Ah, Illinois, land of Lincoln, and land of bigtime political corruption. Poor Rod Blagojevich is nothing new for Illinois; he just happened to get caught -- on tape no less. Now one question that needs an answer: how did Blago know that Obama was refusing to deal for the Senate seat? Obviously he had been talking to folks on the president-elect's team, if not the president-elect himself. This fact was confirmed on November 23rd by David Axelrod, Obama's campaign chairman, when he said the governor had, indeed, talked to the president-elect about filling his senate seat. Ah...but that fact is inconvenient now in light of the scandal; so drop it down the memory hole and tap dance away from the truth. Axelrod now claims he misspoke and Obama denies any conversations with the gov. It's shuck and jive time.
No surprise. Remember, Obama was trained according to Saul Alinsky's ethics. The end justifies the means and lying is perfectly acceptable when necessary to accomplish the desired goal. At this point, the goal is obviously to put as much distance as possible between Obama and the scandal.
But Blagojevich obviously knows more than what he's said so far (although his foul mouth has certainly said plenty) and does anyone think he will go down quietly? There is no honor among thieves nor among corrupt politicians. Obama will sacrifice Blagojevich in a heartbeat just has he has others if he can. But if the governor has any hard evidence of Obama involvement watch for a deal -- a pardon perhaps after Obama becomes president and maybe an appointment down the line?
One thing's for sure -- political watchers who enjoy scandals will have plenty to keep them riveted in the days and weeks ahead. The cover up has already started and the inauguration is still five weeks away. Rush and Sean will have plenty of fodder for their radio shows if they aren't forced off the air by the (UN)fairness Doctrine.
As for us ordinary folk -- tighten your seat belts and check the air bags.
Seriously, the only taint here is the taint that's being forced upon the president-elect by, well, all of you republican taint mongers? Obama is calling for the governor to resign.
ReplyDeleteLet’s compare this action with Bush and typical republican hypocrisy. When former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was accused of ethics violations and money laundering, and then was indicted on charges of conspiring to commit campaign finance fraud and consequently resigned from Congress in disgrace, President Bush publicly refused to denounced and reject DeLay -- a fellow Texan.
The State of Illinois has produced some really great politicians through out history and I’m sure you couldn’t name one.
This is no different than a few bad Popes don’t make all the other Popes bad.
Let's see...Obama talked to Blago the day after the election. Obama's staff held a two-hour conference call with Blago, his wife, and his legal advisor. David Axelrod said on Nov. 23rd that Obama talked to the governor and then after the scandal breaks claims he misspoke. In early December Blago and Obama were photographed together, but Obama says he's had "no contact" with him. Blago said that Obama et al refused to offer him anything except their appreciation.(Obviously someone had to relay the refusal to deal, which is actually in the Obama plus column.) The only question is did Obama's team report the illegal action to authorities or cover it up as in politics as usual.
ReplyDeleteAs for Bush, you brought him up I didn't. I didn't vote for him and I'm not cheerleader for him. I think the last four years have been devastating primarily because he is not a conservative.
As for Illinois politics, read Tom Roeser.
We probably should give Obama a little rope to hang himself. I think it is likely. His associations and his stated policies don't give me much confidence in him. Nevertheless he has moved right (well right for him means he's still a bit left of the Clintons) and at least that is the right direction. He's an economic ignoramus so I expect that he's going to hash up the economy pretty badly and turn what should be no more that a fairly severe recession induced by bad government policy into a significant depression caused by policies similar to the New Deal while trumpeting the whole time how much worse it would be if he were not doing what he's doing. You read it here first!
ReplyDeleteCheers, Ray
Ray,
ReplyDeleteThe economy is going down. All that Obama can do is slow the fall of the elevator but nobody can stop where it's headed. I think that if they continue to throw money at the problem, we won't ever get to a 'depression' but will drag along much as Japan has for many years now. One of the more accurate has been Mish at
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
Mary Ann,
How is Bush not a conservative? Just asking. I have voted for both republicans and democrats and always divide up my ballot.
