Mon 8 Sep 2008
Alas, our technical difficulties continue, so here is the latest from Derek Catsam on the election.
So I wanted to think more about John McCain’s speech the other night before posting. Because my utter (and I believe justified) disdain for his selection of Palin, and my disdain for what he has become in terms of policy has frankly blinded me to the man, who is pretty fucking amazing. Yes, I wish that Republicans had granted John Kerry, whose record of service is every bit as honorable as McCain’s, but that sort of tit-for-tat is what got many of us into this mess to begin with.
So i went to Daniel Drezner, who is not only a Williams alum, but is a center-right guy whose views I respect a great deal even if I do not always agree with them. And I especially took note of this post in which he assessed McCain’s speech. because while I thought it was pretty bad as far as speeches went, I also recognize that one of the critiques of Obama is that he is all speeches (I disagree profoundly, but politics ain’t always about reality) and to be fair, my critique of Palin’s speech is that it was a great speech-qua-speeches, but that it sucked in content.
And the thing is, I sort of came to like McCain again. I think he is wrong on just about everything (though Drezner’s assertion that McCain is worlds better on global economic policy is one I take seriously, mostly because I’m not intellectually equipped to disagree, by which I mean, I don’t know enough) but that is to be expected. And I think that is what I too often forget about when it comes to my conservative friends. I think they are wrong about everything. And maybe even more pliable than I am when it comes to rationalizing faults in their party. But like John McCain, they come by their politics, right or wrong, honestly. And even when the arguments become dishonest, on my part and theirs, it is informed by an honest belief in ideas, ideology, and politics. And that is something. In the end, it might be everything.
Indeed. Read the whole thing.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
With the campaign’s distortions of their own candidate’s records, i’ve honestly begun to wonder how honest their idea and ideology is. With McCain’s 180 on crucial issues to his base’s ideology, i’ve begun to question even his honesty.
I actually found the quick mention of unemployment insurance to be one of the most bizarre, unexpected, and weird lines in his speech (and the one that drezner highlights as why he thinks McCain is better on the global economy). It came out of nowhere, he didn’t link it to anything and I can’t for a moment wrap my mind around thinking someone who admits that he doesn’t understand the economy would be better than someone who actually does study things like the economy.
I haven’t looked in much depth at their unemployment views (then again, a google search didn’t lead me fruitfully towards any specifics for one candidate…guess which), but it seems like McCain is promising job retraining without much of a thought as to what job they’re training for. At least Obama wants to put money towards a green revolution that would create jobs and retrain workers for those jobs.
Outsourcing cheap labor and pollution as global free markets do is a damn shame. There’s definitely good that comes from globalization, and it may/might/is likely more than you get from protectionism (not my beef here). However, there has to be a better way to help other countries grow their economies without damaging their environments (and ours) and their people than this form of globalization.
I also don’t think NAFTA’s getting re-done, for better or worse. sounds like pandering to the base.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I don’t think I can sum up my current feelings on McCain (and his speech) any better than Frank Rich did on Sunday:
***********
“McCain’s address [....] reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle. He took his )often inaccurate) swipes at Obama, but in winning contrast to Palin and Rudy Giuliani, he wasn’t smug or nasty. The only problem, of course, is that the entire thing was a sham.”
***********
Like Rich, I cannot separate out his speech from the rest of the convention, his campaign, and most of all, his pick of Palin. That decision on his part, zeroed out whatever good opinion I may have previously held. It revealed more about him than anything else he has done.
And unfortunately, if it works to secure him the Presidency, it will, in turn, reveal some very sad truths about the American public.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I still have tremendous respect for McCain, but I can’t help the feeling that he is a mere cipher now… a seemingly bipartisan and reasonable figurehead for a party that has been taken over by the most backward elements of American society.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Palin’s latest gaffe is a good one, and a sad one, as she completely botched the news on the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailout:
from mcclatchy news service:
“McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie and Freddie had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” The companies, however, aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.”
so backwards. so scary.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Uhh. As I read yesterday’s news, the Federal Government has taken over Fannie and Freddie and is committed to bailouts of up to $100 billion each.
Now, my measuring stick is probably different than a typical Democrats, but I would think that $200 billion qualifies as “too expensive for the taxpayers.”
September 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
You know, I have been thinking recently of Teddy Roosevelt.
