View Full Version : American Politics after the 2008 Elections
Well, along the lines of the Amero, I thought I'd bring to light a controversy first brought to us in early 2007 by Thaddeus Mathews, who is a controversial radio talk show host on AM radio.
First, his blog entry on the first black man to be president in 1781, including many true American racist voices in comment:
http://www.thaddeusmatthews.com/2007/01/first-president-of-united-states-was.html
And then a link to his blog by someone else, with some more comments (some racist and some more clear-headed):
http://www.nowpublic.com/the_first_president_of_the_usa_was_a_black_man
I found it interesting that a (presumably black, but that is not confirmed) muslim had some of the best thoughts on debunking the obvious false claims (not that he was the only one) of Mr. Mathews and the other black people who are so desperate to think that it was possible to have a black president in 1781 to the point where they can't think rationally about the subject, or are literally so thought-challenged that they think this is reality.
One of the reasons I posted this was to point out something that scares me.
I don't think that Obama himself is a bad person, nor that he himself will necessarly make a bad president. I agree with what many have said time and again, that the office tends to moderate a person, and with advisers and other restraints that the constitution has in place, even if one does go somewhat overboard, the process tends to remove them and their party from office (right or wrong, Bush is a prime example of the perception of getting too far away from center and MAJORITY public opinion)
But the scary part is all the people that voted for Obama and WHY. I know there are many who voted for him to vote AGAINST the Republicans and the last 8 years. There are many who truly believe that Obama is the best thing for the country. But there are so many IGNORANT IDIOTS in the US who actually believe shit like Mathews published in his blog (both white and black) as well as other patently stupid things.
As well as a large part of the black vote being truly racial. Not even because they had voted Democrat all their lives and they would continue to do so, but specifically because he was black and nothing else.
"I'm voting for Obama because he's black. As a black man I think that's a more important reason than what he stands for. We need a shot of pride. Black boys need to know that if they do the right thing they too can become president. But what we don't need is a stretching of the truth or a twisting of facts."
This is the quote of Mikaeel Abdul-Malik, the one Muslim commenter in the blog that comments on the story, in the second link above. While I applauded his comments debunking Mathews' comments related to the first black president, he still gives, as far as I'm concerned, the worst example of why to vote for someone. It's a racist reason.
His comment is also very similar, in my opinion, to giving trophies to everyone whether they win or not, in order to boost self esteem.
It also takes something away from Obama, in my opinion, as the "best man" to run the country. It says that he was not the best man, but the "most proper" man.
BTW - I am very proud that I come from a country that is, with all of its past of racist issues and what still does exist of racist issues, that we were able to elect a black president. That is really, in my opinion, the best thing to come out of the vote yesterday.
Anyway, the other reason I posted this is because it is interesting to consider who was actually the first president of the United States. Personally I don't feel that Hanson was the first real US President for the reasons given by others that the actual US and the actual office of the President did not exist until Washington was voted in after the acceptance of the Constitution.
My father, who is a well-known (in his circles) genealogist, holds to the notion that Hanson and the others were indeed presidents of the US before Washington. We have arguments on this score from time to time.
KeithEdwards
11-05-08, 11:48
Very well written, but for me the bottom line is, I am burning my passport and never going back.
But the scary part is all the people that voted for Obama and WHY. I know there are many who voted for him to vote AGAINST the Republicans and the last 8 years. There are many who truly believe that Obama is the best thing for the country. But there are so many IGNORANT IDIOTS in the US who actually believe shit like Mathews published in his blog (both white and black) as well as other patently stupid things.While that is true you cannot limit that position to only those that voted for Obama because he is black. There were millions who voted AGAINST him simple BECAUSE he is black.
And ignorant idiots exists on BOTH sides-I give you skinheads as an example.
Even a forum member recently wrote that he would vote for a stupid Repub over an intelligent Dem. This indicates a willingness to 'dumb' down the country. Ignorance is all around us.
Suerte.
Stowe
Stowe, I completely agree with you. I didn't follow up my comments related to Obama specifically because McCain lost and Obama won by a very large margin due to some of what I pointed out.
The idea of voting for a dumb Republican over a smart Democrat (AND vice versa) is of course why people vote straight party tickets. In some ways, I can understand the thought behind that. But in this day and age, to believe that a choice between one of two parties is going to ALWAYS present close enough to the way one thinks about the world is also falling short of intelligence. Having two parties, to me, means that they change and expand to include marginal [at first] concepts because they have to in order to keep the vote. The parties are too broad to represent a clear majority of the feelings of the majority of people who are within them.
If someone told me "I always vote straight Republican [or Democrat] because I carefully study the candidates and I have never found a member of the other party to vote for" I would respect that, if it were true.
Even a forum member recently wrote that he would vote for a stupid Repub over an intelligent Dem. This indicates a willingness to 'dumb' down the country. Ignorance is all around us.
The idea of voting for a dumb Republican over a smart Democrat (AND vice versa) is of course why people vote straight party tickets.Okay, let's straighten this out.
