Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt is absolutely mind boggling to read of the pay-to-play corruption gone wild in the indictment against Governor Rod Blagojevich -- from withholding money for a children's hospital unless given campaign contributions, to trying to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder, to demanding editors be fired by the Tribune Company in exchange for help selling Wrigley Field, to speeding up all of these efforts before a new ethics law taking effect this January 1…. not to mention the egomaniacal profanity with which Blagojevich issued his demands.
But beyond the shock and sadness of this moment, what's key is something that novelist Scott Turow zeroed in on in a New York Times editorial today. He writes, "I hope the governor's arrest galvanizes public outrage and at last speeds reform."
Hit the nail on the head.
I spoke with Nick Nyhart, President and CEO of Public Campaign, this morning and he told me: "Especially with the leading advocate of public financing in the US Senate now being [Illinois Senator] Dick Durbin, and with another Illinois former Senator about to take the White House -- both hail from this state and both are strong reformers. And so, one thing they could do, is to seize upon this scandal as the reason why we need to have public financing. It doesn't prevent corrupt people from serving in office and committing crimes, but it does take away a major avenue of transactions for corruption. And it relieves all those pressures. So our hope is that they'll seize upon this moment to illustrate why it is that we need an alternative system of funding bids for office…. The Blagojevich example is politics at its absolute worst. We want politics to be something other than a cesspool. It sends the wrong message to the public about what politics can be about. All of our current elected officials have the opportunity now to separate themselves from the pay to play system -- of private financing of campaigns -- they should take it."
The Blagojevich Moment can be about more than just shock and shame -- it can be about transformation in a nation that's ready for it.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
his arrogance crossed the line into stupidity.
amazing.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 12:51pm
While there is a dire need for reform, stricter rules and laws. The current politicians are not going to voluntarily place more rules and restrictions on their activities. No one likes regulation, no matter how needed it is. Unless there is serious public outrage calling for it, its not likely to take form. Especially in light of so many folks losing jobs and homes I just don't think the outrage will materialize with our current economic crises.
Posted by Extraneous at 12/10/2008 @ 12:58pm
A very little stinky fish compared to the hsuB/cHeney admin, but who's really comparing...
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2008 @ 1:17pm
I do not believe that we can ever seriously reform this system. This is a democratic governor. A democratic congressman had tens of thousands in a freezer. Democrat Spitzer had his high priced sex companions. The republicans cannot even count their scandals. The culture of corruption is now so pervavsive that neither major party can claim enough moral stature to have serious ethics reform. Its time for a new political party that has the discipline to enforce ethical standards and punish its own members for straying. Without strict party discipline of a progressive style party little will change.
Posted by jlenahan at 12/10/2008 @ 1:17pm
Ok, so lets say Blago actually gets convicted-- would that be comparable to a sergeant, lieutenant, captain, colonel or even a general being convicted for Abu Ghraib? Consider it went all the way to the top, if we are indeed talking corruption.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2008 @ 1:44pm
>>>It is absolutely mind boggling to read of the pay-to-play corruption gone wild in the indictment against Governor Rod Blagojevich -- from withholding money for a children's hospital unless given campaign contributions, to trying to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder, to demanding editors be fired by the Tribune Company in exchange for help selling Wrigley Field, to speeding up all of these efforts before a new ethics law taking effect this January 1<<<
The funny thing, KVH, this is all too common in Washington-politics-as-usual. We only hear about the egregious cases where one is too stupid to use underlings to create a "plausible denial" defense.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/10/2008 @ 2:14pm
his arrogance crossed the line into stupidity.
amazing.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 12:51p
One of his friends said there is a real possibility he may "not be playing with a full deck of cards".
He's going to sing like a canary isn't he.
Posted by Benchrest at 12/10/2008 @ 2:21pm
This will change nothing, sadly. The compliant MSM is already sanitizing it. This has not been associated with the democratic party in any of the reports I've seen. ABC's Good Morning America led with a 10 minute story on the issue and failed to EVEN ONE TIME mention the Governor's political party. The bias is so blatant I can only smile.
