Up From Comments: Investigating Obama

Wally on Obama's announcement of no improper contacts with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojavich:

When Sarah Palin (conducted her own investigation of her alleged misdeeds) I vilified her for clearing herself. I am an Obama supporter and I have already written to let them know if they would like to keep the people's confidence, they should find a neutral party to clear you or better yet, let the Republicans review the contacts and let them declare that there was nothing inappropriate.

A substantial difference between Palin's situation and Obama's is that Palin was facing claims of misbehavior credible enough to spawn a full-fledged legal proceeding against her. (Actually, two, but let's not quibble.) There are no credible charges of any sort being leveled at Obama, and there is no legal action under way. The prosecutor of Governor Blagojavich is investigating crimes committed by Governor Blagojavich, and has whatever contacts there might have been with him on tape. The prosecutor has stated that there's no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama, his campaign, or the transition team, and the released transcripts indicate that Governor Blagojavich's basic disagreement with Obama is that the President-elect wouldn't help Blagojavich break the law.

If Obama is guilty of anything, it's avoiding a bad actor, and there is not a single shred of evidence suggesting anything else.

This entire "scandal" is the product of the most vituperative, partisan Republican attack dogs looking for something (anything) with which to destroy the Obama Administration before it begins. They're replaying the Whitewater strategy, attempting to entangle and distract Obama as they entangled and distracted Clinton. And didn't that work out well? Instead of contemplating the pressing issues of their time -- national security pre-9/11, just for example -- the entire U.S. Government and all of our media were focused on the President's sex life. It's worth remembering that for all the noise, a half-dozen investigations concluded exactly the same thing: there was no crime at the heart of Whitewater, and the whole thing was a waste of time and money. And, indirectly, a waste of thousands of American lives as well.

Just as clearly, there is no crime at the heart of Obama's complete lack of involvement with Blagojavich. The allegations and insinuations are utterly without substance.

Wally, your suggestion to turn the investigation over to the political party that is spreading the lies in the first place is ridiculous. The wing of the Republican Party that is making a big deal out of this situation is the same wing that believes Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. This is the same bunch that believes Obama is a Muslim and a Marxist, and who only recently lost their court case claiming that Obama isn't an American citizen. They're so adept at making noise and driving the agenda that the media roll over and repeat their lies as newsworthy "controversy," even when the only disagreement is between what the noisemakers are saying and obvious reality.

The Republicans behind this campaign of lies have demonstrated themselves incapable of telling fact from fiction. They've proven themselves dedicated to the destruction of our newly elected President. Their hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone who disagrees with them is so blinding that they are more subject to imaginary affronts than they are to verifiable fact.

We have serious problems in this country, and we need this administration to be a success. That doesn't mean we all have to agree with what Obama does, and it doesn't mean that we can't use every political process at our disposal to change the direction his administration is heading.

But wanting to hand the future of this administration over to the same bunch of loudmouthed loonies who just lost the last election seems like maybe you, Wally, are asking Democrats to be just a little too reasonable. Sometimes, the situation calls for saying "enough is enough." This is one of those times.

Comments

[Steve]

"We have serious problems in this country, and we need this administration to be a success."

And of course, the hatred aimed at the President over the past 8 years should just be forgotten as soon as King Barry is crowned.

Not likely.

[Tom]

So what you're saying is yes, Republicans should be petty, even it's destructive to the country.

[Pursuit]

Democrats were Tom. The hatred aimed at Bush did great damage to country.

I find your protection of O'Bama amusing. While you correctly point out that there is nothing so far that indicates O'Bama did anything wrong, you completely ignore the fact that his first response was to lie about his staff having no contact with Blago or his crew. It was obvious on its face, since any presumptive pres would take an interest in who was going to appoint him. O'Bama's first inclination was to lie about Wright and to lie about Ayres. Given your problem's with Bush, I would have expected a little more consistency from you

[Tom]

What was the lie in his first response? I've been to lots of websites that claim to have tape of the lie, and I haven't heard Obama say anything on this subject that isn't true.