As we all remember, Roosevelt got to be McKinley’s VP mainly because the party wanted him out of New York, where he was upsetting some huge apple carts. McKinley’s shot, TR becomes VP, and you know the rest.
I’m not saying that McCain or Hockey Mom (sorry, Soph Mom) are Roosevelt, but what would it take to convince you that a McCain/Palin win would turn out to be a very inconvenient thing for the GOP, especially if they work with a Democratic Congress?
September 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hey hwc,
get your head out of your ass.
She got it wrong. don’t be stupid.
here’s a Cato Institute (if you don’t know, right of center) economist on it:
Even conservative analysts acknowledged that the statement simply did not hold true.
“Heretofore, if the treasury had a balance sheet there would have been a liability but there was never a taxpayer payment before [the bailout],” said Gerald P. O’Driscoll, an economist with the Cato Institute. “[Fannie and Freddie] were not taxpayer funded. They had taxpayer guarantee, which is worth something, especially in the stock market…”
so, in other words: no taxpayer cost until the bailout–a bailout she supports and was the reason she made that factually incorrect statement.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
hwc- Are you even capable of distinguishing between cause and effect?
Palin was speaking in the past tense. Until the day before yesterday, when Paulson took them over, Fannie and Freddie were basically private companies. They could logically only become “too expensive for taxpayers” after the Bush administration took them over. Prior to the takeover, taxpayers had no direct liability. Now they may be on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions.
So yes, the $200bn bailout may well be “too expensive for taxpayers”, but this bailout happened at the Bush administration’s behest. Prior to the bailout, FNM/FRE wasn’t really costing the Treasury anything. Fannie and Freddie becoming “too expensive for taxpayers” is an effect, not a cause, of the Paulson bailout.
You should seriously consider doing some reading beyond Fox News sometime.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
HWC,
The rose colored glasses you don in order to justify Palin are no different than the lenses needed for George W. Bush…except that the difference is that with Palin, you’ve got to put them on before she’s even in office.
Expect to up the prescription with time…in fact, I’d invest in some blinders.
(Gondo: I like your logic…kind of….but could you elaborate a bit?)
September 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Gondo - Speaking of VPs plucked from nowhere, I would that Palin, if elected, will turn out to be more like a Spiro Agnew than a TR.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Gondo…never mind. I get it.
However, the Supreme Court, would still shift to the ultra right…and green technology would go absolutely nowhere…
…just a couple of examples of the disastrous fallout of a GOP win.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Glad to see the Obama campaign fighting back on the bridge to nowhere and pork bullshit coming from McCain / Palin. Even the AP, which has been extremely anti-Obama of late, essentially agrees with the Obama campaign’s take:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/bridge_to_nowhere_fact_check
I mean, I have lived in some towns a lot bigger than Wasilla that didn’t pursue 27 MILLION in earmarks, ridiculous! And the bridge to nowhere claims are just a flat out lie.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Back to the original post for a minute, I like to view McCain’s current political positions in light of Michael Lewis’s book Losers (if you haven’t read it, and you like politics, you should — it’s a great read on the 96 republican primaries). One of Lewis’s theses is that a lot of primary candidates run (whether they know it or not) not to win but to shape their party’s platform. When McCain ran in 96 and 2000, he did so on his own agenda as a party outsider. That was an agenda I could respect as the result of honest thinking on our society and political system even though I disagreed with it.
After the ugly primaries of 2000, it seems McCain decided that he could no longer shape his party from the outside, and needed to become the presidential nominee to make a difference. Hence, his newfound favor of the Bush Tax cuts among other far right conservative beliefs he tended to downplay earlier in his political career. I would be OK with this if I thought he would actually govern differently from his policies of the last 6 years.
Unfortunately, McCain is giving us no reason to believe we’ll the ‘96 version. Most notably, he argued in his speech that “Americans want us to stop yelling at each other.” This sounds like a classic, bipartisan McCain willing to work with the other side. The problem is that Palin’s speech was largely written by one of McCain’s top speechwriters before Palin was even selected. Before knowing his VP pick, McCain wanted a speech that openly mocked — yelled at — his opponent. One can plausibly say that while the younger McCain would rather lose an election but change the Republican party for the common good, the current McCain would rather change himself in order to win an election…
It’s this apparent contradiction that leads me to think that his current views are not informed by his own honest opinions and beliefs (though I will grant that the republican platform as a whole is the result of such though).
