Just when we started to forget about Chicago politicians, the governor says on a wiretap:
"A Senate Seat is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing. I'm the one that gets to make the decision, I want to make some money."
How did the FBI get to it so quick? They were investigating him for blackmailing the Tribune company by withdrawing public funds from the Cubs until they fired an editor who was critical of the Governors corruption. Also an investigation into illegal campaign funds and selling official acts.
In other news, there are a few high-level job openings in the Chicago area today. There are whispers that Rezco was the one that tipped the FBI onto the ongoing corruption, which would be an interesting twist to what surely is already fodder for Right Wing talking heads.
Unreal. I'm dying to know what the going rate is for a Senate seat.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rod.blagojevich.charged.2.883170.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rod-blagojevich-1209,0,7997804.story
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1321300,rod-blagojevich-illinois-governor-custody-120908.article
FYI, the going rate:
quote:
At various times, in exchange for the Senate appointment, Blagojevich allegedly discussed obtaining:
• A substantial salary for himself at a either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.
• Placing his wife on paid corporate boards where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year.
• Promises of campaign funds — including cash up front.
• A cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1321300,rod-blagojevich-illinois-governor-custody-120908.article
I wish we could hang corrupt politicians (after proven guilty by a court of law).
Thanks for the summary, CF.
FYI, as a former Chicagoan, I can tell you definitively that Blagojevich is scum. He was when he was first elected, and has only gotten worse since. I'll be very happy to have him out of the system and locked away somewhere dark. He's that proverbial bad apple that spoils the whole bunch.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Thanks for the summary, CF.
FYI, as a former Chicagoan, I can tell you definitively that Blagojevich is scum. He was when he was first elected, and has only gotten worse since. I'll be very happy to have him out of the system and locked away somewhere dark. He's that proverbial bad apple that spoils the whole bunch.
Didn't he replace another bad apple who is now in the pen?
George Ryan, and yes.
I grew up in Illinois and still have many relatives who live there.
And I can tell you that almost no one in the state will be unhappy to see Blagojevich go. He was/is an extremely unpopular governor. I'm talking George W. Bush unpopular in the approval ratings, which is pretty horrific.
Still, Blago got re-elected a couple of years ago because his Republican opponent, Judy Baar Topinka, was even worse as a candidate, had ethical problems of her own, and was the first GOP candidate for governor since former Gov. George Ryan absolutely decimated the state GOP because of his corruption.
I find it interesting that the prosecuting attorney is none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, who convicted Ryan (and about five dozen other in the corruption probe) and vice president chief of staff Scooter Libby. Looks like Patrick's gonna put another notch on his gun.
Why the people of Illinois re-elected this guy in 2006 I could never understand. He was already accused of several fraudulent activities. Judy Barr Topinka was a much better candidate.
Blago's actions, when fully revealed, will make George Ryan's (the previous governor who also was up to no good) acitons look like kindergarten.
I'm sure he's the only politician in Illinois who's corrupt.
Can't believe I typed that with a straight face.
quote:
Just when we started to forget about Chicago politicians
Yeah .... we just elected one of these Chicago starlites
President of the United States ...... [B)]
The good news is that Obama wouldn't play ball with Blago for the empty Senate seat. O didn't offer him anything at all for his preferred replacement, to which Blago then says "**** him. For nothing? **** him." To which Obama replied, "Book him, Fitzy."
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Why the people of Illinois re-elected this guy in 2006 I could never understand. He was already accused of several fraudulent activities. Judy Barr Topinka was a much better candidate.
Um, no she wasn't. She was, in fact, a terrible candidate with horrible approval ratings.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Why the people of Illinois re-elected this guy in 2006 I could never understand. He was already accused of several fraudulent activities. Judy Barr Topinka was a much better candidate.
Um, no she wasn't. She was, in fact, a terrible candidate with horrible approval ratings.
With godawful hair to boot.
(http://illinoischannel.org/Pictures/TopinkaJudyBaar030312.jpg)
I enjoy how people like to try and find huge corruption in Tulsa (like giving away $30M to a ballpark might net a few thousand for some of their friends) when cities like Chicago have ACTUAL corruption.