There are lots of conspiracy theory websites touting the lie, but they don't seem to have an actual lie to point to. They misquote the Chicago Tribune, published long before the Blagojevich scandal broke...they refer endlessly to other blogs referring to a video by the Republican national Committee that...well, it doesn't quite come up with an actual lie. It points out that Obama supported Blogojevich in his campaigns. They just flat make stuff up.

Lies are easy to prove. You provide a quote, which is in contract to reality. And yet after a couple of hours of looking, I can't find the lie. Seriously, what's a reasonable amount of time to spend in the conservative fever swamp searching the spew of outraged nut after outraged nut without finding the thing they're all outraged about? Tell me, and that's the amount of time I'll spend.

Or, you could just provide the information yourself. Why don't you do that, save me the trouble and make me look like an ass at the same time. A twofer! Please, demonstrate I'm wrong by documenting the lie you refer to.

Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude you're one of them.

[Lee]

Well, here's the timeline, best I can tell.

1: Obama says he hasn't had contact with Blag concerning the Senate pick.

2: Video appears from immediately after the election where David Alexrod talks about getting in contact with Blag about... the upcoming Senate pick.

3: After that video evidence appears, Axelrod then releases a statement that he misspoke.

4: Everybody coughs at once, "Bullshit, bullshit."

5: Obama comes out and says, "Hey guess what, we did talk to Blag afterall about that whole Senate pick thing. And everything that we did was above board."

"Trust us."

And everything may have been above board, but after all that, revenge-seeking Republicans aren't the only ones with serious questions and doubts now about what else might come out.

And here's a link from ABC News raising questions. And here's a liberal blogger with serious questions of her own.

So yeah, fever swamps you wish.

[Tom]

Aha! Of course there's no chance that David Axelrod, dismissing an unimportant question long before news of Blagojevich's corruption broke, might have remembered incorrectly one of the thousands of phone calls the President-elect made or took in the period after the election. That's proof that Obama's "first response" was to lie? That's the best you've got?

You will note that the ABC page you link to says this:

"There are no allegations that President-elect Obama or anyone close to him had anything to do with any of the crimes Gov. Blagojevich is accused of having committed."

What we have here, at worst, is an argument about phone logs. Whitewater was a national scandal about sloppy accounting.

But by golly, down there in fever swamp that's proof of Obama's perfidy and -- quite possibly -- his involvement in a clownish scandal. Clearly, Obama -- answering thoughtfully, after the fact when he knew it mattered and that every word he said would be thoroughly investigated -- is lying and Axelrod -- answering off the cuff, pro forma even, when it didn't matter at all, without thought or deliberation or checking the paperwork...Axelrod is telling the truth and Obama is lying.

That's it? That justifies the statement "his first response was to lie"?

That's not proof; it's barely even suspicion.

Oh, and your liberal blogger? You might note that she offers no evidence either. She just says "of course" Obama talked to Blagojevich. That's an assumption, not evidence.

But then, this is all about assumptions, not evidence.

[Steve]

"So what you're saying is yes, Republicans should be petty, even it's destructive to the country. "

I must have missed your posts complaining about the Democrats being petty even though it is destructive to the country. I also wonder how many times you gave a Bush aide the benefit of the doubt by saying he/she "remembered incorrectly"?

Even your latest post blaming the "Bush Administration" (Democrat-speak for "we don't want to include the democratic controlled congress in any blame" for the actions of Madoff seems counter to your new found for the good of the country line.

After a thorough and comprehensive review I find nothing to contradict my previous statement.

[Lee]

I think you're dealing with a bit of a strawman here.

Of course there are the types who believe that Obama is automatically guilty. These are the same types embarrassing themselsves by filing lawsuits about Obama birth certificate. They, along with Dennis Kucinich and his innumerable motions for impeachment, will always be among us.

What is more doubt raising, and more of my concern (and should be more of a concern to Obama supporters) is what exactly was the response of team Obama when approached with a bribe. The hesitancy and inability to initially get a straight answer is what was odd and eyebrow rising.