September 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
The candidates had already been briefed on the federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie.
The McCain campaign committed on Saturday to greatly reducing the size of both companies, citing the fact that control of half of the entire mortgage market puts them (and now the US taxpayer) at enormous financial risk.
The CEOs of both companies have been replaced, suggesting that the McCain campaign has some basis for alleging mismanagement.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
oh hwc,
Wait, she’s against the taxpayer expense when the only expense to the taxpayer was a bailout SHE SUPPORTS? that’s unbelievable.
she spoke in the past because she knew about the bailout before it was public. lol….right…
i’m curious…how are you going to spin this: http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080908/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_palin.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
addendum:
btw, Obama and McCain both support the bailout. however, obama supported it earlier, mccain only recently. Obama also said, “no doubt that what was taking place in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was, in many instances, irresponsible.’”
in other words, McCain wasn’t at all different from Obama in saying there was mismanagement. smh.
honestly, you (and i’m only speaking about you as an individual) sound quite…oh what’s the word…i think it has six letters…starts with “b”. someone, please, help me out.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Rory - it’s simple. The Alaskans have developed time machine technology. That is the only logical interpretation of hwc’s statement, unless you want to suggest that he is a mere partisan hack engaged in spin and deception.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Spin what? I thought that, tactically, the Democrat was insane to attack Palin and McCain on earmarks and government spending. He was leading with his chin on that one.
What’s next? Attack them on government corrpution so Palin can bloody him on Rezko and the Daley machine?
The Democrat seemed rattled and off his game on Friday and Saturday. The polling shows why.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
rory, i think you’re taking the bait. hwc, is engaged in this to play, nothing more.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Huh? McCain and Palin are RUNNING on an anti-earmark platform (at least as of last week, before that it was an experience platform). Of course he should attack them on his hypcocrisy — especially when Obama sought a tiny fraction, per capita, of the earmarks Palin pursued on behalf of her constituents.
As for Rezko, bring it on — Obama’s involvement with Rezko was a lot less substantial than McCain’s involvement with Keating (I think even you can admit, HWC, that the S&L scandal was more meaningful than anything to do with Tony Rezko) or Palin’s involvement with Ted Stevens — remember, Stevens’ endorsement was featured on Palin’s website until a week ago. I would LOVE for this election to be about which candidates / party / platform is more tied into corruption, lobbyists, and graft — Obama wins hands down there. Anything to distract from social wedge issues, which is the basis for Palin’s popularity and something Obama should NOT disucuss, beyond perhaps her extreme position on abortion.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Jeff Z
Obama has done nothing to clean up the corruption in IL / Chicago politics. It’s is one of his biggest “missed opportunities.”
As an agent of change, he had the opportunity to use his position of stature in the Democratic party and in Illinois to address the political corruption in Illinois.
His credibility as a agent of change to clean up D.C takes a hit when he had the opportunity to clean up his own back yard and did nothing.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Don’t worry. I’m quite sure the Republican 527 goons will indeed “bring on” Rezko, the Democrat’s political godfather currently rotting in prison. They will also bring on Iraqi businessman Nadhmi Auchi and his ties to the Democrat. Specifically, they will ask whether the Democrat was one of the top Illinois elected officials who helped Auchi get a US visa, perhaps in exchange for the $3.5 million Auchi “loaned” Rezko three weeks before Rezko bought the Democrat’s side yard and driveway for him.
Chicago politics is so much fun.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
She nailed him again today:
“[He] still can’t acknowledge the coming victory in Iraq.”
“He said he’s for change. But in Iraq, change happened, and that’s a great thing for America, senator.”
September 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Oh yeah, she really nailed him. We haven’t had a victory in Iraq. Unless you consider the loss of, when all is said and done, 5000 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, most of our international credibility, trillions of dollars that could have been spent strengthening our economy, thousands of permanently wounded american soldiers, all to foment greater hatred for the US in the Islamic world, and with no evidence that stability in the region will be improved in the long run, plus strengthening Iran, a victory. We would have had a victory if we had listened to Obama in 2002, not McCain, who predicted an “easy” victory and that we would be greeted as liberators. Please, give me a break. If we invade North Korea, I bet we’d “win” too, but would you consider that a victory? If Obama is President, we will have a thoughtful foreign policy that uses force as a last resort. If McCain is in office, we will have a hair trigger foreign policy, and a high likelihood of more wars in the next four years. And if Palin ends up as President, she will just let God tell her what to do — and I’m guessing the big guy is a big fan of war, according to her, as well.
