. She's live at the politics desk. Contessa.
BREWER: Yeah, let's talk to Washington bureau chief of the Chicago-Sun Times Lynn Sweet and Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, who recently wrote about Chicago corruption for the magazine. Both join us from Washington now. So, Lynn, when you're talking about the fact, and -- and Barack Obama just said this on Meet the Press. He said, look, I can't focus on the replacement for Senate in New York, because I'm really wrapped up in what's happening in my home state of Illinois. Does this taint him in any way?
SWEET: Well, that remains to be seen. Actually, I doubt it. The indictment talks a lot about how Governor Blagojevich had what, seems to me, very unrealistic claims -- even in the best of situations --that President-elect Obama would have any appointment for him in store, even if he wasn't under this cloud. They're just not that close. If you remember, Rod Blagojevich had basically no role in the presidential campaign -- they kept him at arm's length. So, I -- I don't think you should over-interpret that Meet the Press comment to mean that he was in any kind of negotiation with Blagojevich. I don't think that's what he meant.
BREWER: All right, Michael, let's talk a little bit about the investigation here. How much does the charge as it stands now against the governor taint whoever gets named to the Senate seat to replace Barack Obama?
ISIKOFF: Well, I seriously doubt at this point Blagojevich is gonna be the person naming that next U.S. senator. We'll have to see how this plays out. I don't know what the -- the fine points of Illinois law on this, but when you have a governor in jail, it -- it makes it highly unlikely that that's the governor that's gonna be making the selection. I should say, first of all, this is just an absolutely incredible story. Patrick Fitzgerald just said in his press conference -- in his press statement that Blagojevich had been putting a for-sale sign up for the United States Senate seat.
And while Lynn is certainly true that -- is certainly right that Blagojevich is not personally close to Obama, and there's no -- and there's not a lot of direct connections for -- between them, this is a very sticky matter for Obama. There are a lot of -- a web of interrelationships between Obama and Blagojevich's political world that's gonna make this awkward.
For one, one of the key witnesses against Blagojevich who has recently cut a -- believed to have recently cut a deal with the prosecutors is none other than Tony Rezko, Obama's longtime fundraiser, a guy that got a lot of scrutiny during the campaign because they bought adjoining houses together -- they being Obama and Rezko. It's also interesting that Blagojevich had previously held the congressional seat that -- that went on to be held by Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff.
BREWER: And -- and Michael, let me interrupt you.
ISIKOFF: So there are interconnections here that's gonna make this very awkward for the Obama people.
BREWER: And when you're hearing -- when you're hearing Patrick Fitzgerald say that the breadth of this investigation is staggering -- when you looked into it, Michael, did it seem that way to you?
ISIKOFF: Yeah, I mean, look, Illinois -- not to put too fine a point on it -- is a nest of corruption. Three of the last seven governors of Illinois ended up in jail or prison. Now with Blagojevich in jail today, I guess that makes four out of eight. I believe it's the highest gubernatorial incarceration rate in the country, which is not a distinction most states would like to have.
From the noon hour of the December 9 edition of MSNBC Live:
FITZGERALD: I should make clear the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever -- his conduct.
From the noon hour of the December 9 edition CNN Newsroom:
FITZGERALD: We hope that people out there understand that this complaint only charges two individuals. These two individuals are presumed innocent, but we make no charges about any of the other people who are referenced in the complaint, most not by name. And people should not cast aspersions on people who are discussed on wiretap or bugged tapes or conduct when other people are scheming to figure out how to approach them for different things. We hope you'll bear that in mind and not cast aspersions on people for being named or being discussed or if you learn they're being interviewed.















Isikoff clearly prefaces his "sticky" remarks, with "Blagojevich is not personally close to Obama, and there's no -- and there's not a lot of direct connections....."
While there is no reason to believe there is any connection to Obama whatsoever, does MMFA really think news/chat TV won't milk this distraction and wallow in a juicy political story by hauling out one speculator after another. Because they will.