WOW. Just wow. Reading over the indictment if they have on tape what they claim to this man should really be hanged. The Smoking Gun has part of the file and it reads like a bad novel:
"I'm going to keep appointing myself to the Senate Seat a real possibility, and therefor I can drive a real hard bargain. You hear what I am saying? If I don't get what I want, if I am not satisified I'll just take the seat myself.
. . .
The Senate would be a much better situation to be in should I ever get indicted. I would have access to much better resources from there. Instead of being stuck as a governor.
. . .
You know what? I've got this and it's f***ing golden and uh, I'm just not gonna give it up for f***ing nothin'. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there."
There is also a surprising amount of discussion about Obama and what Obama would give the governor for appointing his chosen prospect. No indication that Obama was in on it, but this sleeze certainly seemed to think he could get him in on it at some level. When an adviser thought otherwise and said he had to remain governor for 2 years and appoint whoever Obama wanted to curry the most favor he replied:
"Suck it up? And give this motherf***er his senator? F*** him. For nothing? F*** him. I'll give the seat to [candidate 4, candidates are not named] before give f***ing [Obamas pick] a f***ing Senate seat and I don't get anything. F*** him. The immediate goal is taking financial pressure off of our family."
The later pages are mostly about setting up fraudulent non-profits and getting Obama to pressure wealthy people (including Buffett) to fund it.
If we were in Japan right now, about half the offices in the governors wing of the State House would be filled with bodies of people who committed suicide. Unbelievable.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1209081rod1.html
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I enjoy how people like to try and find huge corruption in Tulsa (like giving away $30M to a ballpark might net a few thousand for some of their friends) when cities like Chicago have ACTUAL corruption.
Look no further than Mayor Richard Daley and his overnight closing of Meigs Field, of which the FAA fined the city of Chicago $3 million for doing. His donkey should have gone to jail for that.
quote:
"**** him. For nothing? **** him."
No, **** you, Governor.
Just read it. It's starting to sink in with the media now and they are going to have to confront the information contained in the wiretaps eventually. Stay tuned for another fantastic speech from Big O. Apparently Blago, the hamburgerler, was promised a high paying job in the unions by the Obama admin that hopefully wouldn't be connected to Obama.
paragraph 107, on page 68, summarizes the wiretapped conversation between the Governor and "Advisor B" to Obama, where the Advisor recommends setting up a job for Blago with the unions which "from the President-elect's perspective" would have "fewer fingerprints" on it.
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/1209081rod15.gif)
This should prove to be entertaining as it evolves.
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/1209081rod16.gif)
I don't think it is clear that Adviser B is an adviser of Obama, when I read it I was under the impression that Adviser B worked for the governor and was trying to formulate the best sales pitch/angle to present to the Obama camp.
We will know either very soon (more indictments to come, plenty of finger pointing for sure) or in 8 years (pardon) if Obama was involved.
ABC is reporting that Candidate #5, that offered to buy the seat, is Jesse Jackson Jr.
This was one of my original concerns about Obama. It is not hard to be caught up in the mobster climate in Illinois, especially Chicago.
I hope he and his staff have kept their distance on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I don't think it is clear that Adviser B is an adviser of Obama, when I read it I was under the impression that Adviser B worked for the governor and was trying to formulate the best sales pitch/angle to present to the Obama camp.
We will know either very soon (more indictments to come, plenty of finger pointing for sure) or in 8 years (pardon) if Obama was involved.
ABC is reporting that Candidate #5, that offered to buy the seat, is Jesse Jackson Jr.
Confirmed. It was Jesse Jackson Jr. for $1,000,000.
Do you set up a payment plan?
If Jackson was going to pay a mill for this seat he would need a way to use funds off the radar. That means that money and/or accounts exist among all of the players, or perhaps "Playas". These would have to be untraceable accounts.
To quote a famous politician "This is going to get worse before it gets better".
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This was one of my original concerns about Obama. It is not hard to be caught up in the mobster climate in Illinois, especially Chicago.
I hope he and his staff have kept their distance on this one.
It seems like they have from what I've read. Fitz is not one who is likely to pussyfoot around if Obama or his staff was involved.
Interesting how some folks are trying to claim that 'Adviser B' is on Obama's staff, rather than Blagojevich's staff. Not surprising, though.
