Illinois Governor ARRESTED

[HBox]

He was allegedly seeking bribes for Obama's open Senate seat. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28139155/)

This man is a complete idiot. He was already under investigation for fraud, then he does this? And initially I'd have to guess a Democrat gave him up, probably one who was seeking the seat.

I'm sure Obama is thrilled.

[epo]

Throw him in the same cell with William Jefferson from Louisiana.

[Ritalin]

I never liked that guy.

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

About fuckin' time. Anything that gets him out of office quicker is OK by me.

[Recyclerz]

That's two governors in a row for Illinois.

One of the Governors in the tri-state area (NY,NJ, CT) is going to have to do someting spectacularly wrong for the East Coast to keep up. For those keeping score and who don't live in the NY area here's our recent gubernatorial history:

NY: Eliot Spitzer - Caught banging expensive hookers (but not arrested); resigned.
CT: John Rowland - Caught accepting bribes for trip and vacation home; resigned, convicted, one year sentence.
NJ: Jim McGreevey - Caught giving his (boyfriend?, fuck buddy? not sure what the proper term should be) a job to be in charge of NJ Homeland Security; resigned at a news conference where he came out of the closet.

[Freitag]

McGreevey's misdeeds go far beyond the whole mess with his boyfriend. He was majorly corrupt and would have been taken down for corruption eventually; this was just his excuse to get out.

This is FEDERAL corruption; pretty sure this goes beyond what Rowland was in trouble for.

[epo]

I just got this from an email update from a trade magazine called 'Modern Healthcare':

Federal prosecutors allege that Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was arrested this morning, attempted to leverage his authority to name President-elect Barack Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate into an appointment for himself as HHS secretary in the new administration or other opportunities.

This is the dumbest politician ever. I have no doubt he tried to grift the incoming administration...and now he'll do the perp walk.

Hilarious.

[Snoogans]

epo you better not have anything to do with this. Its bad enough that you skim campaign funds

[Freitag]

I just got this from an email update from a trade magazine called 'Modern Healthcare':



This is the dumbest politician ever. I have no doubt he tried to grift the incoming administration...and now he'll do the perp walk.

Hilarious.

Please please please tell me that HHS is Health and Human Services and NOT Homeland Security.

[Misteriosa]

and now he'll do the perp walk.

Hilarious.

does it look like this?

http://www.xzibitcentral.com/images/snoop-dogg-crip-walk-c-walk-picture.jpg

[epo]

Please please please tell me that HHS is Health and Human Services and NOT Homeland Security.

HHS is Health & Human Services.

But here is the best part: Everybody knew that Tom Daschle was gonna get that job. Daschle and Obama are apparently VERY close and this dipshit tried to get himself the job that Daschle was destined for?

I'm still laughing at that idiot.

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

I can't believe Jim Edgar now looks like a goddamn saint.

[HBox]

Nice to see good ole Patrick Fitzgerald back in the news. Hopefully this time he can get better results than he did against Scooter Libby.

[Dude!]

Nice to see good ole Patrick Fitzgerald back in the news. Hopefully this time he can get better results than he did against Scooter Libby.

he will
there is actually a case this time

[topless_mike]

does it look like this?

http://www.xzibitcentral.com/images/snoop-dogg-crip-walk-c-walk-picture.jpg

thats racist.

[DarkHippie]

he will
there is actually a case this time

As he would gladly tell you during prision visiting hours . . .

[Freitag]

I just read the transcripts of the tapes.

This guy is a Democrat... and he had WONDERFUL language about our President-elect. Sounded like my dad.

[epo]

And the big rumor about the whistle-blower: (http://minnesotaindependent.com/19566/gop-tries-to-link-obama-to-blagojevich-arrest-emanuel-rumored-to-be-whistleblower)

A reporter at a Fox affiliate in Chicago says he received a tip that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s pick for chief of staff, blew the whistle on the Democratic governor.

That is awesome.

[scottinnj]

Alright Mojo-you win. Your state is worse then my state.

I bow to you and leave the competition.

Jersey is not only the shittiest state in the union, we can't even be corrupt enough to make our mark on this country.

We really are a state of losers.

Congrats Mojo.

[GregoryJoseph]

Corruption in Chicago politics?

Why I never...!

[FezsAssistant]

I just read the transcripts of the tapes.

This guy is a Democrat... and he had WONDERFUL language about our President-elect. Sounded like my dad.

typical

[Friday]

hey.... where's mojo been?

:huh:

[Snoogans]

Germany

[scottinnj]

hey.... where's mojo been?

:huh:

Germany

He must be proud to tell all his new freinds where he's from.

"Ja mein Freund, ich bin von Chicago Illinois (http://tts.imtranslator.net/2ai5)"

[STC-Dub]

Does this mean my high bid for the Senate seat is no longer good?

[scottinnj]

It wasn't high enough.

Assemblyman for you.

[KnoxHarrington]

So what really started the ball rolling to get Gov. Blagojevich arrested? Perhaps it was a call to Senate President Emil Jones Jr., placed by...then Senator, and now President-elect, Barack Obama, to urge Jones to try to get the Senate to override Blagojevich's veto of a campaign finance reform bill:

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich’s efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama. One official whose name has long been mentioned in Chicago political circles as a potential successor is Mr. Jones, a machine politician who was viewed as a roadblock to ethics reform but is friendly with Mr. Obama.

Why would Obama pause in the middle of running for President to involve himself in Illinois stae politics again? Well, around this same time, he was being attacked rather harshly by the McCain campaign for his connections to various figures in Illinois politics, including a fundraiser named Antoin Rezko. And, besides, though Obama did endorse Blagojevich in 2006 when he was re-elected, they weren't getting along too wel at that point. So Obama felt no real loyalty to Blagojevich, and this seemed to be a good way to set himself apart from the sleaze of Illinois politics.

Fascinating read in the really fascinating way that Obama negotiated the currents of Illinois' utterly corrupt political climate without too much shit sticking to him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10chicago.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

[Tenbatsuzen]

The funny thing was, this guy attached himself to the workers who are having a big sit-in in Illinois because they aren't getting paid. And was pressuring Illinois government to stop doing business with Bank of America. Wow.

[ecobag2]

The funny thing was, this guy attached himself to the workers who are having a big sit-in in Illinois because they aren't getting paid. And was pressuring Illinois government to stop doing business with Bank of America. Wow.

are you insinuating that this man is a hypocrite?

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

A guy interviewed by Nightline called him a sociopath, and I have to think that's true because he so clearly knew he was being investigated, and clearly knew he was being taped and tapped, yet he went so explicitly about this with his demands up until the very end. It's incredible.

[NewYorkDragons80]

hey.... where's mojo been?

:huh:

I was wondering the same thing. I'm glad he hasn't disappeared on us.

[A.J.]

Is Caroline Kennedy interested in this seat as well?

[El Mudo]

Best headline EVER (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081210/us_time/08599186537000)


Can Obama Escape the Taint of Blagojevich?

[Syd]

"During a wiretapped November 10 call, a frustrated and financially strapped Blagojevich referred to Obama as a "motherfucker" and said that he would not appoint an ally of the President-elect to the Senate vacancy if "I don't get anything." Referring to Obama, Blagojevich exclaimed, "Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him." In a November 11 conversation, Blagojevich remarked that he knew Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett, a longtime confidante, to succeed him, "but they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1209081rod1.html

lol

[Snoogans]

i got some email from ABC news sayin that Jesse Jackson was tryin to buy the senate seat. Did anyone else hear anything about this?

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

i got some email from ABC news sayin that Jesse Jackson was tryin to buy the senate seat. Did anyone else hear anything about this?

Do they mean his son? Jesse Jackson, jr. is in Illinois politics and was talked about as a possible candidate to be selected to take Obama's seat, but I haven't seen anything saying he or his dad try to buy it. If anything, Blagojevich probably told them he wanted to be paid.