I think MMFA is pretty much counting on it.
I know I am. The RNC had a press release out within an hour of the announcement, doing all kinds of rhetorical gymnastics to try to tie Blagojevich to Obama.
The morons neglected to read the actual criminal complaint against Blagojevich. It's crystal clear that he and Obama don't care for each other and have no significant relationship.
he and Obama don't care for each other and have no significant relationship.
Brewer apparently hasn't yet heard the details of the indictment as was reported on NPR and elsehwere. The taped conversations included Blago's disgust that the Obama team would not give any favors in exchange for a desired senate appointment. Instead of hurting Obama, this revelation is a postive endorsement better than anyone could hope for.
It's not like the right wing media would stoop to guilt by association, right? I mean, besides rev. wright, and ayers, and ...
But I wholeheartedly agree. We aren't like the GOP, toss the rat in a cell and don't look back. Let's let the GOP keep defending Larry Craig...
You mean like they did Cunningham, Foley, etal????
Yeah, they really pushed them out. In fact, they were so hot to get rid of them, the GOP waited until it was absolutely clear they couldn't salvage their careers before they said anything.
Well, at least the voters in Lousiana were smart enough to get rid of a Congressman with a shadow hanging over him. If we all were as observant and acted on those observations, maybe, just maybe, we could turn the culture around in the political circles. I sincerely hope BHO can lead the way here, but I'm afraid the "rot" is so deep that he will not go untouched (and we know that will be so it the way of the screech monkeys, Shamity, RashL, Michael the Dolt, etal).
'Baselessly' speculated? LOL
Speculate:
-- to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds
-- talk over conjecturally, or review in an idle or casual way and with an element of doubt or without sufficient reason to reach a conclusion
While those aren't the only definitions of 'speculate'...they are appropriate to this thread...speculating on a topic, by it's very definition, is most likely baseless.
Brewer is an airheaded news reader with little credibility...just like most of the cable news hosts filling the cavernous hours of coverage for these networks...but that's what keeps mmfa in business...monitoring tedium and then making tedious rebuttals...
Baselessly speculating...oh my aching ass.
Exactly....how would she speculate basefully?? This is a joke, and once again shows the only true aim of MMFA is to protect dems at all cost. But this is a great story.
Change we can cash in on
Change we can believe in....unless you are a dem, then it is business as usual.
Change we can take all the way to the white house. Obama may have more scandals around him before taking offcie than Clinton did, and I did not think that was posible.
Obama didn't offer him anything. What's the scandal as far as he's concerned?
Indeed.
POV, please enlighten us. What precisely is the connection between Blagojevich and Obama?
I'll give you a head start:
"...I gotta suck it up for two years and do nothing and give this motherf**ker Obama his senator? F**k him. For nothing? F**k him."
and
"...they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F**k them."
From the criminal complaint against Blagojevich.
If you still believe in the "Clinton Scandals," you're overdue to read The Hunting of the President--also a documentary movie, narrated by Morgan Freeman, for less literate types.
There's a big difference between being accused of corruption and being corrupt, but this is an ontological distinction which entirely escapes Clinton-haters.
In fact, the Clinton Administration had fewer convictions and forced resignations than any two-term Presidential adminstration of the 20th century. By this fairly objective measure, they were the cleanest two-term administration since Teddy Roosevelt.
By contrast, the Ronald Reagan administration had the most convictions and forced resignations of any administration in history, until Bush II. The Reagan gang were so hopelessly and fecklessly corrupt, they would sometimes rack up more convictions and forced resignations IN A SINGLE DAY than the Clinton administration managed in its entire eight years! If this surprises you, it shows how biased the America media are.
Wow, a four-paragraph attempt to shoo away attention from Obama. Nice.
wow, completely missing the point as usual. it was point of view who brought up the allegations of "more scandals around him before taking office than clinton did". and perry pointed out that there actually very few actual clinton scandals. but you're probably more interested in just trolling, otherwise you would make a response.
