« Why Having a Basement Full of Wine Makes Sense: Going Vertical | Main | In Bidding the Bush Administration Farewell, It's Worth Remembering That We Are Where We Are For a Reason »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?


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.

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?

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)


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"

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.

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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.