[Snoogans]

yea it was Jr. The email said law enforcement said he was Candidate No 5

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

yea it was Jr. The email said law enforcement said he was Candidate No 5

Candidate #5 was just one of the people being pressed for money.

[Snoogans]

you shoulda made a bid. You were too busy wasting away in Europe, you coulda been a senator

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

you shoulda made a bid. You were too busy wasting away in Europe, you coulda been a senator

I fled the country at just the right time. Rod is just the fall guy.

[Zorro]

As I read the stories about this the thought that keeps nagging is that its apparently ok to buy a senate seat as corporations, unions and the wealthy do through massive donations.

So, why shouldn't the governor be able to make a little scratch off the deal?

[Dude!]

As I read the stories about this the thought that keeps nagging is that its apparently ok to buy a senate seat as corporations, unions and the wealthy do through massive donations.

So, why shouldn't the governor be able to make a little scratch off the deal?

the difference is that these buy-offs are much more balanced
the corporations give candidate A millions
but the unions and emily's list give candidate b millions

so at least there is a competition

[Zorro]

the difference is that these buy-offs are much more balanced
the corporations give candidate A millions
but the unions and emily's list give candidate b millions

so at least there is a competition

Millions & Millions and we're denying the Guv a couple of hundred grand. Does not seem fair

[epo]

yea it was Jr. The email said law enforcement said he was Candidate No 5

That's what I heard this morning. I also heard that "his representatives" agreed to raise the cash.

If thats true...he's done.

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

Yeah, I thought I had heard that Candidate 5 was another one of Rod's targets, but I guess I was wrong.

[scottinnj]

I heard Jesse Jr.'s denial tonight on the way home. He's pretty firm on the "I did nothing wrong" approach.

He personally didn't seek out the guv.

He sent no "emissaries" to negotiate with the guv.

At least that's what he said.

[yojimbo7248]

I am loving this Blagojevich story. I just finished reading an article about Patricia B. These stories are always better when there is Lady Macbeth wife pushing the politician to be even more of a scumbag than he would have been on his own. She is really hot too. NY Times has a great picture of her on A40. I wonder if there are nude shots of her somewhere on the web.

[scottinnj]

I wonder if there are nude shots of her somewhere on the web.

One could only hope.

Hot or not, I'd jack to nudie pics of a politician's wife, just so he'd know, and that he can't pass a law to stop it.

[El Mudo]

Maybe its just me...


But doesn't Blagojevich look EXACTLY like Lynndie England?

http://democraticgovernors.org/sync/images/107.jpg


http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050504/050504_england_vmed_12p.widec.jpg

[sailor]

i understand selling it for money is bad. but if obama says "i'd like you to appoint x to this seat" what's so wrong with him saying he'd like to get a cabinet seat or an appointment for someone else? how is is any different?

[epo]

i understand selling it for money is bad. but if obama says "i'd like you to appoint x to this seat" what's so wrong with him saying he'd like to get a cabinet seat or an appointment for someone else? how is is any different?

From the transcript: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf)

ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to "suck it up" for two years and do nothing and give this "motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him." ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put "[Senate Candidate 4]" in the Senate "before I just give fucking [Senate Candidate 1] a fucking Senate seat and I don’t get anything." [...]

then...

Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but "they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them."

If you read the transcript, the shitty governor wanted to get paid. Ass or cash, nobody rides with Blagojevich for free.

[KnoxHarrington]

The hilarious thing is that this douche will not resign, and claims that he's going to fight these charges. What defense could he possibly have? "You see, judge, when I called President-elect Obama a 'motherfucker', what I really meant was..."

What a douche.

[Tenbatsuzen]

The hilarious thing is that this douche will not resign, and claims that he's going to fight these charges. What defense could he possibly have? "You see, judge, when I called President-elect Obama a 'motherfucker', what I really meant was..."

What a douche.

Here's the thing...


He talked about it... but it didn't actually happen.

That's the problem.

The case isn't as airtight as it sounds. Blago's an asshole, but you can't convict someone for being an asshole.

[KnoxHarrington]

Here's the thing...


He talked about it... but it didn't actually happen.

That's the problem.

The case isn't as airtight as it sounds. Blago's an asshole, but you can't convict someone for being an asshole.

Something tells me there's more to the case than we've gotten so far. The thing about selling Obama's seat is a nice cherry on top. The feds have been following him almost from day 1 of his administration.

[KnoxHarrington]

And it turns out there is more. Jesus Christ, this man is a fucking moron.

[Shortly after his 2002 election, Gov. Rod Blagojevich told Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. he didn't appoint the congressman's wife as lottery director because he had refused him a $25,000 campaign donation, a person familiar with the conversation told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "Blagojevich went out of his way to say, 'You know I was considering your wife for the lottery job and the $25,000 you didn't give me? That's why she's not getting the job,'" the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing federal investigation.

Holy Jesus. If this is true, this guy has balls...but shit for brains.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_jackson

[sailor]

The hilarious thing is that this douche will not resign, and claims that he's going to fight these charges. What defense could he possibly have? "You see, judge, when I called President-elect Obama a 'motherfucker', what I really meant was..."

What a douche.

i don't think cursing is an impeachable offense.

[epo]

Here's an interesting twist in this story: Reports of Emanuel contacting Blogo "21 times" false. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230012)

The official story seems to be that Emanuel contacted the governor six times. From the report: (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/24/america/24obama.php)

The contact was among the findings of an internal report released Tuesday, compiled by lawyers for the president-elect. The report concluded that Emanuel had as many as six conversations with the governor's office about the Senate vacancy, but that Obama had none, and that neither Emanuel, Jarrett, nor any other Obama associates had any talks about a deal in which Blagojevich would benefit from appointing someone to the Senate seat.

This "liberal media" of ours owes the future Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel a big fat apology for trying to bury him and implicate Obama before the facts were in.

[KnoxHarrington]

Here's an interesting twist in this story: Reports of Emanuel contacting Blogo "21 times" false. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230012)

The official story seems to be that Emanuel contacted the governor six times. From the report: (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/24/america/24obama.php)



This "liberal media" of ours owes the future Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel a big fat apology for trying to bury him and implicate Obama before the facts were in.

The columnist that planted the "21 calls" story is one Michael Sneed, who's actually a gossip columnist for the Sun-Times. More on her (yes, she's a chick):

--She identified the VA Tech shooter as a "Chinese national"

--She vocally supported Sarah Palin in her columns, including this gem:

So what if she didn't know the definition of the Bush Doctrine? Her performance was a Western draw. Bravery in tact. But no one shot.

And, oh, apparently Blogo loved to use her to plant fake stories on political enemies.

Link here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/23/211944/72/601/676731

Quotes from Fitzgerald's complaint against Blogo naming Sneed here: http://gawker.com/5105531/chicago-columnist-outed-as-blagos-favorite-patsy

[furie]

http://media.tumblr.com/GnKqcXVwFi0k8722sr2anspJo1_500.jpg

[epo]

The newest battle is lining up for Illinois:

Blagojevich to appoint Burris to Obama's seat (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/blagojevich-to-name-burris-to-senate.html)

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Ahh yes, the willingness to ignore warnings....

Blagojevich's criminal defense attorney Ed Genson had said Blagojevich would not name a Senate successor to Obama. The governor had indicated he agreed with other Illinois politicians that the best option might be a special election to fill Obama's seat. But state lawmakers have not taken up the necessary legislation.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada previously warned Blagojevich, following the governor's Dec. 9 arrest, that Senate Democrats would not seat any appointment the two-term Democratic governor made. Reid's warning was contained in a letter signed by all 50 sitting Democratic senators, including the No. 2 Democrat in Senate leadership, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Can you just smell the mess?

[furie]

So this guy shots himself in the ass, then he gets to be senator?!