Here's one conservative who knows that corruption is non-partsan. And I hope that Obama cannot in any way be tied to this pathetic, shameful example of hubris.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 2:24pm
Ah yes the liberal media.
As if it's only sanitizing the ONE side of every story. Have you just been asleep for the Bush presidency?
The MSM is guilty of so much more than partisanship. It's a shame that it's not an issue that can't be discussed in a non-partisan manner.
Get rid of this corrupt piece of crap. Did anyone actually think the Dems were better than the Republicans on these terms? And actually punish the people who commit such acts, instead of writing loopholes into legislation to protect them.
Would be a good start for Mr. O....
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 2:30pm
Hi Texas, yep, you're right. My mistake. The press loved Bush. I remember all of the flattering profiles on him in the NY Times and the fairness in their approach to Bush's legacy. And I was fascinated at the professional balance especially the networks paid to the recent presidential campaign. [Sarcasm]
Even the MSM itself disagrees with you and admits the obvious pro democratic party bias.
Enjoy your illusions there. I'm glad we agree, though, that the corruption is non-partisan.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 2:41pm
Actually this scandle restored the faith of the public in Illinois politics. Tradition holds, Chicago rules. :)
Posted by pyeatte at 12/10/2008 @ 2:49pm
This has not been associated with the democratic party in any of the reports I've seen. ABC's Good Morning America led with a 10 minute story on the issue and failed to EVEN ONE TIME mention the Governor's political party.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 2:24pm
They failed to mention his religous views or his ethnic background too. To suggest that the MSM is sanitizing this case is amusing. This has been the top story now for 2 new cycles, Ted Stevens was news but not top story worthy, Norm Coleman you have to read the nation to even know about, Cold Money Jefferson was big news but not top story worthy. This story though because of the outrageous audacity of trying to sell a senate seat and the lack of other stories has been in the headlines across the country.
The media is not tying it to the democratic party because his political party is as relevant as his hair color, or his serbian backgound. I agree that corruption is nonpartisan. Anyone who suggests that one party is more corrupt or susceptible to corruption than any other political party is living in a dream world. Party affiliation is as relevant as eye color or religion.
Posted by Extraneous at 12/10/2008 @ 2:54pm
Posted by Benchrest at 12/10/2008 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
he impresses me as not exactly mentally healthy as well...
definate personality disorder there...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 3:04pm
The press loved Bush. I remember all of the flattering profiles on him in the NY Times and the fairness in their approach to Bush's legacy.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 2:41pm
Then you also remember the MSM standing on the sidelines parroting the administration line of pre-emptive war, and how we must get them before they get us. How they never questioned any of the pre-war propaganda.
To suggest the MSM has a liberal bias is just believing the propaganda that the right has been screaming every time they recieve unfavorable news. If you repeat a lie long enough and loud enough people actually start to believe it. Standard Rovian tactics. The MSM could give a rats a** about liberals. All they care about is $$$, they sell the story that gets them ratings, increased rating = higher advertising revenue, that equals profit. Now I am not saying there is no bias in the media, what I saying is that they are biased towards the almighty dollar. Remember the liberal bias during the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment process? Media bias goes both ways if it means coporate profit, it just that you like many have succumbed to the propaganda. Yesterday you told me to wake up. Dare I say it?
Posted by Extraneous at 12/10/2008 @ 3:06pm
definate personality disorder there...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you can see it in the eyes...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 3:07pm
"Then you also remember the MSM standing on the sidelines parroting the administration line of pre-emptive war, and how we must get them before they get us. How they never questioned any of the pre-war propaganda."
Are you talking about the MSM parroting the administration's line, or the majority of democratic senators the MSM was supporting, who voted YES to authorize war with Iraq in October 2002, including a couple key members of Obama's future cabinet - one of whom at the time was considered a front runner for the presidency?
Extraneous, we'll just have to respectfully disagree on the subject of media bias. Thank you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 3:27pm
you can see it in the eyes...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 3:07pm
MOOHAHAHAAA!!