"I believe my staff of course talked to Blag about the Senate pick, as it would only be natural that I would have some voice in the matter. But of course we had nothing to do with the bribe. I am getting in contact with my staff on the particulars, and will get more detailed info to you as soon as I have that info."

How hard would that have been to say, and it would have satisfied everybody except those incapable of it.

But instead everybody acted all weird, with contradiction after contractiction, and the question is why? As you suggest, an innocent case of not having their act together?

Maybe.

[Pursuit]

Rocky Mountain News editorial. Known hot bed of "one of them" to use your phrase:

"Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges of soliciting bribes for, among other things, putting Barack Obama's Senate seat, which the governor gets to fill, up for sale. Obama insists that neither he nor his transition team "had any involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat."

Forget about Axlerood, we'll be more than charitable and accept your depiction that the question about who would replace O'Bama in the Senate was a throw away that he didn't take seriously. Rahm Emmanuel was on the phone with 4 candidates that O'Bama deemed acceptable, one of whom was close family friend and Daley Machine loyalist Valerie Jarret. While there is no evidence they were cutting a deal, and evidence that they weren't (probably because O'Bama assumed Rod would do the right thing), to suggest that O'Bama didn't know about this contact is to willfully deny reality.

Next time you call me "one of them" you better be prepared to bring it pal.

[Tom]

I'm not seeing a lie there, Pursuit. Obama says his guys weren't involved in making deals, you say "no evidence they were cutting a deal", Blagojevich says they wouldn't deal...where's the lie again?

[Wally]

I've been looking for the original quote that Obama's organization did not have contact with Blagojavich. I also can only find the "no deal making" quote. No deal making is not the same thing as no contact.
Tom, this annoncment would have sounded a lot better coming from Jim Leach or one of the many other Republicans who supported Barack. I wasn't suggesting that he try to convince Rush Limbaugh to vindicate him on the radio. Transparency in government is good. Still hopey, but changey? Not so much. (again, thanks Frank)

[Pursuit]

Guys,

How hard is this? Here is the original quote. Time to admit he lied Tom.

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

Here is the link. http://volokh.com/posts/1228979580.shtml

At the very least you have to admit his first inclination was to lie.

Or maybe, you're "one of them"

[Wally]

Thanks Pursuit. And this is why it is so important to have an independent source review the information and make the call. Does anyone think that Obama and/or his staff are not going to make any mistakes over the next eight years? Of course not. Even Rush Limbaugh would, I think, admit that as a human, Obama is entitled to err as long as he admits a mistake and works to correct it. In the end, I am willing to believe the statement on video refers to any pay-to-play negotiations. A simple thorough review by an independent source confirms it or shows an error in judgment on somebody's part. We move on.
Transparency, in the end, is also the best PR policy because truth will out.
I also want to remind the commentors that I was the one who brought this up. I am probably the harshest critic of GW Bush on this blog, I was second only to Michelle in my Obamamania and I will also be one of the most critical observers of Obama's administration. Anything he does has my name on it, my frozen January feet helped put him where he is today. I think many Bush supporters signed the check and then signed off because it is easier to just say that you made the right decision than to hold your candidate accountable.

[Pursuit]

Bull Wally. A lot of us Bush supporters were highly critical of him. Not for the reasons you would, but to say we signed off is wrong.

As for O'Bama, the dude lied man, simple as that. Weirdly, his lie was a stupid one. My first thought as a non-O'Bama guy was that it was irresponsible of him not to lean on Blago to appoint his man. The spoils of power are important to effective governance if carried out correctly and ethically. O'Bama simply should have said, "ya, i talked to the dude because that is what you do when you've been elected pres and somebody is filling your vacated seat."

While this lie is not a big one, it does show a predilection to fudge the facts when the sledding gets slightly rough. Here's hoping Barry tightens up the act, pronto.

[Wally]

Pursuit, this is why I count you as a reasonable person. You aren't yelling for impeachment over this. And only the sickest among us hope he doesn't "tighten up the act" because he's at the wheel for the next for years and the road is lookin' rough.