Illinois Governor Arrested

Obama said he had not, and nobody on his staff had talked to the governor.

Now, it is almost certain at least somebody on his staff has been, in fact probably his right hand man.

Among many things we know, Axelrod had said Obama had discussed it with the governor, until he later denied it when he found out the problems the governor was into.

Explain that, Merry? Somebody is lying, in fact maybe more than one, and I doubt the tapes will lie.

Very amusing what a difference it makes when it's your bull being gored.

NOW the press needs to leave the Prez (elect) along for the good of the nation.

Love it!

Because the people working for him are apparently involved, if to a minimal degree.
And since they worked for him, he is responsible.

That is the same standard the left used against Bush when the whole Scooter Liby affair surfaced.
The left liked to claim that since he worked in the Bush WH, Bush had to know about it and was therefore responsible.

So, since apparently someone that worked for Obama was in talks with Blago, Obama had to know about it and is responsible.

If you are going to apply a standard, you need to apply it evenly, even if it involves your man Obama.

Okie you are full of "probably" and "almost certain" and a bunch of conjecture, but so far you have no actual facts. As you said, the tapes don't lie. We will find out one way or another soon.

There is difference in being involved in the start of the investigation of the sale of senate seat and being involved in the sale of senate which is what post number 3499951 is about in which you responded.

You're about as dumb as they come. Show us evidence other than your imagination that Obama is guilty of anything?

From what Blagojevitch is reported to have said someone from the Obama campaign is guilty of refusing to give anything more than appreciation for naming Candidate number 1 to the Senate seat. To which Blago replied f*ck them and called Obama a motherf*cker. Candidate 1 is allegedly Valerie Jarret a first class pick. Looks like Obama is a squeaky clean motherf*cker in this affair.

Amen

You can't really think that's reasoning, can you? It is true that certain members of the hyper-partisan Left leapt at every opportunity to blame Bush for any and everything, whether it was merited or not, but: An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. Since Obama has no authority to sell there, and really not much benefit to be had either; where pray tell do you see a motive? Hyper-partisan idiocy doesn’t make any more sense from the Right than it did from the Left.

And so did every other politician in anyway connected to a scandal...before it became clear that they did.



Bipo asked if this question was rhetorical. I ask if it is serious.

Put aside for a few moments that you admire Obama and voted for him. Put aside as well, for those same moments, the fact that it irritates you that Obama's political enemies will make as much of this scandal as they can.

Now look at the facts.

Obama is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine. So are Blegojevich and Rahm Emanuel. Obama very strongly supported Blegojevich in his bid for the Governor's mansion, and he appointed Rahm Emanuel to his Chief of Staff. Although I willingly admit I am unable to name them, I would bet my house that there are quite a few other products of the Chicago Democratic Machine in his inner and outer circles.

David Axlerod, Obama's chief political strategist, state before the scandal broke, that Obama definitely was in contact with Blego about the open senate seat. After the scandal broke, Obama asserted he was never in contact with Blego on the matter. After Obama declared, Axlerod recanted.

There are a number of intriguing "unnamed" individuals in the criminal complaint - particularly "Advisor B" who, it appears, was interested in a deal whereby Obama's pick, Valerie Jarret, is appointed, Blego gets to head "Change to Win," and Obama then does something favorable for "Change to Win," but in a way that "there is no obvious quid pro quo."

One of Obama's campaign mantras was a call for and a promise of "transparency and openness" in government. Anyone who has heard his response to questions on the matter should be hard pressed not to perceive the hesitancy and parsing in his responses.

None of these facts amount to anything like proof that Obama or members of his staff are in any way implicated in the scandal.

They do, however, give rise to questions and interest that a fair press will pursue - not as a pack of wild dogs, but as professional journalists.

Nixon repeatedly stated he and his advisors had nothing to do with the Watergate burglary, but we soon learned that was not the case thanks, in large part, to a persistent press.

Clinton repeatedly stated that he had no relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but we eventually learned that he was lying.

This is not to say that Obama is lying, but it is to say that simply because he denies something is no reason for the press and public to automatically accept his denial as truthful.

At this point, I believe he had nothing to do with the scandal, but that doesn't mean one of his advisors did not, and while any unauthorized actions on their part should not taint Obama, it would be heartening to see him summarily deal with such a miscreant, no matter who they might be.

This is, perhaps, opinion, but it is an opinion shared by many: Obama is being very circumspect or cagy (depending upon your point of view) in his comments. Yes, yes he "can't" comment on an ongoing investigation --- the great refuge of all politicians wanting to avoid discussing a scandal. In point of fact he can discuss the case, excluding information provided to him by the feds, and he has: He has called for Blego to resign. If I'm Blego's defense attorney I would be making a lot more hay of that comment that any discussion Obama might have about the possible involvement of his advisors. How can Blego get a fair trial when the President-elect of the USA reacts to allegations with sorrow and disappoint and calls for the defendant to resign his post? Does this not tell the majority of potential jury members in Illinois that Obama, The Expected One, believes Blego is guilty?

Here it is December 12th and the story hasn't lost any steam.

Why might that be?

The press wants to destroy the guy they protected during the election?

Republicans control the press?

There's a real story here?

And here's an aspect of the story that needs to be discussed:

Why was Valerie Jarrett Obama's preferred appointment?

What are her qualifications to serve as the junior senator from Illinois?

Loyalty to Obama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Jarrett



Nothing illegal in his promoting her selection and probably nothing unethical, but certainly it is a fundamental example of Old Politics. Does Obama really believe that Jarrett is the best qualified person in Illinois to fill his seat?

No, but it's still early in the play.

Who knows what new characters and plot twists will appear.

Nail-biting time for Obamaniacs.

The suspense is so terrible.

When will it all go away?

But if you were to quiz them on this discrepancy they would likely tell you that they always find it cogent to identify a Republican miscreant as Republican because of the "hypocrisy factor."

When a member of the party that lays claim to "Family Values" proves errant, it is their job to underscore the hypocrisy for the American people.

All well and good. If some homophobic fag-basher is caught playing footsie with an undercover cop in a bathroom in the Minneapolis Airport then it certainly is appropriate to point out the irony if not hypocrisy. Why that can be encapsulated as "He is a Republican," is beyond me, except as evidence that the press believes all Republicans are homophobic fag-bashing hypocrites.

Better yet is what it says about their take on Democrats.

Obviously nothing ironic or hypocritical about a corrupt Democrat.

Sticks and stones...

There is no proof that Obama is guilty of anything, and I've never asserted there was. What's more, I've opined that I don't believe he is. (Somehow you glossed over these comments - what a surprise!)

What is so rich about your post is that you, of all people, are taking the position that the press should lay off a politician for the good of the country.

I would warn you not to try and confuse the issue, but it would be of no avail.

When a party makes the claim that they are the "moral majority" it's only right for the media to "reveal" their hypocrisy.

How so?

More qualified than Jesse Jackson Jr?

Finn's imagination runs wild again. He wrote:

Now, all you have to do is cut and paste when and where I said that.

When and where has the Republican Party laid claim to being the "moral majority?

When and where did every member of the Republican Party assert that they have infallible moral character?

Your hyper-partisan perspective is incapable of seeing the very distinct difference between hypocrites who happen to be Republican and all Republicans.

And if you don't think that Blegojevich, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson, Tim Mahoney, Elliot Spitzer et al are hypocrites it speaks volumes on your expectations of Democrats.

Finn also wrote:

Nothing but innuendo with no proof or fact.

Not much cut & paste effort to find



But I guess I was wrong in interpreting this as a assertion that they should not.