Posted by Benchrest at 12/10/2008 @ 3:41pm
"Now I am not saying there is no bias in the media, what I saying is that they are biased towards the almighty dollar. Remember the liberal bias during the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment process? Media bias goes both ways if it means coporate profit, it just that you like many have succumbed to the propaganda."
~Extraneous @ 3:06
Just to add my two cents worth here, while it's certainly true that the so-called mainstream media is not particularly "liberal" per se, it should also be abundantly clear that there is a right wing echo chamber exhibited most profoundly on the AM radio waves, but championed most effectively by FOX "News" on television --other components include venues like the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and the multitude of right wing think tanks. This echo chamber has significant spill over effects into the larger MSM.
There is no secret to why this should be so, or what their tactics should consist of --smear most vociferously those just a shade to your left in order to drive the discourse to the right. Also, it's not a conspiracy that a small subset of very wealthy business apparatchiks would bang a gong for their interests even to the point of waging a media war that typically leaves more objective points of view trampled under foot.
Our history books are bathed in the fat red marker scribblings of powerful entities editing events and the later coverage of those events to place themselves in the best light. War is the most visible result of the struggles of the powerful to maintain or expand their power. "Terrorism" is largely the result of the weak in response.
In the end, we face not so much a left versus right conundrum as an enlightened versus unenlightened one.
May we evolve soon to a higher plain of understanding.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2008 @ 3:57pm
Just to add a note of clarification.
Even the higher quality mainstream media outlets such as the NY Times or Washington Post are mostly co-opted by these larger forces --as we saw so clearly in the Iraq war run-up.
Ethics reform in our Federal government, as KvH has trumpeted for here, should be just one component of a larger movement to bring greater enlightenment as a whole. In that case, media reform --specifically, the need to bring brighter, more sharply reasoned arguments into the public discourse-- should be a central thrust going forward for progressives and smart conservatives in the battle to salvage our obviously crumbling American society.
Barack Obama can be a critically important igniter of the flame should he decide to use the potentially profound power of the presidential pulpit to stimulate the public consciousness even as he struggles to stimulate the economy.
It'll be interesting to watch. I hope.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/10/2008 @ 4:19pm
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that zero gets done on media reform by the Obama team.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2008 @ 5:12pm
IT TAKES TWO TO DO THE CORRUPTION TANGO.
Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich tried to S E L L an US senate seat. . .Jesse Jackson, Jr. tried to B U Y it for a million. One party is just as bad as the other. A corrupt transaction cannot happen without a seller and a buyer. The buyer is just as guilty as the seller. Both parties need to resign, or be kicked out of office.
Greed and payoffs can no longer be allowed or tolerated in politics. Eight years of George W. Bush taught us that lesson.
Posted by BuddyFW at 12/10/2008 @ 6:31pm
Thank you, Katrina.
Posted by lberry730 at 12/10/2008 @ 9:23pm
Hi Texas, yep, you're right. My mistake. The press loved Bush. I remember all of the flattering profiles on him in the NY Times and the fairness in their approach to Bush's legacy. And I was fascinated at the professional balance especially the networks paid to the recent presidential campaign. [Sarcasm]
Even the MSM itself disagrees with you and admits the obvious pro democratic party bias.
Enjoy your illusions there. I'm glad we agree, though, that the corruption is non-partisan.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 2:41pm
I seem to remember the MSM giving Bush a free pass on the road to war. I seem to remember a time not that long ago when it was a big deal for ANYONE to outrightly disagree with the war, or any section of the Bush Doctrine, lest they be labeled unpatriotic or unAmerican, or even better, unsupportive of our troops!
I also seem to remember a 2004 campaign season where people like Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were given a national stage to spread their vicious and STILL unproven lies.
You're preaching to the choir here. I can't stand the MSM treatment of BO. All that mindless "Hope" rhetoric drives me out of my goddam mind. The softball questions, the constant dodging of real issues in lieu of running the latest story on Michael Vick. All of it has made me almost completely disconnect from any MSM news outlet.
But you're being dishonest.