Perry,
Do you have any link that counts the respective convictions and forced resignations for the Presidents in question? I think that would be interesting to see if you can back up your claims.
Well pointyhead, it's not possible so it won't happen. Must suck watching the most ethical, transparently open and competant administration ever preparing to lead america out of the mess created by your "vaunted" republicans. Yup, eight years of Obama will sour 70% of the country on republicans for another 40 years. Enjoy the desert y'all created for yourselves!
once again shows the only true aim of MMFA is to protect dems at all cost.
Who are they protecting here? Blagojevich?
It certainly isn't Obama, because he clearly doesn't need protecting from this scandal. It doesn't remotely touch him.
Oh POV....
What would this site be, if not for you and your always insightful insight!
Tell ya what buddy...
When you or any rightwing fake can produce a shred of evidence..... no.... scratch that... if and when the day comes that any involvement of Obama in the "Rod Blagojevich's arrest for, among other allegations, allegedly trying to sell President-elect Obama's Senate seat" that Obama had anything to do with it...
I'll deposit $1.00 into that persons PayPal account (I like this dolar amount because it reminds me of the bet from Trading Places)... and since I don't expect you or anyone else to take me up on it... I'll simply say that you need not do anything but sit back and see if you or whomever end up a dollar richer someday!
But I get the feeling that I need not bother...
Wesley, good job looking up "speculate". You managed to convince POV.Now look up "baseless".
care to enumerate them?
"Obama may have more scandals around him before taking offcie than Clinton did, and I did not think that was posible. "
personally, i'm not an obamamaniac, but it wasn't really a hard decision to make, between him and mccain. most of the clinton "scandals" were ginned up by the "liberal" media, then advanced by the RNC. if those are the kinds of "scandals" to which you refer, i'm guessing it'll be a bit harder this time around.
of course, that won't stop the people at FOX from contiuing to make noises about non-scandal "scandals", it's their job.
Wes,
It goes to the mindset of many here, including MMFA apparently. One shouldn't speculate unless there is no reason to speculate and all the facts are known. Lol....
It's just like an opinion, if it is contrary to the prevailing liberal opinion on these boards, it's worthless and unsupported.
Specalatin' and pontificatin' is what built cable news, it ain't goin' away....
I agree, Tommy.
Speculation is just another word for curiosity.
Hughes speculated that the Spruce Goose could really fly.
Jefferson speculated that the Lewis/Clark Expedition would yield great information.
JFK speculated that we could land a man on the moon.
There is not one thing wrong with speculating...tempered with a little common sense. The opposite action is to mindlessly sit around...waiting for someone to tell you what you should think and know.
you two need some "speculating"? this isn't really speculating, but you can take it to the bank, as they say. if blagojevich is convicted by fitzgerald, you won't see liberal columnists saying he should be pardoned, like what happened with poor little scooter libby.
Or Larry Craig. Oops, I just heard he lost his bid to get his conviction overturned...
Wow if you want to compare Larry Craig and his gay sex episode at the airport to a Governor of a state extorting a business to fire an editorial staff and attempting to sell a senate seat , i think you completely miss the point of what a "scandal" is. And it should have nothing to do with what party the Governor is a member of.
do you disagree that many major conservative media figures called for scooter libby to be pardoned for his perjury conviction?
I could care less about what conservatives are asking about in regard to scooter libby. That has nothing to do with what the Governor of Illinois has been charged with.
nice dodge. the point is the hypocrisy.
it is a dodge if i disagreed, i do not disagree but frankly do not care what Conservatives feel about Scotter Libby. I am more concened with the case and in particular how the media continues to pursue it. I agree with snoopy and most progressives. It seems you want to defocus and talk about other issues, that is fine also , i just do not think progressives will win if they do that . That is basically saying the behavior is ok because cons did it.
where did i say that the governor's behavior "is ok"? oh that's right, i didn't. what i said was that major conservative media figures campaigned for scooter libby to be pardoned, and i said that you won't see liberals doing that. i said it was just proof of hypocrisy. if you agree, then i guess we have no argument.