As for Rezko, that is flat out incorrect. Obama purchases a sliver of land, AT MARKET VALUE, from Rezko, he received no special favors. Again, I’d say one fully above-board, fair market value land transaction pales in comparison to McCain’s involvement with the keating five, the single biggest political scandal of the last thirty years, and one that cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. Rezko is no more a political “patron” of Obama than Ted Stevens is of Palin or keating and abramoff are of McCain.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Rezko purchased a significant portion of the side yard and driveway attached to the Democrat’s property and loaned the Democrat free use of that property. The only access through the fence to the Rezko land was from the Democrat’s property.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
hwc - your “argument” in this thread has been one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent comments were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
O’Palin rules!!!
September 8th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
bloggingheads.tv: Daniel Drezner & Elvin Lim
Presidential-rhetoric expert Elvin reviews McCain’s big speech
Palin’s speech: great politics, awful civics? (03:56)
McCain’s potent patriotism (03:59)
The power of simple-but-profound rhetoric (10:01)
Dan explains why BhTV won’t save democracy (05:33)
Elvin predicts Obama’s intellectualism will continue to wane (05:24)
September 8th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Yeah. All that impressive rational thought from the Democrats seems to be holding up just great in the post-convention polling. It will come in handy when the Dems do their postmortems on how they managed to lose again.
I enjoyed this particular poll from the ABC News/WaPost poll released tonight:
Among white women voters pre-conventions
Biden/Obama: 50%
Palin/McCain: 42%
Among white women voters post-conventions
Biden/Obama: 41%
Palin/McCain: 53%
That’s a swing of 20% among white women with the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin. Kinda makes you wonder why the Democrats didn’t consider a woman for their ticket, doesn’t it? Especially, given that a white woman dominated their big state, swing state primaries.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Um…my neighbors allow me free use of their land. I don’t think allowing your neighbor to use your land is the least bit problematic. Good neighborly, yes. Problematic, no.
For that matter, far, far better deals are routinely given on land than that given to Obama. One of my best friends bought his house and the sellers through in all of the property for free. There was over 100 acres in total on the property. Sure, it was in a rural area where land was fairly valueless, but deals of that relative magnitude happen just about all of the time.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
*threw in…sorry.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
On a related note, this talk should be great:
http://www.williams.edu/admin/news/releases/1674/
I’d love to hear from students about what she has to say. Huffington Post is my favorite liberally-oriented blog. And Huffington herself has an interesting story and a lot of credibility.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
It’s pretty interesting to examine (after the fact) a thread in which HWC has participated.
A discussion starts, there’s give and take, actual repartee, and then HWC arrives. He starts throwing out one non sequitur after another, all designed to provoke, until he has accomplished pissing everyone off to the point that they start dropping out, one after the other.
It’s pathetically compulsive, accomplishes nothing, and annihilates any possibility of insightful conversation.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Jeff,
I would love to hear Huffington. Very bright woman. It would be great if someone could post her talk…or report on it.
Will Slack, maybe?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Sure, I can do that.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Rachel Maddow was just on (her new show) and she had footage of Palin talking in church; saying things like… God is the general of the War in Iraq, and that the war is his will…also that the pipeline was God’s will. Needless to say, she appeared about as far from ‘presidential’ as can be imagined.
Maddow also exposed the anti-semitism remarks made by a guest pastor.
I’m having trouble finding Maddow’s footage. Maybe someone else will have more luck. PTC? Nuts?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Will, we cross posted.
Thanks, look forward to hearing Huffington!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Do you mean footage from today’s Episode 1, The Rachel Maddow Show? I think it takes a few hours for people to edit out bits and upload them to YouTube.
I watched the show and didn’t catch the part where Rachel said Sarah Palin (Caribou Barbie) made an anti-semitic remark.
I did see the part where Palin’s church had a guest pastor who said the Jews suffered from terrorism because they are unbelievers (in Jesus), which strikes me no different than the Pastor/s who said Katrina was punishment for a gay pride parade.
If Sarah Palin has accomplished two things, its re-ignite the culture war and pump up the convention bounce.