Unless of course, you're of the camp that believed Sarah Palin was given a raw deal by that evil, indomitable, Katie Couric, when she asked her *gasp* what magazines she reads. I can't help you there.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:40pm
Posted by Extraneous at 12/10/2008 @ 3:06pm
Didn't you know GE/NBC are a hothouse of liberal ideology?
LOL
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:44pm
:-)
Thanks to you all for the insightful dialog. Good stuff!
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/10/2008 @ 11:38pm
I agree. This is a great moment to remove private money from politics. We would still have dominate parties and their selection process to think about. Interested money, will seep into the process as the parties select their champions. However, public funded elections, that bar all private funds, will create not only cleaner politicians but force a REAL public debate on issues, since other parties will have equal time. If for some sane reason it happens, election cycles need to be much shorter. Not to be too outlandish, but France has a system worth using as a model. I have another reform suggestion. Time to push for a House of Representatives with 1200 members. This will give the people a stronger voice.
Posted by marcusmedler at 12/11/2008 @ 03:45am
Posted by comanchenation at 12/11/2008 @ 12:44am
Yep...thinking this is RIO/RED.
BTW, the funniest part about the Blagojevich affair is how NOW the Right loves Patrick Fitzgerald!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2008 @ 09:06am
Hmmm, that's funny for sure. But don't know about that love Mask. Far right seems to believe Fitzgerald pulled the trigger too soon for one reason only. To keep Obama safe, knowing it was only a matter of time before he entered the bidding game with both feet. (For the record, that is not my take on this. There is no evidence yet.)
Golly, don't Blagojevich and his lovely wife make us all proud to be Americans, though? Those Illinois Democrats have a keen sense of character.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 10:07am
So zhat does all this mean? Should the headline in the Chicago newspapers after the November election instead have read, "Last honest Chicago politician planning to leave for Washington"?
Posted by Mistral at 12/11/2008 @ 11:23am
Federal prosecutors said flatly that there is no evidence of Obama's involvement with Blagojevich's attempt to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Even more telling, Blago profanely complained that the Obama camp offered nothing more than appreciation.
The Rabid Right can either deal with it or they continue to make fools of themselves - just as they did over the birth certificate nonsense that was so ludicrous the SCOTUS refused to even hear the case.
Posted by Balrog at 12/11/2008 @ 11:26am
Posted by Balrog at 12/11/2008 @ 11:26am
C'mon, BOTH "sides" have a surplus of witch hunters. Get real. Obama is where he is because he's a master at the game. And I believe a relatively honest guy.
Don't blame the "rabid right". Try placing the responsibility for this where it actually belongs. Blagojevich's office.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 11:56am
It's like this one Lew Rockwell article, at least Blagojevich was a little more honest about his crimes than the other politicians. There are plenty of other politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, that have gotten the whole country into messes.
The lies about WMDs and the occupation of Iraq, which has many Muslims and Arab people P'Oed as us. Also, our one-sided support for Israel over Palestine, Lebannon, Syria and Iran.
The one-sided support for the Bosnians and Albanians without hearing the Serbians' side of the story and the bombings of Belgrade (which got a huge number of Serbs the Chinese ticked off at us) and the unfair treaties against the Serbian people. That is why many Eastern Europeans and Russians hate our guts.
Posted by Silpika at 12/11/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by jlenahan at 12/10/2008 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
not all scandals are the same. Spitzer's "offense" would have been a big nothing in the other civilized countries. America is fucked where sex is concerned, positively antediluvian.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 12:35pm
Would be a good start for Mr. O.... Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
presidents cannot remove governors.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 12:38pm
Posted by Silpika at 12/11/2008 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
aw, those poor Serbians. how many Serbians are at the Hague for war crimes?
take your whitewash brush and shove it.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 12:39pm
Don't blame the "rabid right". Try placing the responsibility for this where it actually belongs. Blagojevich's office.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 11:56am
I blame the rabid right for their frenzied attempts to smear Obama with Blago.
Posted by Balrog at 12/11/2008 @ 12:40pm
This nation is at a crossroads and we must decide to take the fork to redeeming ourselves from the cesspool inhabitants we have allowed ourselves to become. Seize on the corruption now being exposed and eliminate it, for the sake of future generations.