I never said you said the governors behavior was ok, you better relax. We do agree, but i do not feel this was the forum for that argument.
then explain this statement: "that is basically saying the behavior is ok because cons did it." who was "basically saying" that?
I am no longer engaging you, you appear hostile and looking for a fight.
no, i quoted you and asked who you meant. easy question.
I am no longer engaging you, you appear hostile and looking for a fight.
I haven't seen a hostile word from mefirst. In all honesty, LarryScan, you appear beaten and are scampering off with your tail between your legs. Oh well, better luck next time.
The only comparison here is us libs are all for getting rid of Blagojevich while the GOP defends every republican accused of anything. You're right about one thing, it shouldn't matter what party the guy belongs to, but history tells us one party fights harder to deny...
I would agree with you with the exception of Larry Craig. Republicans as homophobic as they are wanted to throw Larry Craig to the wolves and they failed. I see no Republicans who supported Larry Craig for sexual misconduct. I do not think anyone would defend the Governor of Illinois, and it has nothing to do with politics, the guy is not political he reminds me of a person from the Sopranos.
On that we can agree. As I said before, purge that gov from the ranks. We don't need him.
I see no Republicans who supported Larry Craig for sexual misconduct.
Ben Stein & Neil Cavuto?
(with video!)
The Google is not your friend.
deeznuts, i was talking about the homophobic Republicans in the Senate. Did not realize Ben Stein and Neil Cavuto were elected repugs.
Neil Cavuto is a key anchor on the Republican Party's press office, Fox News, and Ben Stein is a darling of the far right-wing. I'd say it's a fair assumption they are generally representative of the GOP's views.
Oh sure, the Senate Republicans gave Craig the obligatory slap on the wrist if only so they could be on record as having "punished" him.
It does not change the fact the the Republicans are homophobic and did not stand by Craig in away that we all know they would of if he were arrested for making out with a women in a public place.
you said you saw "no republicans" who supported larry craig.
Yes he is , always has been always will be. If you say it is Blue, he argues it is light blue.
Just wondering, do YOU think B. Stein and N. Cavuto are republicans? I do. And they've most certainly defended Craig.
I thik Stein and Cavuto are A holes and yes they did defend Craig. They are not only republicans but propagandists. However LarryScan stated he was talking about Republicans in the Senate in his followup. I think he deserves some slack from fellow progressives but some like to just start fights because they apparently do not have Tommy to start in with today.
He stated he was talking about homophobic Republicans and the fact of the matter is that homophobia exisits in both parties.
Sure it does but the radical right are the ones driving the homophobic bus.
Now THERE I will agree with you.
If it had been an affair, or a good old-fashioned prostitution scandal or something like that Senate Republicans would have circled the ol' wagons around Craig and defended him to the death while simultaneously playing the victim card. A few did anyway, because the first rule of GOP membership is "always defend your buddies."
But because he has "the gay" we get tepid, ham-handed defenses and a bit of Fox News "teh libruls are being mean!" nonsense.
I actually remember hearing one Fox News commentator accusing "the Left" of hating on Craig simply because he's gay, as though that was the crux of our complaint against him...
Nevermind his rank hypocrisy (he was a high-profile gay-basher) and the fact that he was trolling for sex in a public place! I don't know ANY liberal who defends that kind of behavior, gay or straight.
exactly, the hypocracy of that whole situation mad me very sick. What was worse for me was that as I said earlier if Craig was trolling for women, we all know damm well that all of his fellow homophobic Senators would be in his defense.
Speaking of homophobic Senators, what do you think is preventing the Democrats from supporting gay marriage?
I personally don't think they can support gay marriage simply because it's not time for that yet. The public isn't ready for that, at this point. I'm sure that there are quite a few people who support gay marriage but can't say so for that reason.
That doesn't make anyone homophobic in and of itself.