You’ll never convince a religious right person that abortion should be a choice but you’ll never convince a centrist that the Iraq war and the Alaskan pipeline is us doing god’s work.
It’s Rick Davis not Sarah Palin that should not be allowed on TV. Who runs that campaign anyway? That guy has ‘bad news’ written all over his face.
The McCain campaign a right wing Wurlitzer is turing up the volume on Rezko SCANDAL. I thought that trialo proved Rezko was guilty, Rove tried to get US Attorney Pat Fitzgerald fired, and Obama had no ties to the Rezki on the criminal counts he was convicted on. Was there any testimony about Obama during that trials that reflects poorly on Obama?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Soph Mom @ 36 - apologies, you didn’t say what I thought you said. Note to self, slow down, read for comprehension.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
link
September 8th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Rezko: Is this the best they got or doesn’t it matter if you repeat it often enough?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, he said it was a bone-headed thing that he did. Every who buys a house tries to get the best deal. And even in the trial of Rezko they said that there was no suggestion that Senator Obama had done anything criminal.
ROVE: I grant that. But here’s the point, why bring up an issue where you have to then begin defending your dealings with a guy who’s
ON THE RECORD W/ GRETA VAN SUSTEREN 8/22/8 link
September 8th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
During the Rezko trial in April, Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve that witnesses were ready to testify about a clique of connected Illinois Republicans working behind the scenes with Rove to dump U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation to Peter) and replace him with a compliant functionary.
Witnesses said these Republicans included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Kjellander, but both strongly denied the accusations and neither has been charged with any wrongdoing.
After talking chocolate mints with Kjellander on Thursday night, I asked him how Republicans could dare thwack Obama over Rezko in TV spots when senior Illinois Republican bosses also had their own Rezko connections.
It seemed unfair. Sure, Obama had his real estate fairy in Rezko. But then again, Rezko played in the Republican sandbox too, and everybody got to play with the toys.
“It doesn’t complicate the message,” Kjellander insisted, still blinking.
Why not?
“Because, the Republicans didn’t do anything wrong.”
You can see the problems McCain has if he tries bringing his reform message into states like ours (Illinois). Not all Republicans are aboard the Straight Talking Reform Express.
I don’t even think it stops in Illinois.
- John Kass, Chicago Tribune, link
September 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
“But like John McCain, they come by their politics, right or wrong, honestly. And even when the arguments become dishonest, on my part and theirs, it is informed by an honest belief in ideas, ideology, and politics. And that is something. In the end, it might be everything.”
Dishonest arguments, no matter how justified, are just that — dishonest arguments. This nonsense about “an honest belief…” is the same reasoning that justifies the “will people believe the Obama/McCain campaign’s latest press release/claim” approach to news that permeates American media. It substitutes a factual framework for an ideological one. Underlying honestly is a fundamentally untestable parameter, so any statement made about it is trivial or meaningless.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Nuts:
You conveniently left out an interesting paragraph from Kass’ story in the Chicago Trib:
As I stated in my post #20 above and in another thread, Obama’s failure to confront corruption in Illinois is a failure of leadership and a “missed opportunity, and as a result seriously undermines his “narrative of change.”
I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts on this point.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Did I miss HWC’s formal unmasking? He appears to have given up any pretense of not being a partisan hack at this point.
Was it a gradual disrobing of his partisan camouflage or was his true ideological identity revealed all at once like an old episode of Scooby Do? “I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids!”
Pretty sure this debate on this thread will not yield much fruit. So armed with our contradictory talking points we hurl arguments at one another.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am
JPM:
I know you keep bringing up Obama and a ‘failure of leadership’ in confronting corruption of Chicago. What exactly are you talking about?
Please get specific and at the same time, why don’t we explore McCain’s record in regard to the Keating Five.
It will be educational, as I don’t really have the details in either regard, and when I google the Keating Five and McCain, there is so much material…it is most overwhelming!
Perhaps an Eph could help me with the details?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Soph Mom:
You must be kidding me…
Chicago and political corruption are synonymous.
Daley and the Chicago political machine…corrupt aldermen/women…the Chicago Outfit…”vote early and vote often”…I could go on and on.