Posted by piglizard420 at 12/11/2008 @ 12:46pm
The halo is off Obama. He comes from the cesspool of politics:Chicago. Think Richard Daley (father and son), Dan Rostenkowski,etc. Jesse Jackson Jr. is toast. He met with Blago. What do you immagine they talked about? The White Sox? Obama is dodging the question of any contact between his staff and Blago. This really smells. I am sure glad I voted for Nader.
Posted by philbq at 12/11/2008 @ 12:49pm
when you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 12:50pm
I blame the rabid right for their frenzied attempts to smear Obama with Blago.
Posted by Balrog at 12/11/2008 @ 12:40pm
Oh, then you must agree with the same twisted logic that the Iraq war was screwed up because of the rabid anti-war left's attempts to smear Bush, and not because of Bush's actions.
Doesn't all that koolaid stain your teeth?
Here's the deal Balrog. Did you watch Obama's press conf this morning? He left a lot of unanswered questions. He needs to be truthful because, like you, I don't believe he has anything to hide. But even the press has a due dilligence here they can't ignore. This isn't the rabid right. Besides, why do you expect the rabid right to be any different than the rabid left. what planet you on?
But after his performance this morning I fear by next week he'll be staring into the camera saying, "Let me be perfectly clear, I did not NOT have sex with that governor..."
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 12:59pm
FREI, you don't really think you're an "honest broker" on "objectively" determining Obama's "guilt", do you?
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2008 @ 1:37pm
Trying to be Mask. He's my President too and I care about this country. His appointments have been balanced and he's given me no reason to believe he's not a savvy, sincere administrator.
So, I definitely get where you're coming from Mask. But I am not a hypocrite. I think Obama is being rail-roaded on this issue and it is pissing me off.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 1:42pm
Odd, FREI....
First you subtlely say....
"To keep Obama safe, knowing it was only a matter of time before he entered the bidding game with both feet. (For the record, that is not my take on this. There is no evidence yet.)"----Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 10:07am
Taking both the "He'd sell the Senate seat...But I'm not saying that, just saying it"...
then
"Did you watch Obama's press conf this morning? He left a lot of unanswered questions. He needs to be truthful because, like you, I don't believe he has anything to hide."----Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 12:59pm
"He's lying...but he doesn't need to lie because I think he's innocent"
now
finally, "Obama's a swell guy".
Seem to be covering your bases???
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2008 @ 2:52pm
Mask, you aren't a lawyer are you? Because you suck at it.
First, please quote me in proper context in the 10:07am because you haven't.
Second, in the 12:59, I am simply being real. None of us know if Obama was more deeply aware of Blago's activities, do we? In his statements this morning, Obama wasn't fully candid - and that's not just my observation. Instead of instantly jumping to a conclusion Obama's guilty of collusion, however, I make it clear Obama is, in my opinion, being rail-roaded.
Bottom line. I sincerely hope Obama was completely unaware of the crimes being committed by Gov Blagojevich. I caution my fellow conservatives to wait for solid evidence before judging Obama was in on it. You want to pull my chain for that? Go ahead.
Instead of trying to tell me what I think Mask, let's hear what you think about this scandal?
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 3:32pm
'In August 2006, when it was publicly known that Governor Rod Blagojevich and his staff were being investigated for corruption, Barack Obama took the microphone at the Illinois State Fair.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois," he declared to the crowd as he endorsed the Illinois Governor for re-election.
Now, with the allegations that Mr Blagojevich tried to hawk Mr Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, the scandal -- and the stench of Chicago politics that the President-elect hoped he had put behind him -- is raising a slew of uncomfortable questions.