No member of this forum ever posted any statement that "he would vote for a stupid Repub over an intelligent Dem".
A couple of days ago, Babboy, in making what I can only assume was a joke in poor taste, fabricated a COUNTERFEIT quote from me that incorporated that statement.
I justifiably deleted this COUNTERFEIT quote.
It's disappointing that some of you are apparently all to ready to believe that I would have made such a completely idiotic statement.
Thanks,
Jackson
Maybe a preemptive strike here, but let's get something else straight. Obama was most certainly not elected because so many black folks voted for him. He was elected because so many white folks voted for him. I also don't think that this election signals an end to racism in the USA. It would be great if that were so, but to believe it is naiive. Certainly a major step in the right direction. If not for eight years of Bush, Iraq and an imploding economy, I think Obama would likely have been thrashed by any respectable opponent the Republicans might have come up with. That's maybe a pretty cynical view, but I am a firm believer that despite Obama's nearly flawless campaign, he owes everything to George W. Bush.
What I meant in my post was not a joke.
Most repubs on this forum, with maybe a few exceptions, would have voted for Daffy Duck as long as he was on the repub ticket, and they would have defended their decision to the death.
Luckily, reason, pragmatism and practicality won out this time and they lost.
What's more, they were soundly thrashed by the electorate. The pendulum has swung in the Dems favor. Let's wait and see what they do with their new found mandate.
Regards,
BM.
Okay, let's straighten this out.
No member of this forum ever posted any statement that "he would vote for a stupid Repub over an intelligent Dem".
A couple of days ago, Babboy, in making what I can only assume was a joke in poor taste, fabricated a COUNTERFEIT quote from me that incorporated that statement.
I justifiably deleted this COUNTERFEIT quote.
It's disappointing that some of you are apparently all to ready to believe that I would have made such a completely idiotic statement.
Thanks,
Jackson
Doggboy, my apologies. I went back and re-read what I wrote. I did not at all mean to say that the reason he was elected overall was because black people voted for him because he was black. I realize that my post certainly does have a tone along those lines, but that was not my intention.
I was referring directly to the comments that were made specifically to black people voting for Obama simply because he was black and not because he was the best candidate. I didn't really word things all that well. I didn't mean to confuse that with the all the other people that voted for him, but it sure did come out that way.
As I stated in another thread (to paraphrase) I don't think Obama is going to be a bad president, any worse than McCain would have been, and he certainly has a chance of handling things way better than Bush did.
Speaking of racism though, I don't believe it is nearly as bad in the States as many people seem to think it is. In fact, I used to live in the 5th Ward in Houston, some 25 years ago, which was a very raw part of town populated mostly by black people. I got along splendidly with everyone there.
I had a friend and workmate in the 90's who was black. He had started out in the mailroom, worked his way up to office manager, then managed to work his way into managing communications in the IT department, where I also worked.
At one point, we had cubicles sitting side by side. I was shocked to hear him always on the phone to friends, his girlfriends, etc, talking about how bad his boss was (who I thought was one of the best bosses I'd ever worked for) because our boss was always on his ass. He complained about how racist everyone at the company was.
The fact was, this guy spent so much time complaining about the boss, and also talking up what a good worker he was and all, that he hardly ever got anything done! His performance impacted me directly when I started traveling to install systems on our rigs and his communications stuff had holes and problems all over.
We used to talk about this a lot. It bothered me that he blamed racism and not himself.
Then one day he told me what the real deal was. The president of the company had made a racist remark during one Christmas party a couple of years before. My friend overheard it and made sure that the president of the company realized he had overheard. From that moment on, he said, he realized he didn't have to work or do anything real serious because he had it made. He talked up the racism all the time to make sure that if anything ever happened to him, the company would regret it and he'd be even better off.
In fact, when my boss got moved up to a Director position and I got moved up to a Manager position, we discussed this situation directly and he affirmed that the guy was still there because the company did not want to get sued for being racist.
The fact is, it was a real dumb thing the president of the company had said, but it did not reflect the overall attitude of the company. In fact, this guy had been in line to make it very nicely at the company. We had many black employees in the field, including a handful of black rig managers, one of whom was the best manager I'd ever met.
I agree completely that racism in the US still exists, but it has changed A LOT in the last few decades.
Jackson:
As to the quote about voting for the dumb Republican, I just remembered that someone had made it and didn't remember who or in what context.
However, that is exactly what voting a party ticket is. One who does such would prefer that a potentially inferior candidate from the "good" party be in power rather than a potentially better candidate in the "bad" party in order to ensure that the "good" party be strong enough to make a difference and do the things that the person voting wants done. That reasoning is for the thinking party ticket voter - the dumb one is just too lazy to even look at the different candidates and votes what his parents used to vote for no other reason.
As I said, I can understand where straight ticket voting comes from. I don't think that, in and of itself, is a bad thing. I think the watering down of philosophy to catch as many voters as possible between two belief systems makes that a dangerous thing to depend on because two belief systems are not enough to encompass the complexity of life. At least not any more.