[Dude!]

The newest battle is lining up for Illinois

Can you just smell the mess?


i am really starting to dig the way blag is thumbing his nose at everyone
count me in as a fan

[KnoxHarrington]

One thing this whole mess has taught us is that governors should not be allowed to appoint replacement Senators. It should be filled by a special election, just like a vacancy in the House would be.

This system gets you into messes like this, where a sleazy Governor will appoint someone who'll go in under a cloud, or like in New York, where someone with absolutely no political experience feels that she should be appointed due to her family name.

[MacVittie]

Looks like Blagojevich has chosen the former IL Atty. Gen. to fill the vacant seat.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/30/illinois.senate/index.html

[GreatAmericanZero]

who does Lt. Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn look like?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Aft2Va8BxhI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Aft2Va8BxhI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

he looks like SOMEONE its on the tip of my brain but i can't figure out who!

[evedder]

You break laws and pay no fines. You get yours and then get mine

[epo]

A statement on the situation from President-Elect Obama:

Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.

This is all gonna get weirder.

[TheMojoPin]

What a trainwreck. People on all sides are so blatantly trumpeting the race issue. Shameful.

[ToiletCrusher]

fuck that fuck in his fuck hole. Oh wait, I don't live in Illinois. I just live in Patterson state.




Bless this mess.

[A.J.]

What a trainwreck. People on all sides are so blatantly trumpeting the race issue. Shameful.

I saw Bobby Rush's comments last night on WGN. Shocking that he would use the term "lynching".

[Zorro]

I saw Bobby Rush's comments last night on WGN. Shocking that he would use the term "lynching".

I liked the 99 white senator comment

[epo]

I read this on the potential nomination of Roland Burris from a blogger today (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=15014):


We are a nation of rules, after all. How about we follow them rather than creating all this damned drama? Blagojevich will have his day in court, but for now he is legally the governor, he is legally carrying out his duties, and unless and until the Democrats grab the stones to get rid of him, they should suck it up and deal with his pick. All this gamesmanship and posturing is irritating.

I've gotta admit his logic is pretty solid. While I don't like Blago & I don't really care for Burris, we still have laws and rules. In the worst case that Burris isn't a caretaker until 2010, the Illinois Democratic Party can get rid of Burris in a primary election that year. That would seem to make the most sense at this point.

This spot sucks for the party, but lets seat him and get rid of him in 2010 if he blows.

[epo]

Senate Democrats to swear in Burris this week (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris;_ylt=AotrJ8pJpTDxwUVX8p4QrG_gtY54)

Eager to put the scandal-tainted standoff behind them, Senate Democrats accepted Roland Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's Senate successor on Monday and said they expect to swear in the new Illinois senator this week. "He is now the senator-designate from Illinois and, as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a senator-elect," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a joint statement.

At a news conference in Chicago, Burris called himself honored and humbled to be the state's next junior senator. "I'm thankful for the opportunity to serve," he said and added: "I recognize that my appointment triggered a challenging time for many."

I don't really care for Burris, but in this situation it does seem like the right thing....albeit a damned weird right thing.

[high fly]

It's only natural that someone on Obama's staff or even Obama himself would contact the governor to give at least an idea as to whom they would prefer to fill the vacancy.

I have a feeling that if indeed Wacko Blaggo tried to out-and-out sell the seat, that Obama and his people are going to be shown to have done the right thing......

[KnoxHarrington]

It might be time to start a "Blago is mentally unstable" thread. In an interview which aired on The Today Show today, Blagojevich compared himself to...well, let's just let him say it:

As Dec. 9 unfolded, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."

Because you all heard that tape of Gandhi calling the President-elect a "motherfucker" because he was "just getting appreciation" for a political seat.

What a fucking scumbag.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/blagojevich_in_nbc_interview_c.html

[high fly]

Here's an interesting twist in this story: Reports of Emanuel contacting Blogo "21 times" false. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230012)

The official story seems to be that Emanuel contacted the governor six times. From the report: (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/24/america/24obama.php)



This "liberal media" of ours owes the future Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel a big fat apology for trying to bury him and implicate Obama before the facts were in.


Yep yep yepyepyep.
The right-wing blogs have been going nuts! nuts! nuts! with the story that the so-called "main stream media" are not covering the subpoena of Wacko Blaggo because it demands records relating to that Axerod chap and the Jarrett woman.
It was on Free Republic so they know it's true, right?

I found 10 articles in what they'd regard as "main stream media" like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USAToday and others, but the glassy-eyed zombies can be rather insistent on these things...

[epo]

Burris may face primary challenges from Giannoulias, Schakowsky (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/burris_may_face_primary_challe.html)

Newly appointed Sen. Roland Burris opened a campaign fund to raise money for a 2010 election bid as it looks like he may face a Democratic primary challenge: State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is mulling a Senate run, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky isn't ruling it out.

Trust me on this -- Giannoulias, who the ability to self-finance a campaign, is looking very closely at challenging Burris. Schakowsky is also considering her first statewide run. An issue for Burris -- in office for a week -- would be to explain to Illinois voters in the February 2010 Democratic Illinois primary why he took an appointment from the tainted Gov. Blagojevich.

Sure its a Sun-Times report, but that's pretty awesome. I love it when a party takes care of their own shit...and keeps the turds out of the general elections.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Yep yep yepyepyep.
The right-wing blogs have been going nuts! nuts! nuts! with the story that the so-called "main stream media" are not covering the subpoena of Wacko Blaggo because it demands records relating to that Axerod chap and the Jarrett woman.
It was on Free Republic so they know it's true, right?

I found 10 articles in what they'd regard as "main stream media" like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USAToday and others, but the glassy-eyed zombies can be rather insistent on these things...

Still, Blaggo remains a big stinky skid mark and all the blogs in the world won't change that! And, I'm not sure who you speak of with regards to the Wash Post being "main stream media". It just ain't so - to a goodly amount of folks.

[high fly]

Still, Blaggo remains a big stinky skid mark and all the blogs in the world won't change that! And, I'm not sure who you speak of with regards to the Wash Post being "main stream media". It just ain't so - to a goodly amount of folks.

I don't know who that would be.
"Main stream media" is a phrase used by Limpbaugh, Manateee, et al to describe established media outlets, in contrast to "alternative media," such as their shoes, bloggers and the like.
They don't have a third category the Washington Post would fit into.

I read the Post and find it very informative. They have an excellent staff of reporters, a number of them have Pulitzers and the reporting from the Washington Post Foreign Service is outstanding.


The whining about major media outlets gos back to Watergate, when Republicans unlike say, a Barry Goldwater, were unable to face the facts and instead directed their ire against the media for reporting the facts.
They have been ducking responsibility and playing "shoot-the-messenger" ever since...



Interstingly, if one listens to Limpbaugh, Manatee etal, one will hear them daily blithely quoting from stories from the very "main streammedia" whose credibiliy they question....

[SonOfSmeagol]

I don't know who that would be.
"Main stream media" is a phrase used by Limpbaugh, Manateee, et al to describe established media outlets, in contrast to "alternative media," such as their shoes, bloggers and the like.
They don't have a third category the Washington Post would fit into.

I read the Post and find it very informative. They have an excellent staff of reporters, a number of them have Pulitzers and the reporting from the Washington Post Foreign Service is outstanding.

The whining about major media outlets gos back to Watergate, when Republicans unlike say, a Barry Goldwater, were unable to face the facts and instead directed their ire against the media for reporting the facts.
They have been ducking responsibility and playing "shoot-the-messenger" ever since...

Interstingly, if one listens to Limpbaugh, Manatee etal, one will hear them daily blithely quoting from stories from the very "main streammedia" whose credibiliy they question....