Mr Obama's endorsement of Mr Blagojevich in 2006 was an example of the way that he operated in Chicago. He rarely bucked or challenged the corrupt status quo -- in stark contrast to his image as a reformer. ... Mr Obama officially made transparency a central theme of his administration last week, yet he was facing growing calls yesterday to reveal what, if any, contact there had been between his staff and Mr Blagojevich over the efforts of the governor to sell his Senate seat.' -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/ article5321475.ece
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/11/2008 @ 5:03pm
aw, poor dishonestneocan, Obama won the presidency, period.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 6:21pm
neocon, or maybe neocan't.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 6:22pm
Palin-Blagojevich deserve our Christian-right lovin'
Posted by winyahn at 12/11/2008 @ 6:55pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 3:32pm
I think if Obama was "dirty"....Hillary's researchers would have dug it up...upto and into the Election (thus opening up 2012 for her).
I think Blagojevich was out for himself and if Fitzgerald had people inside Obama's camp he could indict...he would....so he doesn't.
I think YOU like to sound "bipartisan" (to retain some "credibility"), but dash it with heavy "hints" right out of LVLIB, SJCHER, HAPPY's talking points from Rush and Fox News because you are at heart a right-winger (deep over in the Ron Paul/No Federal Reserve spectrum...but Right-wing just the same.)
Posted by Mask at 12/11/2008 @ 10:10pm
Honestliberal is right...Obama didn't buck the system in Illinois. He played the game with these slimeballs like Blago. Seeing Obama's appointments of Clinton establishment people, I am not surprised. Obama is not about change (that's just a slogan). He is about working with the establishment. And in Illinois, the establishment is the Daley machine, dripping with corruption. And Obama played the game with them. (I am sure glad I voted for Nader.)
Posted by philbq at 12/12/2008 @ 12:05am
in 20 years you'll tell your grandchildren you voted for Obama.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/12/2008 @ 09:34am
Posted by philbq at 12/12/2008 @ 12:05am
"Not Good Enough!"....we get it (with a dash of self-congratulations on voting for a guy who got 1% of the vote).
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2008 @ 09:44am
Mask, you say, "I think YOU like to sound "bipartisan" (to retain some "credibility"), but dash it with heavy "hints" right out of LVLIB, SJCHER, HAPPY's talking points from Rush and Fox News because you are at heart a right-winger (deep over in the Ron Paul/No Federal Reserve spectrum...but Right-wing just the same.)
No, I'm not bi-partisan, nor to I pretend to be. Why in the world would I be worried about my "credibility" here?! What credibility are you talking about? I rarely watch Fox News or listen to Rush. My primary "sources" of opinion are townhall.com, thenation.com, CSPAN, drudge, The News Hour and Morning Edition/All Things Considered. I am a fan of John Stossell, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and, yes, I read Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman too. If asked, sure, I'm a conservative.
But credibility? I was wrong on the Iraq war, which, as you'll recall I adamantly supported in these blogs. Credibility? I didn't even consider the Constitutionality of that action. In fact, Mask, it was my efforts to support Bush's policy here on these blogs that led me to learn a lot about the truth of the Federal Reserve and the real reason we are currently fighting a three front war.
Sorry Mask, my credibility here is of little concern. I like it here because I learn stuff. Occasionally I teach stuff I've learned.
Maybe what you are picking up on is my relunctance to affirm Obama's complete innocence in the Blago affair because of how burned I was putting faith in GW Bush. I didn't vote for Obama, but that doesn't mean he's not now my President too. My faith, however, will never be wasted on any politician ever again.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/12/2008 @ 11:49am
Why isn't The Nation reporting on the recent appointment of Steve Chu as Energy Secretary?
This is probably Barack's best appointment to date, as Chu is precisely the pragmatic and progressive leader (with serious brain power) that America needs to lead us to an alternative energy future.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/12/2008 @ 11:49am
FREI, you STATED that you thought Obama was deliberately being deceptive...
"Did you watch Obama's press conf this morning? He left a lot of unanswered questions. He needs to be truthful..."
and then say "because, like you, I don't believe he has anything to hide."----Posted by freiheit1 at 12/11/2008 @ 12:59pm
Doesn't that come off a bit odd? "He's lying, but I think he doesn't have to, because I think he's got nothing to hide"!??!!?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2008 @ 1:07pm
Well, Mask, I appreciate your taking time to set me straight. But get a life. None of here know the truth yet of Obama's involvement, if any at all, in the actions of the detestible Democratic Governor Blagojevich, his horrid wife and Chief of Staff. (Haha, I mention he's a Democrat just to yank your chain.)