The public was not ready when the slaves were freed either.
True, but this isn't quite as dire a situation as that, and that was under fairly extreme circumstances anyway. The difference between civil unions and gay marriage isn't nearly as pronounced as the difference between slavery and freedom.
It's really just a matter of practicality. If you realize that progress is being made, that it will still take a while, then the risk of losing your seat to an actual homophobe isn't worth making the statement. And a backlash to the movement could set it back more than you move it forward. It's probably better to have this sort of change be established by courts anyway, instead of through legislation. So while morally you could argue that it's the right thing to do, in effect making such statements could hurt your cause. It's probably wiser to try and create as much equality as possible under the banner of civil unions until people get over the silly obsession with the traditional status of marriage.
Very good points. Cheers.
youlast,
I think that scooter just 'misspoke', did he not? He was charged with changing his story about something he didn't do, now that's a heinous crime! Let's hope George Bush pardons him and those two border patrol agents before he leaves the office.
As for leftists asking for leniency, they probably won't need to because their team will take care of Blago and this business, the chicago way, long before he has a chance to start naming names. I would watch my back and what I eat gov.
what he did do was lie to a grand jury repeatedly. and what he did do was give valerie plame's classified identity to people who were not supposed to have it, and then he lied and said that they gave it to him..
pc,
If memory serves me, Libby's prison sentence has already been commuted. I don't believe he was pardoned. I agree about those border partol agents.
You obviously don't read lefty blogs. (I read righty blogs, when I can stomach it.)
From Kos to Cole to Digby, they're all calling for Blagojevich's head.
And "those two border patrol agents" deserve to spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison for murder, playing wet-nurse to swarthy, dark-skinned inmates.
In fact, I FIRST heard of Blagojevich's arrest on Alan Colmes' blog!
I read it first on Daily Kos.
And what did Kos say?
"No, f**k YOU, Governor!"
I think it was BarbMD who said F**k you Governor but i am sure Kos agrees as does any rational American. There was even a good thread there about how sleezy and reaching the RNC was in trying to connect the President Elect. Typical RNC BS.
The Daily Kos is partisan garbage.
Says the famously non-partisan Caseysprings.
Partisan in what way? Because you disagree with them?
Partisan, yes. (Garbage is subjective.)
But that was kinda my point. By most right-wing measures, the "partisan" Daily Kos would have every reason to align itself with Blagojevich and defend him to the death.
My point was that they're NOT. They are just as disgusted with him (if not more so) as anyone on the Right.
And "those two border patrol agents" deserve to spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison for murder, playing wet-nurse to swarthy, dark-skinned inmates.
If you're talking about Compean and Ramos, the two dark-skinned patrol agents, then your head is pretty well stuck up your a$$. Very progressive and brilliant of you to want them sentenced for murder when they didn't kill anyone. Looks like you need to research what actually happened, it's been all over the news the last few years so it's not all that difficult. How long imprisonment do you believe the individual they shot deserves -- the swarthy, dark-skinned, drug-dealing, illegal alien bag of sh!t?
My fault. I was thinking of something else.
The two who shot an unarmed guy in the back still deserve to serve out their sentences.
I thought I would throw my hat into the MMFA tipster ring by saying that Isikoff was just on Rachel Maddow's program baselessly speculating about this and she didn't correct him or anything.
Of all the yammering that we've done on this thread...your post wins the blue ribbon...it's a real bulls-eye.
Your usual dose of common sense trumps the partisan hackery again...kudos, bruce!
Speculation is just another word for curiosity (Wesley)
No it's not.
Obama already going down in flames and he's not even in office.
>>Obama already going down in flames and he's not even in office.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Blagojevisch is on record repatedly complaining that Obama would not take part in his scheme:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x248599
But like I say, let the right wing froth at the mouth at non-scandals. Obama will win by an even bigger margin in 2012.
Do you think Obama or Axlerod lied, funny?