It could be the other way around. This could be Obama using his new SuperPowers to bounce out the corruption he knows about.
Having federal agents start rounding up the bad guys is a good thing, it is just the timing that makes it weird.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I don't think it is clear that Adviser B is an adviser of Obama, when I read it I was under the impression that Adviser B worked for the governor and was trying to formulate the best sales pitch/angle to present to the Obama camp.
We will know either very soon (more indictments to come, plenty of finger pointing for sure) or in 8 years (pardon) if Obama was involved.
ABC is reporting that Candidate #5, that offered to buy the seat, is Jesse Jackson Jr.
Confirmed. It was Jesse Jackson Jr. for $1,000,000.
Do you set up a payment plan?
If Jackson was going to pay a mill for this seat he would need a way to use funds off the radar. That means that money and/or accounts exist among all of the players, or perhaps "Playas". These would have to be untraceable accounts.
To quote a famous politician "This is going to get worse before it gets better".
Interesting that, even though Jackson is supposedly Candidate #5, he hasn't been charged with anything and the prosecution has essentially backed away from making this a blanket case.
So says the Trib: (//%22http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-jacksondec11,0,3348457.story%22)
quote:
Montgomery [Jackson's attorney] said a high-ranking official in U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald's office told him and the congressman that Jackson is not a target of the investigation.
Officials in the prosecutor's office declined to comment Wednesday. In announcing the charges Tuesday, Fitzgerald noted the only accusations in the alleged Senate scam were directed at Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris. Fitzgerald also had warned the media not to cast suspicion on individuals whose interactions with the defendants are described in court records in the case.
Jackson's meeting with the prosecution tomorrow, so maybe we'll see then if there's any fire to the smoke.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This was one of my original concerns about Obama. It is not hard to be caught up in the mobster climate in Illinois, especially Chicago.
I hope he and his staff have kept their distance on this one.
Redefining what the words "no contact" means:
http://www.illinois.gov/govgazette/pdfs/Gazetteedition_2008Nov.pdf
I am sure Obama and the guv were just exchanging pie recipes or something.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This was one of my original concerns about Obama. It is not hard to be caught up in the mobster climate in Illinois, especially Chicago.
I hope he and his staff have kept their distance on this one.
Redefining what the words "no contact" means:
http://www.illinois.gov/govgazette/pdfs/Gazetteedition_2008Nov.pdf
I am sure Obama and the guv were just exchanging pie recipes or something.
Non sequitor?
I am crushed by your undated file photo of Blagojevich and Obama looking intensely at each other.
Obviously they were exchanging not only longing glances, but payola as well. You may be wondering, where are their hands in this picture? The answer is, under the table, shoveling handfuls of gold doubloons into each others' pockets.
The best of the story is yet to come:
How the ball got rolling on this in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This was one of my original concerns about Obama. It is not hard to be caught up in the mobster climate in Illinois, especially Chicago.
I hope he and his staff have kept their distance on this one.
Redefining what the words "no contact" means:
http://www.illinois.gov/govgazette/pdfs/Gazetteedition_2008Nov.pdf
I am sure Obama and the guv were just exchanging pie recipes or something.
Non sequitor?
Guilt by association.
Kinda like Guido's association with other lawyers...
Starting to get more interesting. . .
Chicago Sun-Times Reports:
President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds -- dealing with his boss' vacant Senate seat!
I'd say that constitutes "contact".
I withhold judgment. Rahm may have just been discussing the opolstry of the seat.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Starting to get more interesting. . .
Chicago Sun-Times Reports:
President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds -- dealing with his boss' vacant Senate seat!
I'd say that constitutes "contact".
I withhold judgment. Rahm may have just been discussing the opolstry of the seat.
This was discussed last night. Contacts could be just that. Who initiated them? Was Blago doing so to try and leech money and got turned down 20 more times?
I think if something was really there then Fitzgerald would have already moved on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Starting to get more interesting. . .
Chicago Sun-Times Reports:
President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds -- dealing with his boss' vacant Senate seat!
I'd say that constitutes "contact".
I withhold judgment. Rahm may have just been discussing the opolstry of the seat.
This was discussed last night. Contacts could be just that. Who initiated them? Was Blago doing so to try and leech money and got turned down 20 more times?