The measure of any newspaper’s leanings can be clearly discerned from the editorial page (this doesn't include the op-ed). The Wash Post clearly and consistently leans to the left – it is no secret. And, more and more so-called “news analyses” are appearing on the front pages under the guise of objectivity, but are really editorials. To be fair, a lot of papers of all persuasions use “new analyses” in similar fashion.

To be clear, I don’t have a problem with that nor do many others. You just have to know where the editors are coming from with any newspaper, and the ed page is the roadmap. And when reading anything in the main sections of any paper you always have to take the ed page into consideration.

[high fly]

Major newspapers like the Washington Post have an editorial board entirely separate from the reporting staff.
The editorial board does not hire reporters or supervise their work, and that includes articles clearly labeled "analysis" at the Post.
The whiners never seem to get this.....

[SonOfSmeagol]

Major newspapers like the Washington Post have an editorial board entirely separate from the reporting staff.
The editorial board does not hire reporters or supervise their work, and that includes articles clearly labeled "analysis" at the Post.
The whiners never seem to get this.....

Whatever. I disagree with "entirely separate". If you don't get it that all newspapers pretty much have a clear point of view, some more so than others, then you just don't get it.

[high fly]

"Whatever" isn't much of an argument.
Rather, it is an admission of a point one can not counter, but prefers to just ignore.
Right?

[SonOfSmeagol]

"Whatever" isn't much of an argument.
Rather, it is an admission of a point one can not counter, but prefers to just ignore.
Right?

It means I’m tired of arguing whether the Wash Post is a completely objective news source, when I clearly don’t think so and you clearly do. I think if you could somehow poll all the names on pretty much any Masthead for their leanings the results would be clear, no matter the org chart. The “proof” is in the eyes and perspective of the respective reader, always with consideration to the editors of the newspaper. I will add that I think pure AP reports are the most balanced out there.

[high fly]

The Washington Post carries "pure" AP reports in nearly every issue.
You'll find regular articles as well as summaries in the Around the Nation and Around the World news service features.

I have read the Post for decades, and on several occasions during that time they have printed detailed explanations as to the separation between the editorial board and the reporting staff, and the importance the paper places in maintaining that separation.
The editorial board does not hire and fire reporters and does not supervise them; I'm not certain, but I think they are also physically separated in the location of their offices.
Therefore, I have concrete reasons beyond my imagination upon which to base my opinion.

[SonOfSmeagol]

The Washington Post carries "pure" AP reports in nearly every issue.
You'll find regular articles as well as summaries in the Around the Nation and Around the World news service features.

I have read the Post for decades, and on several occasions during that time they have printed detailed explanations as to the separation between the editorial board and the reporting staff, and the importance the paper places in maintaining that separation.
The editorial board does not hire and fire reporters and does not supervise them; I'm not certain, but I think they are also physically separated in the location of their offices.
Therefore, I have concrete reasons beyond my imagination upon which to base my opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

Even simpler, all you have to do is look at is “above the fold” over the last year or so, or even the entire front page.

[high fly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

Even simpler, all you have to do is look at is “above the fold” over the last year or so, or even the entire front page.



"An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" - - - - but of course!


The whole campaign was about Obama.
This was a major mistake of the McCain campaign and his supporters.

All of the conservative websites, day in and day out concentrated on Obama stories.
All of the conservative commentators spent the vast majority of their shows talking about Obama.
They made sure that Obama was always the issue, day in and day out, and I see no difference between the subject of their reporting and that of the rest of the media.



What, you gonna now accuse Limpbaugh, Manatee, Levin, Ink-a-gram, the National Review and the rest of being left-wing hacks?

[SonOfSmeagol]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

Even simpler, all you have to do is look at is “above the fold” over the last year or so, or even the entire front page.

"An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" - - - - but of course!

The whole campaign was about Obama.
This was a major mistake of the McCain campaign and his supporters.

All of the conservative websites, day in and day out concentrated on Obama stories.
All of the conservative commentators spent the vast majority of their shows talking about Obama.
They made sure that Obama was always the issue, day in and day out, and I see no difference between the subject of their reporting and that of the rest of the media.

What, you gonna now accuse Limpbaugh, Manatee, Levin, Ink-a-gram, the National Review and the rest of being left-wing hacks?


Bullshit. Bullshit. BULLSHIT.

Your response make NO SENSE.

The article was ABOUT the Wash Post ONLY, PUBLISHED IN the Wash Post by an OMBUDSMAN ENGAGED BY the Wash Post. The numbers in the article are clear. Get off your inflammatory high horse.

[high fly]

Bullshit. Bullshit. BULLSHIT.

Your response make NO SENSE.

The article was ABOUT the Wash Post ONLY, PUBLISHED IN the Wash Post by an OMBUDSMAN ENGAGED BY the Wash Post. The numbers in the article are clear. Get off your inflammatory high horse.



Touchy, aren't we?

The fact is, the Washington Post carried more articles about Obama than McCain, and so did all the rest of the media, particularly the "conservative" outlets and bloggers who swamped the airwaves and their sites with coverage of Obama.

Can you name a McCain issue that got as much play as Rev. Wright?

[SonOfSmeagol]

Touchy, aren't we?

The fact is, the Washington Post carried more articles about Obama than McCain, and so did all the rest of the media, particularly the "conservative" outlets and bloggers who swamped the airwaves and their sites with coverage of Obama.

Can you name a McCain issue that got as much play as Rev. Wright?

That first part is annoyingly passive-aggressive, and it really is tiring. The topic we were discussing was the Wash Post and its leanings. As the article presented, it wasn’t the just the number of articles but more the nature of the coverage overall. As for Rev Wright, there really was no bigger non-issue in the final months of the campaign.

[high fly]

I'm not talking about the legitimacy of the Rev. Wright issue.
I was talking about the amount of coverage.
The overwhelming majority of the coverage on right-wing outlets was about Obama.


I don't think the Posts' coverage of Obama was more positive than it was about McCain.
They printed a number of very positive stories about him. In particular, I recall a bigass two-pager about his military record and his captivity in Vietnam.
But still, I can see why someone might think they had more positive coverage of Obama.
I don't think their coverage of one issue is enough to brand them with in terms of all their coverage of all issues.

You do know the Post supported the invasion of Iraq, don't you?
And I bet you support the troops and are glad their Pulitzer Prize-winning expose on Walter Reed led to much-needed changes there, right?
If you go to their website, you'll not only find the Walter Reed series of stories, but that they have followed up since then, and for that they deserve kudos... don't you agree?

[high fly]

When it comes t so-called media bias in the news, my first-year business class becomes more valuable to me.
The first thing they taught us about corporations is the purpose and first responsibility of a corporation is to make money for the stockholders.
So for a newspaper, the name of the game is to have as wide a circulation as possible and the way to do that is to not appeal to a narrow segment of the population at the expense of another (an exception being a newspaper that is owned by someone who wants to use it to push a certain ideology. The Washington Times is such a paper, they said so when it was founded. Likewise, the chap who owns Fox also said he was founding the network for the purpose of airing conservative views).

The owners of the Washington Post have never said any such thing, to my knowledge, neither have they been involved with the operation of the paper as such.

The Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times are dominant in circulation because they appeal to as wide an audience as possible, which is what a corporation is supposed to do.
They not only dominate when it comes to readers who are left-of-center in their political leanings, but they are dominant in terms of the newspapers conservatives read as well.

It is funny the way conservatives only hear half the message from their overlords who simultaneously push the "left-wing bias" argument while using the same media they discredit to support their views.
it shows they don't listen to the Limpbaughs and the Manatees of the world critically, and, sadly, fail to catch the contradiction...