Blago actually said that he wanted more than just appreciation. I have not read the indictment but it will all come out.
The reason I brought up Bush was to illustrate that it's what people or leaders do when things are wrong.
I really don't think there is much here and you will end up yelling wolf too much.
As for talking to someone bad, we are sometimes disappointed by friends we thought we had. Blago and Obama never liked each other and refused to endorse the other.
Well Bush is not a conservative because he's not -- his policies have been more liberal light than conservative.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with throwing money at the problems economically is that it's equivalent to throwing money down a rat hole. If you give money to the people whose irresponsibility caused the problems or exacerbated them why do you think it will improve things? You're giving money to the wrong people. Moreover where do you think government money comes from -- it isn't earned income, it is coerced non-productive income. If you want to have the economy recover shrink government and let people keep more of their income where they can make rational decisions that improve their own lives. The government makes irrational decisions that damage everyone 1) first by taking the money they are wasting in the first place, and then 2) by wasting it after they take it. Double wammy!!
Obama is simply a glib empty suit. We'll see if he has any leadership -- he was certainly good at leading his own campaign for the presidency, although spending over 600 million dollars didn't hurt.
Cheers, Ray
Just occurred to me that I could simply stated that what is being practiced here is a belief in "guilt by "association". Just because the Church has had a bad pope doesn't make the Church bad.
ReplyDeleteObama asking about his replacement is normal and we should expect such. However not denouncing someone who was been found guilty is a dereliction of duty and responsibility. As Bush went so has the country.
Not really -- more ideas by association -- those who were the immediate associates of a bad pope were often themselves enablers and the like. Obama's world view is shaped by those with whom he associates.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I am saying no more than that. I'm also not talking about casual acquaintances but those who are in fact the source of one's ideas and those who fund and enable you. I think you are blowing smoke if you think that they don't share common cause.
Frankly, the first strike I have against most politicians is that they are almost always lawyers. Today lawyers are often simply hired guns without particular principles. I admit that that is a broad brush and there are a good many exceptions. However, Obama is on record as seeking out Marxists to be his mentors. "Hello?!"
Ray,
ReplyDelete"Obama is simply a glib empty suit. We'll see if he has any leadership" I absolutely agree.
During the campaign, I voiced disagreement with several of Obama's positions.
I don't believe the small government is necessarily a good thing. It needs to be big in some areas. For example I believe that there should be government protection for pregnant women. Too many get canned or their careers ruined delayed or side tracked because they've become mothers.
Government must focus and be big enough to protect the weak from the strong. Some of the southern republican congressmen actually want less protection for the weak and not less government.
Government needs to be strong enough to punish those who would take advantage of others by not obeying the laws and regulations.
Wise leadership and governance would recognize that just because government can get involved, it shouldn't. As for the financial bail out, should we have let them fail?
Ok so they have put a band aid on the banks. I agree with you that having done that they consider their jobs done and won't do the necessary steps or be mindful of any future problems until it's too late.
The role of government should certainly be, among others, to protect the weak. I could not agree more. "Conservative" is one of those tricky words that means a lot of different things. To me a conservative is one who desires to govern based on principles and precedent rather than fads and fashion. Government in inherently a response to sinfulness in man, but really big government will always become tyrannical.
ReplyDeleteWe need government that is responsive to people and that means subsidiarity -- doing things at the lowest possible point in the government hierarchy.
Big is generally bad -- admitting however that there are fundamental economies of scale. I am not convinced that bailing out these banks was a good idea. Government made the problem in the first place and then threw the people's money away not fixing the problem but papering it over quite literally with paper spent on investments that were not worth what was paid for them. In fact judging from the newspapers we don't even know where the money is being spent. Tell me that makes sense. A few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon you're talking not about real money but about a currency in free fall.
Watch the inflation rate. I'm still getting credit card offers almost as frequently as before all the alledged mess. The difference is that I'm not in debt. Maybe I should borrow a lot of money and invest it and then pay it back in the inflated dollars surely to follow all this mess.
Cheers, Ray