I think if something was really there then Fitzgerald would have already moved on it.
You're probably right. I was just commenting on the term "Contact."
When someone states that "no one in my administration has had any contact with the governor." I figured they meant conversations too. But they could have been referring to heavy petting, or actual physical contact.
I suppose it depends on what the definition of "contact" is, and that of course would depend on the what the definition of "is" is.
It's all so complicated.
Hillarious poll from dudebag Underground:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8046332
He's only Crazy Like a Fox until he get's sentenced to jail time, and then he automatically converts into Bat**** Crazy.
He just appointed a squeaky clean elder statesman, Rodney Burris, to Obama's seat. At least for a moment, that puts him into Crazy Like A Fox territory.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
He's only Crazy Like a Fox until he get's sentenced to jail time, and then he automatically converts into Bat**** Crazy.
He just appointed a squeaky clean elder statesman, Rodney Burris, to Obama's seat. At least for a moment, that puts him into Crazy Like A Fox territory.
If Burris was a wise politician, he would have graciously declined the seat until the controversy over the "Hamburgerler" was over. No, Instead he stood there like a tool, allowing Blogo to diminish his good name. Now he probably won't be seated, and a new election will have to take place. Not smart on Burris's part. Not smart at all.
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081230/capt.24af2745edfe4fe29048898f5850128a.illinois_governor__ilmg102.jpg?x=400&y=294&q=85&sig=alBHwbjKRT.2MsSM6RhCcw--)
As a former longtime Illinoisan, I have a few thoughts about Roland Burris.
He seemed to be a mostly competent but uninspiring candidate. Two things about him rubbed me the wrong way. One, he was utterly tone-deaf to downstate voters. When he was comptroller, he saw him speak at a small banquet in small-town central Illinois. His speaking style, like a fiery Southern preacher, went over like a lead balloon when a plain-speaking style would have been much more effective. He tried running for governor a couple of times, and failed miserably. He was simply was unable to speak to rural voters like a certain president-elect did when he was a U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois.
Second, he always seemed to be looking to the next ladder rung even when he'd barely assumed a new position. His political ambition was fairly naked. Subtlety wasn't one of his strong suits.
Burris is now 71 years old. To me, his acceptance of the Blagojevich appointment smacks of quasi-desperation, of a man who wants a final shot at some sort of political glory without considering the implications. Unless you've been living under a rock in recent weeks, Blagojevich is as radioactive as Chernobyl. It's pretty stupid to be associated with the guy at all. Why Burris would want to do this befuddles me.
Burris was a decent public servant. Now, he will be associated with one of the state's biggest-ever symbols of corruption and venality.
It's kinda sad, really.
Secretary of the Senate turns away Roland Burris, won't let him be seated
Turns out Blago did hit Burris up for a $10,000 campaign contribution before he was appointed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/14/report-blagojevich-asked-burris-donation/
I wonder why Burris did not disclose this nugget before he was seated.
I guess its just the culture of corruption.
The question is did he give him $10k. If somebody hit you up for money and you didn't give it to them. I don't see how that means you somehow bought the seat.
quote:
Originally posted by cmatt1
The question is did he give him $10k. If somebody hit you up for money and you didn't give it to them. I don't see how that means you somehow bought the seat.
Well maybe this will help you "see" better:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/burris-now-acknowledges-fundraising-effort-for-blagojevich.html
None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.
Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.
Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.
I knew Reid did not want to seat him. Do you have a source for Obama? From what I recall Obama wanted Burris seated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.
Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.
I knew Reid did not want to seat him. Do you have a source for Obama? From what I recall Obama wanted Burris seated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html
Source here:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20081231_13_A3_Illino556150&archive=yes
The key passage:
"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," the president-elect said in a statement.
I am sure this guy was a dirty cheating scumbag like ALL politicians. But why was he taken out? Could it have something to do with "Kicking Bank of America our of Illinois" (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGFOn8X1X4%22)?
Don't F with the Banks... I have already covered this in previous posts.
quote:
Originally posted by altruismsuffers
I am sure this guy was a dirty cheating scumbag like ALL politicians. But why was he taken out? Could it have something to do with "Kicking Bank of America our of Illinois" (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGFOn8X1X4%22)?