[Serpico1103]

When it comes t so-called media bias in the news, my first-year business class becomes more valuable to me.
The first thing they taught us about corporations is the purpose and first responsibility of a corporation is to make money for the stockholders.
So for a newspaper, the name of the game is to have as wide a circulation as possible and the way to do that is to not appeal to a narrow segment of the population at the expense of another (an exception being a newspaper that is owned by someone who wants to use it to push a certain ideology. The Washington Times is such a paper, they said so when it was founded. Likewise, the chap who owns Fox also said he was founding the network for the purpose of airing conservative views).

The owners of the Washington Post have never said any such thing, to my knowledge, neither have they been involved with the operation of the paper as such.

The Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times are dominant in circulation because they appeal to as wide an audience as possible, which is what a corporation is supposed to do.
They not only dominate when it comes to readers who are left-of-center in their political leanings, but they are dominant in terms of the newspapers conservatives read as well.

It is funny the way conservatives only hear half the message from their overlords who simultaneously push the "left-wing bias" argument while using the same media they discredit to support their views.
it shows they don't listen to the Limpbaughs and the Manatees of the world critically, and, sadly, fail to catch the contradiction...

Exactly. I love the idea of a "left wing media" when the corporations are giant conglomerates that have their hands in everything. But, the simple minded think it is a left wing conspiracy. No, it is driven by economics.
Obama got more coverage because he was a "better" story. Period.

[high fly]

Their business savvy is reflected in the number of record-sized deficits bearing the signiture of endorsement of GOP presidents since World War II and the increased unemployment and recessions that took place on their watch.

Oh sure, they talk a good game, but their theory that tax cuts increase revenues to a greater degree than they decrease incomes remains in the realm of fantasy, rather than real-life fact.

Every time they come in with a round of tax cuts for the rich, rather than the budget deficit going down, they set new records for red ink.
And though they like to blame the Congress when the Democrats have been in control, the fact is their presidents don't propose balaned udgets, veto unbalanced budgets, and propose budgets within a few percent of those coming out of Congress...

[SonOfSmeagol]

I'm not talking about the legitimacy of the Rev. Wright issue.
I was talking about the amount of coverage.
The overwhelming majority of the coverage on right-wing outlets was about Obama.


I don't think the Posts' coverage of Obama was more positive than it was about McCain.
They printed a number of very positive stories about him. In particular, I recall a bigass two-pager about his military record and his captivity in Vietnam.
But still, I can see why someone might think they had more positive coverage of Obama.
I don't think their coverage of one issue is enough to brand them with in terms of all their coverage of all issues.

You do know the Post supported the invasion of Iraq, don't you?
And I bet you support the troops and are glad their Pulitzer Prize-winning expose on Walter Reed led to much-needed changes there, right?
If you go to their website, you'll not only find the Walter Reed series of stories, but that they have followed up since then, and for that they deserve kudos... don't you agree?

Look, I just don’t like the Wash Post. I don’t like the tone and overall coverage of the paper and haven’t for the well over twenty years that I have been in the area (and before that even). They are not “mainstream” or objective in my opinion.

Cherry-picking articles or stances about the invasion or Walter Reed or whatever…you could probably find something in Wash Times that you agree with if you look hard enough. And I don’t like THAT paper either for - curiously enough – the same reasons!

I don’t subscribe to the Post, because I hate the thought of paying for it, but I do have access to it. I don’t like the paper – and I don’t care how many other people do – that means nothing to me! It really is as simple as that from my perspective.

[high fly]

Yes, and I could cherry-pick about their coverage of the Lewinsky scandal and any number of other stories that would be viewd as negative concerning a liberal.

You have your opinion based on one story and I have mine based on their announced policy and procedures.
The editorial board airs their views.
Reporters are just looking for a good story, whether it is the latest on that librul Marion Barry or the latest on that librul Blagojevich or articles on constipatives........


I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. If you need the last word on it, go ahead.

I'm done.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Yes, and I could cherry-pick about their coverage of the Lewinsky scandal and any number of other stories that would be viewd as negative concerning a liberal.

You have your opinion based on one story and I have mine based on their announced policy and procedures.
The editorial board airs their views.
Reporters are just looking for a good story, whether it is the latest on that librul Marion Barry or the latest on that librul Blagojevich or articles on constipatives........


I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. If you need the last word on it, go ahead.

I'm done.

I'll gladly take the last word. I was pretty much done with this with you a long time ago. Now you say "You have your opinion based on one story"? Bullshit. I gave it much more than that. Although...that article is pretty fucking compelling in itself when I think about it - in my opinion.

And, I will add in the spirit of the thread at hand, the looney tune shitstain Blago is gone - down in big time shameful flames and it's already old news here. But…but - had he been a Republican?? Oooo - look out - just venturing a guess but there would’ve been a lot of creamy jeans here.

[TheMojoPin]

And, I will add in the spirit of the thread at hand, the looney tune shitstain Blago is gone - down in big time shameful flames and it's already old news here. But…but - had he been a Republican?? Oooo - look out - just venturing a guess but there would’ve been a lot of creamy jeans here.

Why? This has been entertaining as hell. What do you expect people to do, talk about it every day? Look at the threads there have been for various political scandals...Democrat or Republican, they tend to die pretty quickly if they're not big stories. This one isn't besides how flatout nuts he is.

And just because you don't like the Washington Post doesn't make it not mainstream. I don't know how you can try and argue that.

[boosterp]

Jeez, this is like arguing what shade of blue the sky is.

I tried google but did not find it but a few years ago there was a barometer regarding the media that was done by an independent group (I think college students) which was done after the Bush CBS thing. It was interesting to see none the less and although I do not remember the details but the conclusion was that there are organizations that lean left, those that lean right, and no real source that was in the middle. The AP came close to the middle but tended to lean the opposite direction of the majority party.

[TheMojoPin]

Jeez, this is like arguing what shade of blue the sky is.

I tried google but did not find it but a few years ago there was a barometer regarding the media that was done by an independent group (I think college students) which was done after the Bush CBS thing. It was interesting to see none the less and although I do not remember the details but the conclusion was that there are organizations that lean left, those that lean right, and no real source that was in the middle. The AP came close to the middle but tended to lean the opposite direction of the majority party.

That should just be common sense. There's no such thing as a neutral or "middle" media outlet when it comes to editorial content. There never has been.

[foodcourtdruide]

I'll gladly take the last word. I was pretty much done with this with you a long time ago. Now you say "You have your opinion based on one story"? Bullshit. I gave it much more than that. Although...that article is pretty fucking compelling in itself when I think about it - in my opinion.

And, I will add in the spirit of the thread at hand, the looney tune shitstain Blago is gone - down in big time shameful flames and it's already old news here. But…but - had he been a Republican?? Oooo - look out - just venturing a guess but there would’ve been a lot of creamy jeans here.

What are you talking about? The Blagojevich story has been covered ad nuseum everywhere. You are like the 15th conservative poster on this board to start bringing up this bizarre conspiracy theory that democrats receive an easier time in the press than republicans. I think high fly really nailed it when he said blaming a "liberal media" is simply easier than facing facts.

[TheMojoPin]

What are you talking about? The Blagojevich story has been covered ad nuseum everywhere.

No kidding. Every news outlet, print or TV or otherwise, has been jumping on it every time he opens his mouth and he's been almost nonstop fodder for comedians ad pundits and editorialists across the spectrum. I have no idea how anyone could think that he's "getting off easy" in that regard.

[Dude!]

more Americans have been killed in Chicago this year
than in Iraq

[dino_electropolis]

more Americans have been killed in Chicago this year
than in Iraq

yeah, but the ones in chicago were killed by other americans, so.....

[boosterp]

That should just be common sense. There's no such thing as a neutral or "middle" media outlet when it comes to editorial content. There never has been.

Especially since Nixon.

[high fly]

Especially since Nixon.


Since Nixon it has been "shoot-the-messenger" because addressing the facts, such as Ronald "Dutch" Reagan's rich payouts to terrorists who were kidnapping, torturing and murdering Americans, are just too painful for them to handle...