Obama is saying Axelrod "misspoke", who knows? My guess would be that Obama wanted to distance himself right out of the gate so he said there were no conversations. This could be a sticky distraction for Obama. I, for one, hope he clears up the "misspoke" Axelrod remark pronto.
Hey Dex, are you a moron or or are you just playing one on this board? You see, asking either or questions is pretty stupid, isn't it?
"Axelrod this evening issued a statement saying. 'I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.'"
Funny, why are you name-calling? Axelrod "misspoke", which is GOP for "lie" according to most posters on here.
>>Funny, why are you name-calling? Axelrod "misspoke", which is GOP for "lie" according to most posters on here.
Oh, was I name calling? I was just asking a question *in the same way you were!* If you post threads that amount to bomb throwing, then expect the answer to be in kind. (By the way, I wasn't name calling; I was showing how obnoxious your question was by turning it around.)
Let me repeat: Axelrod "mispoke." If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, please let me know. Once, in the Bush administration, someone early one said that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Clearly, the spokesperson meant "chemical" from the context. I agreed that the statement was misinformation. Only when politicians continually repeat inormation that is proved false do I accuse them of lying.
Now let me ask you a question, dex: Is Obama completely innoncent of any connection, or did some martians come down an alter the tapes of phone conversations from Blagojevich when he cursed Obama for not going along with his scheme?
Seriously: the evidence points to Obama playing no role, and you want to harp on a contradiction that amounts to nothing. What does that say about you?
Exactly, it's pretty hard to match up Blogojevich saying "F him" with some sort of wrongdoing on Obama's part.
This is going to be one of those "caught in a lie for no good reason" things for Obama. Axlerod or Obama lied, one of the two, about talking about Senate selections with the gov. And needlessly...just because Obama talked to him doesn't mean he knew about the bribing and corruption.
>>This is going to be one of those "caught in a lie for no good reason" things for Obama.
For the right wing blowhards, it will be. But the right wing reactionaries will never accept Obama for president, and will spend the next four years digging dirt, at which time Obama will win by even a bigger margin, because most Americans want a person who will help them with their lives, and Obama will probably be veiwed that way (rightly or wrongly), and most Americans don't care about the gossip.
case in point, the clintons. they murdered vince foster, whitewater, just keep repeating the same nonsense. we already have the "obama wasn't born here" crap. they can't prove he was born anywhere else, but that won't stop the whining.
sign the petition here. worldnetdaily on the obama birth certificate. yawn.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81585
somethingfunnyinmypants,
Isn't that what happened to President Bush after he won the election in 2000? Leftists never accepted his victory and looked under ever rock to try and find something to pin on him. And yes, he won by a bigger margin the second go around!
Gosh, ya got us there. That would explain that 80% job approval rating he got for months on end after 9-11. Bush got the benefit of the doubt after that, and he blew it playing partisan hack.
Are you seriously comparing the highly dubious Florida results in 2000 to Obama's clear-cut and unquestioned trouncing of McCain?
What do you mean second time? The Supreme Court gave him the first decision and he won by what, 3% the second time? Oh, yeah a 3% conservative win is a mandate, while a 7% Democratic win means you have to be bipartizan, l nearly forgot. I can understand why Rove, Hughes and the airbrush squad feel like they have a chance whitewashing bush's legacy when they have people like you around touting the "achievements" of the Worst. President. Ever.
Didn't have to look very far.
Bush has dug his own hole. His legacy is a shambles.
"And yes, he won by a bigger margin the second go around!"
Hooray!!! Wasn't that great? How exciting that was! People were shouting from the rooftops over that result (at least in New Orleans they were).
You have a lot to be "proud" of when it comes to re-electing Bush.
This is just the beginning...News is slow after the election, they must work to tie him to something despicable on a daily basis...Sounds like the Gov' is an out of control politician---nothing new ...No serious connections to Obama!!
NO news---from nobodies!!!
All I gotz ta say is Tony "F-ing" Rezko!
Very concise way of saying "I'm a gullible zombie". Thanx for not taking up too much space.