Read John Kass’ column from the Trib that appeared a few days ago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-rnc-bd07sep07,0,6575704.column
Also below is a link to Freddoso’s recent op-ed piece in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121918996082755013.html
Below is an excerpt from the op-ed:
September 9th, 2008 at 1:40 am
JPM:
For your consideration: sometimes one waits to throw one’s punches and chooses one’s battles. If Barack Obama had taken on the Chicago establishment– a form of corruption established well over a century, and quite vicious– perhaps (perhaps) he would paid the price of having no shot at the Presidency. Perhaps he would have paid a worse price–
September 9th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Rationalizations dress our finest poseurs.
Machine politics has it all: ability, acceptance, and authenticity.
The quiet step was provided for by no other than the Rockefeller stamp from the University of Chicago.
This fast-tracked Kenyan agent represents private interests in South African resources and hemispheric alliance changes to our present world system.
Know your candidates and their benefactors.
More importantly, considering our present and future obligations, to whom will we defer, as a fiduciary agent, to sign on our behalf, contracts obliging us to the consequences of their actions?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Beyond exerting every bit of influence to retain a capable US Attorney, and not participating in corruption, what else would a US Senator do to provide said leadership?
If I were a senator from Illinois, I would feel comfortable having US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his office route out corruption in city and state politics.
They have the tools to do the job; Investigate, follow the facts, prosecute, get a conviction, nail the corrupt untouchables, and watch everybody adjust their calculus about the line between breaking the law and practicing politics the “Chicago way.”
Here’s USA Fitzgerald’s record of successful prosecutions:
What is it that Obama didn’t do and could have?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:28 am
JPM,
I know about Chicago’s famous history of corruption. The reason I asked you to get specific is because I thought maybe there was something more particular, rather than general.
Now I understand that you are faulting him for not being a better reformer of general corruption.
My turn. You must be kidding? That’s your criticism? Thank you to Ken for his response. I can’t possibly defend the reasons why Obama didn’t satisfactorily do away with corruption in Chicago.
But while you are holding such high standards, I suggest you apply them to Mr. McCain and his record with The Keating Five.
I didn’t know much about it, but thanks to you, I now have a bit more history on Mr. McCain. It is a must read.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:44 am
P.S.
IMO, you can look at this a couple of different ways.
Perhaps McCain is a good enough guy that the committee decided to let him off with a slap on the wrist after turning over the $100,000 plus that Keating donated….or you can look at it like he is a very lucky, very connected fellow.
In any case, the idea that he, and any of his supporters are pointing fingers at Obama for not ‘fighting crime’ well enough, when McCain was so intimately connected to a convicted criminal, is once again, a level of hypocrisy that is shameless.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:34 am
The Democrat’s law partners were general partners with Rezko in low income housing developments that bilked the taxpayers out of millions and millions of dollars.
Obama’s piece of the pie was finding minority-owned NGOs to serve as front partners with Rezko to fulfill the minority set-asides required to get the government money. There’s a reason that Obama lost all the billing records from his law practice and fles from the state senate.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Was it not enough to drop the load of crap on Will’s post? You had to make sure you hit two threads with your poison?
You are one sick puppy. Get some help.
(And for those reading this post, if you really want to better know HWC, as well as how I feel about him, click your mouse on Will’s new post)
September 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Ken:
Sometimes doing the right thing is not the politically advantageous thing to do…
I believe that Obama had an opportunity, given his stature in Illinois and nationally, to be a catalyst to break the century old corruption in Illinois and Chicago. He missed that opportunity…
September 9th, 2008 at 9:41 am
nuts:
I’m a big fan of Fitzgerald - despite the fact that he went to AmHerst.
His track record is impressive, with no help from Obama…
September 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
JPM,
what’s the saying about glass houses? Someone who picks Palin as their VP candidate–with her close ties to disgraced Senator Ted Stevens–shouldn’t throw stones.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Soph Mom:
I agree that McCain used very poor judgment in his dealing with Keating. However, as the article you linked to states:
My point regarding Obama is that he is positioning himself as an agent of change who will change the ways of D.C.
Well, he had every opportunity to be an agent of change in Illinois and he’s done nothing.
But, as Ken stated above - and you appear to concur - taking on the fight against political corruption in Chicago / Illinois may have hurt his chances to be POTUS…
September 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain–he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain’s two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain’s 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees–the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)
After McCain’s election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating’s expense, three of which were to Keating’s Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.
And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain’s wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.”