Don't F with the Banks... I have already covered this in previous posts.
Funny you should mention that. . .
From the Financial Times this morning:
Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the "Swedish model" – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets. "In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US," says Mr Graham.
Mr Obama last weekend made clear he was leaning more towards the Swedish model than to the piecemeal approach taken in Japan, which many would argue is the direction US public policy appears to be heading.
"They [the Japanese] sort of papered things over," Mr Obama said. "They never really bit the bullet#8201;.#8201;.#8201;.#8201;and so you never got credit flowing the way it should have, and the bad assets in their system just corroded the economy for a long period of time."National Healthcare
Central Banking
National Education
National Housing
National Transportation
Government control of private salaries
We manifest our own destiny and convince ourselves that it is not dangerous. We play with wild animals and convince ourselves that they are humanized. We see the wild animal every day, out of it's natural habitat and that desensitizes us to its fangs.
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Ayn Rand
I had nothing to do with the Governor and didn't even want the appointment. I will serve my state and I welcome the Senate confirmation hearings.
I may have wanted the appointment, but had no contact with the governors office. I can't wait to for the confirmation hearings..
I told with several people I really wanted the appointment, but had limited contact with the office. I think the confirmation hearings went smoothly.
I told everyone I wanted the appointment, and I spoke with the governors head fund raiser but did NOT attempt to raise any money. The Senate ethics commission is aware of this.
I wanted the appointment, spoke with the head fundraiser, and tried to raise a little money... but I wasn't very good at it. And THAT's the truth. You can trust me. I look forward to the ethics committee investigation.
- - -
Just like a high school kid he is willing to admit to the any fault that he knows he is caught in order to deny whatever he was ACTUALLY doing. He keeps ramping up his level of fault to fit whatever the current state of the investigation is. Always admit to the fault they you think they can prove in hopes of stopping inquirer into a more serious crime and perhaps convincing people you are being honest.
Smoking cigarettes in my car during lunch? Absolutely. And I'm really sorry about that. I won't smoke on school grounds any more I accept my detention (there is no need to go out to my car to prove your point, I admit it, cigarettes are bad).
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.
Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.
I knew Reid did not want to seat him. Do you have a source for Obama? From what I recall Obama wanted Burris seated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html
Source here:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20081231_13_A3_Illino556150&archive=yes
The key passage:
"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," the president-elect said in a statement.
I wonder what happened in the week between your Obama quote and mine? Also, I wonder if Obama's belief that Burris is a "good man" and a "fine public servant" still holds true. I mean really, we know what kind of a character judge Obama is (I mean, excluding Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Killifer, and possibly Arne "corporal punisher" Duncan and Rahm "free rent" Emmanuel)?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.
Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.
I knew Reid did not want to seat him. Do you have a source for Obama? From what I recall Obama wanted Burris seated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html
Source here:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20081231_13_A3_Illino556150&archive=yes
The key passage:
"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," the president-elect said in a statement.
I wonder what happened in the week between your Obama quote and mine? Also, I wonder if Obama's belief that Burris is a "good man" and a "fine public servant" still holds true. I mean really, we know what kind of a character judge Obama is (I mean, excluding Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Killifer, and possibly Arne "corporal punisher" Duncan and Rahm "free rent" Emmanuel)?
This rant about judgment coming from a supporter of torture. But I digress ...
I suspect Obama backed down from trying to prevent Burris from taking office, simply because there was really no way to do it. The legalities were a bit fuzzy early, but it became increasingly clear over time that there wasn't much they could do. So, in the interest of moving on to more important things, they quietly dropped the opposition.
I'm no fan of Burris. But I think getting him under oath and verifying a few things that have allegedly come to light in recent days would be prudent. Then the Senate or Illinois Legislature can proceed from there.
This rant about judgment coming from a supporter of torture our country. FIFY.
Typical response though. If Obama looks bad, change the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This rant about judgment coming from a supporter of torture our country. FIFY.
Typical response though. If Obama looks bad, change the subject.
I acknowledged the very brief digression, then went back on topic. That's hardly anything to throw a penalty flag over, ref.
Whether Obama looks bad is subjective. Anyone with an approval rating near the 70 percent mark isn't doing too badly, it appears.