And I don't care if you believe me or not when I say it would be a shame if this killed Obama's Presidency in the womb. Don't bet it couldn't.
But wouldn't it be better to learn that Obama and his team found out what was happening and blew the whistle not even knowing the Feds were already watching Blagojevich?! That would actually be remarkably wonderful...
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/12/2008 @ 2:08pm
What did Emanuel know and when did he know it?
What did Axelrod know and when did he know it?
Posted by feinfein at 12/12/2008 @ 2:27pm
when the governor gets to appint a senator, you don't think there is back and forth and horsetrading going on? it's called politics. NYs gov has that obligation, Maryland has already made that decision.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/12/2008 @ 5:33pm
ok, appoint, although a pint is always welcome.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/12/2008 @ 5:33pm
And I don't care if you believe me or not when I say it would be a shame if this killed Obama's Presidency in the womb.----Posted by freiheit1 at 12/12/2008 @ 2:08pm
What if he successful in "nationalizing health care" "raising taxes through the roof" and leaves the Federal Reserve in charge of the world, FREI??!?!!?!??!?!?
And if he gets bogged down in scandal, he fails?????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2008 @ 9:20pm
Katrina vanden Heuvel has the temerity to hold up as "a strong reformer" a -
<< former Senator about to take the White House>> and to urge him -
<< to seize upon this scandal as the reason why we need to have public financing.>>
She forgets a major reason Obama captured the White House was that he secured a billion dollars by junking his public financing pledge.
But now he is a reformer who must clean up the scandal of bought elections.
What makes KVH so indifferent to logic, to consistency? Her readers. Her crowd accepts anything with a lefty spin. She can feed them the biggest tosh without fear or shame. They will swallow anything out of her swill bucket. The acid of their righteous indignation has eaten away every vestige of intellectual honesty.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/12/2008 @ 9:37pm
A Blagojevich Moment Pay and Play USA is status quo sytem both parties utilize? A Defacto Third Party Exsist in Form that many money individuals contribute to both party members camapaigning for states and US Congress offices. This third influenza party infects United States sytem of both states and US Congress programs; taxation; spending; and, legislation, laws, or regulation. Campaign dollars like pres.-elect Obama recieved 700 Million dollars will effect a President Barrack Obama endearment or affection to show gratitude or apprectiation in thanksgiving of at minimum hearings in Oval Office of all significant large sum donations? YES, WE CAN give your Hope a chance to Change the United States in the direction your campaign dollars of special interest capture President Barrcak Obama's eye, attension, and, concern for Donors?
Finally, Editor Katrina Vanden Huevel can talk elquently about all camapigns in past have influenced subsequent Changes in Hope for America? I hope to see ya Katrina Vanden Huevel soon on CNN's Larry King again, thank you james.
Posted by engineerpower at 12/13/2008 @ 12:53am
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2008 @ 9:20pm
Mask, Congress hold the power over the Fed, not the Exec Branch.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/13/2008 @ 03:15am
I don't know of a politician that has been elected who is squeaky clean. Time to re visit Buckley v valeo.
Posted by julien38 at 12/14/2008 @ 09:14am
Public funding is not the answer. There are philosophical questions about it, of course, many of which I agree with. And practical ones as well (e.g., our lives are just as affected by County Planning Commissions as by US Senators--do we publicly finance ALL elections?).
But, in terms of Blago-type behavior, it won't work. Public financing only provides another set of rules to figure out and exploit. The problem can't be solved by LEGAL means--it can only be solved by a relentless pursuit by the media and citizens to hold people to a higher standard than a legal one--an ethical standard.
It is solved by the public flogging all involved in the Blago-mess will get. And by citizens shunning people who engage in this kind of reprehensible conduct.
We have to keep the focus on the ethical considerations. If we think we have it solved by a legal option (public financing), then we will become too complacent. Meanwhile, those who wish to exploit us will find more and creative ways to do this.
Posted by dfgrayb at 12/14/2008 @ 1:14pm