[SonOfSmeagol]

And, I will add in the spirit of the thread at hand, the looney tune shitstain Blago is gone - down in big time shameful flames and it's already old news here. But…but - had he been a Republican?? Oooo - look out - just venturing a guess but there would’ve been a lot of creamy jeans here.

What are you talking about? The Blagojevich story has been covered ad nuseum everywhere. You are like the 15th conservative poster on this board to start bringing up this bizarre conspiracy theory that democrats receive an easier time in the press than republicans. I think high fly really nailed it when he said blaming a "liberal media" is simply easier than facing facts.

No kidding. Every news outlet, print or TV or otherwise, has been jumping on it every time he opens his mouth and he's been almost nonstop fodder for comedians ad pundits and editorialists across the spectrum. I have no idea how anyone could think that he's "getting off easy" in that regard.

To be precise, and this was intentional, I was clearly referring to HERE (“old news HERE”, “creamy jeans HERE”) not in general. Looking back over this thread on this board, I made that call. You both chose to generalize my statement and that was clearly not what I did, nor my intention.

[TheMojoPin]

To be precise, and this was intentional, I was clearly referring to HERE (“old news HERE”, “creamy jeans HERE”) not in general. Looking back over this thread on this board, I made that call. You both chose to generalize my statement and that was clearly not what I did, nor my intention.

Either way, you're just looking to pick a partisan fight. What, there's a quota as to how many Rod posts there need to be for you? You honestly think a Republican governor with the same story would have people here posting day and night about it? Why? Show me where similar things have happened in the past that blew way this thread in terms of "creamy jeans."

[foodcourtdruide]

To be precise, and this was intentional, I was clearly referring to HERE (“old news HERE”, “creamy jeans HERE”) not in general. Looking back over this thread on this board, I made that call. You both chose to generalize my statement and that was clearly not what I did, nor my intention.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I was hoping you weren't just trying to pick a fight by accusing us of being mindless sheep that prefer a good image of our political party over the well being of our country.

[high fly]

Conservatives are still trying to shake out the cobwebs after the trouncing they took in the last two elections.
They resemble Mike Tyson in round 8 with Buster Douglas, on the mat, trying to find their mouthpiece, and so they are grasping at anything, anything to regain their footing...

[SonOfSmeagol]

Either way, you're just looking to pick a partisan fight. What, there's a quota as to how many Rod posts there need to be for you? You honestly think a Republican governor with the same story would have people here posting day and night about it? Why? Show me where similar things have happened in the past that blew way this thread in terms of "creamy jeans."

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I was hoping you weren't just trying to pick a fight by accusing us of being mindless sheep that prefer a good image of our political party over the well being of our country.

Not trying to pick a fight – again just my observations when looking over this thread. “skid mark” and “looney tune shitstain” coming from me is not exactly a lovefest and I recognize that. However, talk about a Republican Governor? Pleeeease. Honestly – I saw, and STILL see a lot, a LOT, of hate in the Sarah Palin thread. Albeit she was running for VP and it is NOT the same story. But still, cmon…hateful.

[TheMojoPin]

However, talk about a Republican Governor? Pleeeease. Honestly – I saw, and STILL see a lot, a LOT, of hate in the Sarah Palin thread. Albeit she was running for VP and it is NOT the same story. But still, cmon…hateful.

C'mon, what? You just defeated your own point: she was running for VP with a distinct possibility she would have been president. Compound that with her being an idiot and there was shit to talk about almost every damn day. And who cares if it's "hateful?" If people can't stand a public figure, what, they're supposed to be nice about it?

[foodcourtdruide]

Not trying to pick a fight – again just my observations when looking over this thread. “skid mark” and “looney tune shitstain” coming from me is not exactly a lovefest and I recognize that. However, talk about a Republican Governor? Pleeeease. Honestly – I saw, and STILL see a lot, a LOT, of hate in the Sarah Palin thread. Albeit she was running for VP and it is NOT the same story. But still, cmon…hateful.

So, you think people on this board dislike Palin because she was a Republican?

[SonOfSmeagol]

C'mon, what? You just defeated your own point: she was running for VP with a distinct possibility she would have been president. Compound that with her being an idiot and there was shit to talk about almost every damn day. And who cares if it's "hateful?" If people can't stand a public figure, what, they're supposed to be nice about it?

Yeah, sure. So you say - "who cares if it's "hateful?"". What a joke statement. You said “Show me where similar things have happened in the past that blew way this thread in terms of "creamy jeans." and I did exactly that. Your opinions about her being an “idiot” and people “can’t standing her” are just that – opinions – you should state them as such and stop trying to make them sound like a given. Again - "who cares if it's "hateful?" - what the fuck is that?

So, you think people on this board dislike Palin because she was a Republican?

Pleeeease. Let me just say – that just doesn’t help her baseline case. How about it - a quote from previous posts on this board on the major pluses and minuses of Joe Biden – the other VP candidate? Anyone? Doubtful.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, sure. So you say - "who cares if it's "hateful?"". What a joke statement. You said “Show me where similar things have happened in the past that blew way this thread in terms of "creamy jeans." and I did exactly that.

You did exactly what you wanted to do to only fit your own backpeddling. I said point to a story similar to Rod's involving a Republican and the closest you could find was a story where the only comparable thing was that they were both governors. The Palin story was so much bigger because of its scope and because everyone was getting new ammo practically every day and because the scope and scale of the story was so much more gigantic. With Rod, there's not much going on until the criminal investigation sheds some more details, otherwise it's just been a few stupid quotes here and there and "ha-ha, look at his hair!" Nobody is trying to "spare" Rod becaus ehe's a Democrat...there's just a lot less to talk about than when Palinmania was in full force.

Your opinions about her being an “idiot” and people “can’t standing her” are just that – opinions – you should state them as such and stop trying to make them sound like a given. Again - "who cares if it's "hateful?" - what the fuck is that?

Exactly what it says...who cares if someone on a message board can't stand a public figure? What does it matter? And saying that there are people who "can't stand her" isn't an opinion. You think the ideathat there are people who can't stand Sarah Palin is a debatable point?

Pleeeease. Let me just say – that just doesn’t help her baseline case. How about it - a quote from previous posts on this board on the major pluses and minuses of Joe Biden – the other VP candidate? Anyone? Doubtful.

People have pointed out plenty when Biden sticks his foot in his mouth. I just did the other week when he made his stupid joke about the oath. And quit acting like Palin and Biden should be compared on equal footing. She gets trounced more because as much of an idiot as he can be, she has him beat across the board.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

YOU DEMONCRATS R GONG TO PAY!

fucking mean people. why you gotta hate on us just cuz we republican?! sniff.


anyway, i think mojo has won this argument no matter what you say at this point LOTR pundit.

[foodcourtdruide]

Pleeeease. Let me just say – that just doesn’t help her baseline case. How about it - a quote from previous posts on this board on the major pluses and minuses of Joe Biden – the other VP candidate? Anyone? Doubtful.

So because I don't like Sarah Palin, I can't like Joe Biden? Sarah Palin and Joe Biden were completely different characters in the election. Could you honestly say Joe Biden:

1. is 1/100th the divisive figure Sarah Palin is? Whether you like her or hate her, you have to admit that. I'd easily admit that about Hillary Clinton.

2. At no point in the election was the "star" of the ticket Biden, again, whether you like or dislike her, you have to admit Palin was the star of her ticket for a certain period of time.

Great scrutiny came upon Palin, much as great scrutiny came upon Obama. Every move she made was watched and she constantly fucked up. Imagine if Obama said the idiotic things Palin said, how would Republicans have responded? Exactly like Democrats? Most likely.