You're getting better at holding your tongue, guido. At least you didn't say, "FU, you POS." [;)]
Point of order: George Bush had an approval rating of 90% at one point. In hindsight, few people would argue he was actually doing a good job. The rating was merely a reflection of present attitudes and feelings in the nation - not really of the presidents approval.
Hence, the current 70% approval rating of Obama may be a strong desire for him to do well and optimism at Change™ instead of necessarily his actual approval rating. Unless you are arguing that in hindsight GW Bush was actually deserving of such accolades:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
/slinks away from the conversation. Voted Obama, think he is doing OK. Not really a fan of the stimulus package though.
Even though Obama inherited the current economic problems those hardest hit by this won't care about that a year from now. If things are not moving in the right direction, Dems will face a massive back-lash in the '10 mid-term. That's the whole point in GOP members running for cover from this bill, they are banking on it being basis for a revolt once people figure out it's done nothing but raid our treasury even worse than Bush and 12 years of GOP control of Congress did.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Point of order: George Bush had an approval rating of 90% at one point. In hindsight, few people would argue he was actually doing a good job. The rating was merely a reflection of present attitudes and feelings in the nation - not really of the presidents approval.
Hence, the current 70% approval rating of Obama may be a strong desire for him to do well and optimism at Change™ instead of necessarily his actual approval rating. Unless you are arguing that in hindsight GW Bush was actually deserving of such accolades:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
/slinks away from the conversation. Voted Obama, think he is doing OK. Not really a fan of the stimulus package though.
Actually, yes, I thought Bush was doing a very good job at the time of his 90 percent approval rating. That was during the weeks after 9/11.
But Bush's approval ratings started to drop when it became obvious he was gung-ho to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (it pays to remember that the public's enthusiasm for the upcoming war barely over 50 percent), plus the horrendously botched post-war planning there.
So, yes, I think the 70 percent approval rating reflects the approval of his job performance at this point in time. It's pretty elementary.
Wow. So you really think 90% of people actually thought GW was doing a good job? I'd argue rather strongly that it was just patriotic sentiment with no consideration to what the president was actually doing.
And FWIW, the Iraq invasion saw a 15% spike in his approval rating:
(http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.png)
University of Minnesota Graph (//%22http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm%22) (side note: how bad of a candidate was Kerry that he couldn't beat a man with < 50% approval rating?)
Even though enthusiasm for the war was not that robust, the country again rallied around the president. In spite of the fact that 50% of the people thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq 75% of the people thought he was doing a good job. Again, a time when sentiment was clearly dictating the answer to the question - not their views of his actual performance (I think this war is a the worst idea Bush has had. But I approve of the job he is doing.).
Frankly, in the time of a national emergency (say, for instance, an economic meltdown) it is the nature to rally around a leader who is taking action, any action. Particularly a new leader. Do 70% of the people agree with his one accomplishment thus far?
Nope. Just like the Iraq war almost 50% of the populace is not in favor of the stimulus package. And just like the Iraq war the president enjoys a 70% approval rating. So I don't like the main main focus and/or accomplishment of the man in office, but I think he's doing a good job.
Clearly the sociology in these numbers is more than elementary. And even if you take the numbers at face value, at very least recent history teaches us that popular opinion in the form of current approval is no guarantee of future results. I'm cautiously hopeful and am still more favorable towards Obama than not... but, well, I hope you see the nuance I'm trying to point out.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wow. So you really think 90% of people actually thought GW was doing a good job?
At the time, yes. I think I made myself abundantly clear about that.
Just because you don't agree with everything he does doesn't mean you don't look at the big picture at the time and say: "Yeah, he's doing a good job."
Really, it's rare to find anyone who's a one-issue voter, where one issue colors everything about whether a politician gets a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on general performance. And that's healthy, I think.
BTW, that spike during the beginning of the Iraq War reflects the success American troops were having at the time. But, like I said, at the time, "It's when the war ends is going to be the hard part." Apparently the administration didn't think so, or it would have planned for it.
Gallup has Obama down to earth a little bit. Approval down, disapproval up:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
As I have always said, don't put any stock in polls.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Gallup has Obama down to earth a little bit. Approval down, disapproval up:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
As I have always said, don't put any stock in polls.
Except for that notable exception that was the presidential election, of course.