*********************************
JPM:
Did you miss this part? It was right before the paragraph you posted. Hence my comment about his “intimate” connections, and how lucky he was to “get off”.
C’mon, JPM. Two can play this game. Although I must say I am getting weary of it. You play innocent and then pull the one comment from the article that makes it seem like McCain was innocent. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I posted the link, you read it for yourself. You knew the content and that’s how you chose to respond?
Again, JPM. While lofty standards are to be admired, they become something entirely different when you apply them selectively.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Let’s compare.
On one side, we have a Senator promising change who failed to stand up as forcefully as we might like to an entrenched political machine in his home city. HWC’s absurdist rants will be left out. His running mate appears to be clean ethically, though his mouth leaves something to be desired at times.
On the other side, we have a Senator promising change who has hired lobbyists (after opposing them) to run his campaign, hired the same dirty tacticians who disgusted him so in 2000 and 2004, and was the subject of a Senate ethics investigation that found he exercised “poor judgment”. His running mate has misrepresented her own history of supporting the bridge to nowhere, accepting the money for it from Congress (she did take the money in the end) and asked for millions in earmarks using a Ted Stevens connected lobbyist and worked with Ted Stevens’ PAC.
Just today, we discovered Palin opposes misusing government funds unless its to pay for her meals at home . Here’s a video that makes it clear I figured out basic html finally! .
While Obama can be chided for not doing enough…wait, wait a second! Whose WSJ opinion piece did you use as evidence? David Freddoso’s? The guy who wrote this year’s “unfit for command” with the same publishers? You do realize that Obama didn’t endorse anyone in that race that Freddoso bitches about.
for a more detailed response see the piece with this statement from someone who wrote a book that wasn’t a hatchet job about Obama’s rise: Obama is not the patron saint of progressive hopeless causes. He won’t undermine his political movement in pursuit of an impossible quest to take down Mayor Daley.
But Obama is also not part of the “Chicago Machine.” He developed his own power base in the independent Hyde Park neighborhood, and never ran for local office. He was only endorsed for the U.S. Senate by Daley and Stroger after he won the Democratic nomination
And that tribune story– its source for linking obama to machine politics was Rudy Giuliani? Kerik’s patron? LOL.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
By the way, here is a good resource with a lot of information on McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five:
http://mccainkeatingfive.com/
September 9th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Rory,
AWESOME CLIP!!!!!!!!!!
Is that an Obama commercial running now?
Wait till the “preaching the War as God’s will” comes out. Scary stuff, and decidedly unpresidential.
And it’s out of her mouth, not her pastor’s.
Great post, BTW.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Soph Mom:
I admitted that McCain used very poor judgment in his dealings with Keating. Keating was a crook and turned out to be a bad guy. McCain’s association with him is a black mark on McCain’s record.
You raised the issue about the “Keating Five”. As it turns out, the specifics of that incident were investigated and yes he was exonerated — or I should say he was found guilty of poor judgment.
Yes, I was selective regarding the specifics of the “Keating Five.” That’s because you raised that specific issue.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:50 am
JPM,
By “selectively” I meant that you are willing to apply your lofty standards to Obama, but not to McCain.
And as Rory has so aptly pointed out, when it comes to corruption…um…”bad judgement”, McCain wins that contest, hands down.
Under different circumstances, McCain’s political career would have been over. And whether his “geting off” was the result of luck, connections, or the goodwill of the committee, doesn’t belie the fact that he was “intimately connected” with a convicted criminal.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Soph Mom,
no its not from the Obama campaign. its from talkingpointsmemo.com. you’d probably like the site. It’s quite good. I recommend it highly.
No wacky conspiracies, just good solid reporting and opinion with a slightly left-of-center bent (i’d prefer further left, but i’ll take what i can get).
JPM,
my concern is not only that your sourcing leaves much to be desired, but that the Palin selection, his bellicose comments about Iran, his flip-flops on issues, and his getting in bed with the same croonies he used to despise leave very convincing evidence that John McCain’s poor judgment hasn’t actually gotten all that much sounder.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
and, lest anyone think i’m the left-wing ying to hwc’s right wing yang, here’s factcheck.org correcting some of the more popular mischaracterizations of Palin: here
September 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Rory:
Thanks for the link.
It will be inteersting to read the analysis of the Kilkenny e-mail.