Thanks for being a complete moron who can't spell and thus presents no challenge to productive individuals like myself. Have you had that abortion that you so badly want?
You've got to be kidding. Because he said "thanx", you really want to pretend that he doesn't know the correct spelling of "thanks"? That has to be the absolute lamest retort in the history of posting. And I don't mean just here, either.
Did I hit a nerve?
No, it was just a shockingly stupid response. I was quite literal in what I said, it wasn't hyperbole.
The funnier part of it is that the WetNoodle is knocking on the Colonel for typing 'thanx' instead of 'thanks', but in WetNoodle's post, he cannot spell even the smallest of words in the English language - 'TO'.
Get'em Col. Even the WetNoodle didn't get the real message behind your response. ;)
As for abortions - if WetNoodle were as smart as he says he is, he would know that the Colonel is definitely a male - and therefore cannot have "...that abortion [he, the Colonel] so badly want[s]".
That's an excellent point, I hadn't really gone back to re-read his original post. "...gotz ta...". But then "thanx" is supposedly the sign of someone who can't spell.
If I had any doubts about the magnitude of the lameness of his post, that finished them off for good. That's a record-breaker.
Not to challenge you too much, but a simple pronoun would have been correct at the end of your first sentence ("me", not "myself"). I'll admit that you're productive, it's just that you're producing something that's not in demand. In fact, mos people pay their local sanitation or sewage departments to get rid of it.
Thanks for asking about the abortion. I'm making my case, but your sister has her eye on the extra food stamps.
There is a "t" at the end of most.
And just in time!
I could take a typing course. Your problems might take more than that. I'll read your post as an extra-large nuthin'.*
*nothing
I just want to point out the absurdity in saying "this is a very sticky matter" etcetera etcetera when Jack Abramoff is actually in prison. Unless he, and a few other noteworthy gentlemen (Ken Lay, Tom DeLay) get mentioned in the same story, this is completely unfair. And yes, I realize they weren't governors. But they were in close political relationships with the current president, and they did very illegal and unethical things that weren't talked about very much. So it seems a little rediculous to talk about how things might be "sticky" when people didn't much bother to talk about the things that were downright bad.
Aside from his obvious talents...it appears Ben Franklin was a seer of future events. Here is his take on Gov. Blagojevich...in 1787.
-- Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice—the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.
And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence...It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers. --
Wes,
Great quote. Here's another in that same vein.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. - Lord Acton
your right wes, Ben Franklin COULD see into the future, look at what he had to say about bush:
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
What is really scary is what Voltaire, a Frenchman had to say about him:
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."
"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."
"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
And of course the top one:
"The despots always have a weak shade of virtuousness; they support the laws before they try to destroy them."
Wow. How accurate!! It sends a shiver doesn't it.
I have to give Wesley and AA some credit for finally unloading on the Bush administration with those quotes.
My fave from Voltaire;
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
Counters the whole "moral relativism" theme , and most of modern Republicanism, very nicely
No mention of who might have tipped off Fitz.
Rumors are that it was Rahm that tipped them off. So, if that it true, not only is Obama NOT implicated in the scandal, his administration is responsible for turning in the perp.
It seems evident that MMFA baselessly speculates that there will be no impact of Blagojevich arrest on Obama. The fact that Obama is even mentioned in the FBI investigation suggests that he is impacted. People are going to start asking questions especially since Obama comes from the same Chicago political machine as Blago.
That is outrageous
That's almost as stupid as your previous post. How would Obama's name not be mentioned when Blagojevich is trying to sell Obama's vacated seat? By the same logic, someone could steal your car and your name might be "impacted" by the crime.
Incidentally, criticizing someone's statement does not automatically make that criticism the opposite of that statement. If they criticize someone for baseless speculation, that doesn't mean they're speculating the opposite will happen.
To be fair, Brab, Noodle didn't say it was evident, just that it seems evident. You can't argue with whatever reality's going on in Noodle's noodle.