[SonOfSmeagol]

You did exactly what you wanted to do to only fit your own backpeddling. I said point to a story similar to Rod's involving a Republican and the closest you could find was a story where the only comparable thing was that they were both governors. The Palin story was so much bigger because of its scope and because everyone was getting new ammo practically every day and because the scope and scale of the story was so much more gigantic. With Rod, there's not much going on until the criminal investigation sheds some more details, otherwise it's just been a few stupid quotes here and there and "ha-ha, look at his hair!" Nobody is trying to "spare" Rod becaus ehe's a Democrat...there's just a lot less to talk about than when Palinmania was in full force. .

What? My original point was the Blago thread and you stretched it beyond that and challenged me to research extraneous info. Backpedaling – I think not. I offered up a good example off the top and if that doesn’t serve your needs then too bad.

Exactly what it says...who cares if someone on a message board can't stand a public figure? What does it matter? And saying that there are people who "can't stand her" isn't an opinion. You think the ideathat there are people who can't stand Sarah Palin is a debatable point? .

What the fuck does that mean? Every fucking time that someone says they like or don’t like someone or something there’s a flock of posts about proving one’s opinion. Unless it’s in agreement with the Mutual Admiration Society.

People have pointed out plenty when Biden sticks his foot in his mouth. I just did the other week when he made his stupid joke about the oath. And quit acting like Palin and Biden should be compared on equal footing. She gets trounced more because as much of an idiot as he can be, she has him beat across the board.

There’s one – got any more? Biden’s an idiot: ______________________

Equal footing - yes I would say in an objective setting – this is not. Score HERE: Anti Palin = 100+ , Anti Biden = 1.

Great scrutiny came upon Palin, much as great scrutiny came upon Obama.

Great scrutiny upon Obama? pleeeese

[TheMojoPin]

What? My original point was the Blago thread and you stretched it beyond that and challenged me to research extraneous info. Backpedaling – I think not. I offered up a good example off the top and if that doesn’t serve your needs then too bad.

It is backpeddling. My challenge was in response to your insipid "creamy jeans" comment implying that Rod isn't getting piled on to your liking here because he's a Democrat and that a comparable Republican scandal would have people ranting and commenting on it left and right. Since this board started there have been numerous scandals involving governors and senators and such on both sides of the spectrum of comparablt stature and scope and infamy. Feel free to seek those out and peruse them and see if your generalized dig at the "liberals" here holds up.

And your example wasn't good. Again, the only similarity is that both people at the center of the store are state governors. The stories and the context and the scope of the stories aren't even remotely similar.

What the fuck does that mean? Every fucking time that someone says they like or don’t like someone or something there’s a flock of posts about proving one’s opinion. Unless it’s in agreement with the Mutual Admiration Society.

Ridiculous. I don't need to back up obvious hyperbole, or a statement as obvious as "there are people who can't stand Sarah Palin." What, I have to back that up as if there's even a remote possibility that I'm the only person in the world who can't stand her?

There’s one – got any more? Biden’s an idiot: ______________________

Equal footing - yes I would say in an objective setting – this is not. Score HERE: Anti Palin = 100+ , Anti Biden = 1.

There's no such thing as an objective setting. There never has been and ther never will be. And nobody in their right mind is placing Palin and Biden on the same footing like we have to compare them as equals...that's a ludicrous comparison. Why should anyone feel obigated to dig something up about Biden just because Palin couldn't stop being a dipshit every 2 minutes? Just because she's fucking up left and right doesn't mean he's doing the same. His fucking up ratio compared to hers over the campaign just didn't come close to stacking up. Your expectations are false. When Biden fucks up, we call him out on out, but we can't will him to fuck up to match some fictional sense of equal time of fuck up-ery.

[SonOfSmeagol]

It is backpeddling. My challenge was in response to your insipid "creamy jeans" comment implying that Rod isn't getting piled on to your liking here because he's a Democrat and that a comparable Republican scandal would have people ranting and commenting on it left and right. Since this board started there have been numerous scandals involving governors and senators and such on both sides of the spectrum of comparablt stature and scope and infamy. Feel free to seek those out and peruse them and see if your generalized dig at the "liberals" here holds up.

And your example wasn't good. Again, the only similarity is that both people at the center of the store are state governors. The stories and the context and the scope of the stories aren't even remotely similar. .

Nothing to do with my “liking” just an observation. No dig at anyone– just the shear numbers of one side vs another are pretty obvious.

Ridiculous. I don't need to back up obvious hyperbole, or a statement as obvious as "there are people who can't stand Sarah Palin." What, I have to back that up as if there's even a remote possibility that I'm the only person in the world who can't stand her? .

Truthful statement – you can’t stand her.

There's no such thing as an objective setting. There never has been and ther never will be. And nobody in their right mind is placing Palin and Biden on the same footing like we have to compare them as equals...that's a ludicrous comparison. Why should anyone feel obigated to dig something up about Biden just because Palin couldn't stop being a dipshit every 2 minutes? Just because she's fucking up left and right doesn't mean he's doing the same. His fucking up ratio compared to hers over the campaign just didn't come close to stacking up. Your expectations are false. When Biden fucks up, we call him out on out, but we can't will him to fuck up to match some fictional sense of equal time of fuck up-ery.

According to you. All a matter of perspective and opinion. If you had agreed with her basic views, you probably could have overlooked her presentation, however you did not. Hence the “fucking up”. Everything you say is a matter of opinion – and while I may not agree - I respect that.

This is pretty much at an end.

[TheMojoPin]

Nothing to do with my “liking” just an observation. No dig at anyone– just the shear numbers of one side vs another are pretty obvious.

So what? You honestly think people aren't picking on Rod enough here because he's a Democrat?

Truthful statement – you can’t stand her.

Tons of people can't stand her. Again, so what?

According to you. All a matter of perspective and opinion. If you had agreed with her basic views, you probably could have overlooked her presentation, however you did not. Hence the “fucking up”. Everything you say is a matter of opinion – and while I may not agree - I respect that.

If you're going to sit there and tell me that Sarah Palin and Joe Biden should be judged equally and that a fuckup by one needs to matched by a fuckup by the other every single time, you're not being realistic at all. You're trying to explain away falling back on ye olde "liberal bias" cliche, but you can't. Stating that the context for examining Palin and her obvious flaws and screwups compared to Biden and his flaws and screwups should somehow be balanced or objective or fair or however you want to spin this is just completely unrealistic. They're not the same people, they've had totally different careers and they have totally different histories and reputations.

This is pretty much at an end.

Yes, because you've backed yourself into the corner.

[foodcourtdruide]

What? My original point was the Blago thread and you stretched it beyond that and challenged me to research extraneous info. Backpedaling – I think not. I offered up a good example off the top and if that doesn’t serve your needs then too bad.



What the fuck does that mean? Every fucking time that someone says they like or don’t like someone or something there’s a flock of posts about proving one’s opinion. Unless it’s in agreement with the Mutual Admiration Society.



There’s one – got any more? Biden’s an idiot: ______________________

Equal footing - yes I would say in an objective setting – this is not. Score HERE: Anti Palin = 100+ , Anti Biden = 1.



Great scrutiny upon Obama? pleeeese

Every single thing obama did was put under a magnifying glass. I don't know why people deny that.

Here's the definition of scrutiny from m-w.com

1 : a searching study, inquiry, or inspection : examination
2 : a searching look
3 : close watch : surveillance

If you don't think Obama was under great scrutiny during the campaign, then I just don't know what to say to you. I can't comprehend how that's even debatable.

[TheMojoPin]

Every single thing obama did was put under a magnifying glass. I don't know why people deny that.

Here's the definition of scrutiny from m-w.com

1 : a searching study, inquiry, or inspection : examination
2 : a searching look
3 : close watch : surveillance

If you don't think Obama was under great scrutiny during the campaign, then I just don't know what to say to you. I can't comprehend how that's even debatable.

Some peope seem to think that Palin didn't actually screw the pooch almost every chance she got and instead it was the result of "unfair" and "unbalaced coverage," as if if more attention was placed on Obama or Biden they would have looked as bad as she dids. This seems to assume that all 3 started at the same point as equals based on their careers and personal history and rhetoric and so on and that only a purposeful effort to tear down one and spare the others left things as they were. It's a roundabout way of saying she should have been given mulligan after mulligan.

[boosterp]

I am not a lib, I am a social (progressive) conservative and even I say Palin was a joke. She helped to sink every bit of momentum that the republican party had, early on in the race. McCain never fully recovered from this and the polls show exactly that.

[high fly]

Every single thing obama did was put under a magnifying glass. I don't know why people deny that.

Here's the definition of scrutiny from m-w.com

1 : a searching study, inquiry, or inspection : examination
2 : a searching look
3 : close watch : surveillance

If you don't think Obama was under great scrutiny during the campaign, then I just don't know what to say to you. I can't comprehend how that's even debatable.



It's the latest talking point excuse for the drubbing they took in November.
Manatee and Limpbaugh put it out so that means it can be repeated without thinking...

[SonOfSmeagol]

This is pretty much at an end.

Yes, because you've backed yourself into the corner.

Actually, no. No matter how much you parse it, my point was really about what’s going on here. If you want to hold up these posts, and others I’ve referenced, in general, as being some kind of standard of objectivity then I will once again disagree. They speak for themselves. You say “so they’re hateful – so what”? Cool - just remember that when it’s someone you and the majority here like and then see the reaction - here.

Again you chose to expand and generalize the topic beyond what I said, and then make statements against things I didn’t even say. Strawman? But I’m sure you’ll explain it away by, for example, saying that the topic deserves much wider consideration because you and others have so obviously pointed that out, then perhaps parsing it some more until satisfied.

So many here make the same basic mistake, again and again, of thinking one can convince another about the right and wrong of a political viewpoint. Time and time again people cannot simply admit that someone’s view is different because that is simply what they as individuals think and believe – that they are NOT in fact influenced by media or “Overlords”. Can you not in fact understand that I can think you are “wrong”, that you will pretty much always be “wrong”, respect that, give you shit again and again, have some fun, and then leave it at that? It’s politics, man. There is no “corner” to be backed into. If you and others actually think you can make a definitive case and actually solve all these problems then get to it! You and others are then in the wrong fucking business and are spending way too much time on this board!

I'm sure this'll be called a cop out and be parsed to the nth degree - so be it.

That said – I have nothing more to add about Blago.

[high fly]

If you're going to sit there and tell me that Sarah Palin and Joe Biden should be judged equally and that a fuckup by one needs to matched by a fuckup by the other every single time, you're not being realistic at all. You're trying to explain away falling back on ye olde "liberal bias" cliche, but you can't. Stating that the context for examining Palin and her obvious flaws and screwups compared to Biden and his flaws and screwups should somehow be balanced or objective or fair or however you want to spin this is just completely unrealistic. They're not the same people, they've had totally different careers and they have totally different histories and reputations.




Sooooooooo, are you saying that because they are so different that we should view them differently?

[TheMojoPin]

Sooooooooo, are you saying that because they are so different that we should view them differently?

Crazy idea, isn't it?

[TheMojoPin]

Actually, no. No matter how much you parse it, my point was really about what’s going on here. If you want to hold up these posts, and others I’ve referenced, in general, as being some kind of standard of objectivity then I will once again disagree. They speak for themselves. You say “so they’re hateful – so what”? Cool - just remember that when it’s someone you and the majority here like and then see the reaction - here.

Wait, like we haven't seen that already? There's plenty of people here that fall on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me that hae gotten brutal with issues and people that I support. So what? And what "standard of objectivity?" Where did I imply anything of the sort? I don't think anyone is objctive here. Nobody can be truly objective.

Again you chose to expand and generalize the topic beyond what I said, and then make statements against things I didn’t even say. Strawman? But I’m sure you’ll explain it away by, for example, saying that the topic deserves much wider consideration because you and others have so obviously pointed that out, then perhaps parsing it some more until satisfied.

What are you even talking about? You've done this in multiple threads now: attempt to narrowly define the range of what can and can't be talked about, and if anyone tries to expand the topic to related areas you act like they've done something wrong.

So many here make the same basic mistake, again and again, of thinking one can convince another about the right and wrong of a political viewpoint. Time and time again people cannot simply admit that someone’s view is different because that is simply what they as individuals think and believe – that they are NOT in fact influenced by media or “Overlords”. Can you not in fact understand that I can think you are “wrong”, that you will pretty much always be “wrong”, respect that, give you shit again and again, have some fun, and then leave it at that? It’s politics, man. There is no “corner” to be backed into. If you and others actually think you can make a definitive case and actually solve all these problems then get to it! You and others are then in the wrong fucking business and are spending way too much time on this board!

It's not necessarily about convincing the person with the opinions being argued against that they're wrong.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Wait, like we haven't seen that already? There's plenty of people here that fall on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me that hae gotten brutal with issues and people that I support. So what? And what "standard of objectivity?" Where did I imply anything of the sort? I don't think anyone is objctive here. Nobody can be truly objective.

I personalized that too much towards you. It’s just a vibe I get is all.

What are you even talking about? You've done this in multiple threads now: attempt to narrowly define the range of what can and can't be talked about, and if anyone tries to expand the topic to related areas you act like they've done something wrong. .

I have to disagree, I don’t think I’ve attempted to narrow the range so much as reign in assumptions and jumping-off into wider issues from things I’ve said and focused on. Focus. Then, making wrong assumptions about what I mean, or think, and then being challenged to defend things I didn’t even say. Before you know it the original message is parsed and forked so much that it turns into a pissing match.

It's not necessarily about convincing the person with the opinions being argued against that they're wrong.

The vibe I get is that it’s a big part of it.

[HBox]

It was so fun the first time why not do it again: Blagojevich indicted on 19 counts. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29999778/)

[epo]

Get your Blago ringtones! (http://blogs.sj-r.com/offtheclock/index.php/archives/2166)

[IamFogHat]

I miss Mojo.

[Kevin]

Get your Blago ringtones! (http://blogs.sj-r.com/offtheclock/index.php/archives/2166)

“I’ve got this thing and it’s (expletive) golden. And I’m just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing.

Thats by far my favorite one.

[Earlshog]

Blagojevich convicted on corruption charges

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/27/blagojevich.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[sailor]

Still don't get how asking for cash is worse than asking for political favors to get someone the job.

[Gutter]

I'm just glad that tonight on The Daily Show, we'll once again get to hear Jon Stweart say

BLAAAAAGOOOIIIIIYYYYYOVIIIIICHHHH!!!!! with the scandals and corrrruuuppptiooonn!!!

hahahaha

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-24-2009/intro---jon-pronounces-blagojevich'>Intro - Jon Pronounces Blagojevich</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:250275' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[cougarjake13]

Blagojevich convicted on corruption charges

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/27/blagojevich.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

was enivitable

[hanso]

Blagojevich convicted on corruption charges

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/27/blagojevich.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Lying to congress gets one a military show on fox news. Maybe this is worth a financial show on fox business.

[Earlshog]

Lying to congress gets one a military show on fox news. Maybe this is worth a financial show on fox business.

only if he was a conservative

[Zorro]

Lying to congress gets one a military show on fox news. Maybe this is worth a financial show on fox business.

He's a democrat probably wind up on CNN.

[Zorro]

Still don't get how asking for cash is worse than asking for political favors to get someone the job.

When the Feds want you they get you... Dem or Republican when you embarrass the President you are going down.

[cougarjake13]

Lying to congress gets one a military show on fox news. Maybe this is worth a financial show on fox business.

didnt he have one already ??

[hanso]

didnt he have one already ??

Maybe you are thinking of Spitzer?