I wasn't casting aspersions on anyone in this forum. I didn't realize that BadMan was putting quotes in your mouth (if I understand right what happened) - I just remembered that someone had said it.
And by the way, I know you well enough that I know you don't think that the Republican party completely encompasses everything you believe in and was only talking in generalities regarding expectations of huge parties that are too watered down.
Daddy Rulz
11-05-08, 22:15
Very well written, but for me the bottom line is, I am burning my passport and never going back.If you're serious about this, all you need do is go to the Embassy and make an appointment with a staffer. In front of the staffer renounce your US citizenship, burning your passport is not required. Once you do that, you don't have to worry because you won't have it anymore.
I would suggest though that you have another country lined up to become a citizen of because if you're in BsAs and for whatever reason they deport you, you won't have anywhere else to go.
Best of luck.
If you're serious about this, all you need do is go to the Embassy and make an appointment with a staffer. In front of the staffer renounce your US citizenship, burning your passport is not required. Once you do that, you don't have to worry because you won't have it anymore.Come on! It's way more dramatical burning the passport!
The difference is like getting killed by a pill or getting murdered in the electric chair!
I'll do the video: An American citizen who burns his passport in front of the obelisco in BA, sorrounded of Good looking girls and dancers and screaming (as the girls they scream too) Fuck you Nigga! I'm never going back!
Ps: just to clarify, I'm not a racist, but I need that scene in this small movie (as it's very dramatic) and I wish I see for how long stills online on youtube.
QuakHunter
11-05-08, 23:54
"Can't we all just get along?"
He is being vetted for Attorney General.
Daddy Rulz
11-06-08, 00:14
Come on! It's way more dramatical burning the passport!
The difference is like getting killed by a pill or getting murdered in the electric chair!
I'll do the video: An American citizen who burns his passport in front of the obelisco in BA, sorrounded of Good looking girls and dancers and screaming (as the girls they scream too) Fuck you Nigga! I'm never going back!
Ps: just to clarify, I'm not a racist, but I need that scene in this small movie (as it's very dramatic) and I wish I see for how long stills online on youtube.If YOU say "fuck the nigga!" Actually I think you have to say nigger as well, nigga can be like "Barack, my nigga, what's happening?" Or even "Barack, oh he is my nigga" that's not a racist thing.
Very well written, but for me the bottom line is, I am burning my passport and never going back.As Daddy Ruiz says, you better make damn sure you have something lined up. Also, if you've got a decent amount of income and assets, then you will have to pay an exit tax on everything you own. Depending on how liquid your assets are, this could make it cost prohibitive for you to legally give up your U. S. Citizenship. Once you renounce your U. S. Citizenship, the attorney general has been authorized by Congress to never let you step foot again in the country. This second law hasn't been enforced, even though it's on the books. These items were inserted into bills by Democrats. They want to make damn sure they've got you by the balls, that you know they're the masters and you are their slave. As far as they're concerned, socialism trumps liberty every time.
TejanoLibre
11-06-08, 00:40
Why would a W. O. P give a shit about who the US president is. Or whether he is white, black, red, brown, etc?
At least he's not a fucking W. O. P!
I am half Italian so I can say what I want about those little thieves!
Number 1 reason why this country is so FUCKED-UP and CORRUPT!
The typical Argie is half Italian and half Spanish but 100% thief!
It's the Italian blood that makes them dishonest.
THEY JUST CAN'T HELP IT!
American - Italians are hard working, civilized, honest people.
Except for Capone, Luciano, Bonnano, The Teflon Don, etc, etc, etc.
Some of you (the W. O. P's) may not aggree, understand or admit this but we are all open to your discussions and views.
By the way, I burned my passport (4) years ago!
About to buy a Spanish passport so I can be in The Union. That's the best deal around!
Take Care and Be Nice,
TL.
P. S - El Queso, I spent my entire life in Houston!
Come on! It's way more dramatical burning the passport!
The difference is like getting killed by a pill or getting murdered in the electric chair!
I'll do the video: An American citizen who burns his passport in front of the obelisco in BA, sorrounded of Good looking girls and dancers and screaming (as the girls they scream too) Fuck you Nigga! I'm never going back!
Ps: just to clarify, I'm not a racist, but I need that scene in this small movie (as it's very dramatic) and I wish I see for how long stills online on youtube.
If YOU say "fuck the nigga!" Actually I think you have to say nigger as well, nigga can be like "Barack, my nigga, what's happening?" Or even "Barack, oh he is my nigga" that's not a racist thing.Wow, there is something new to learn every day;) thanks. I never understood that difference until now.
Anyway, KeithEdwards must say that while burning his US passport as he commited in this thread. Not me, I just was imagining a scene like that and wondering what would happen at youtube with a home made video like that one.
Okay, let's straighten this out.
No member of this forum ever posted any statement that "he would vote for a stupid Repub over an intelligent Dem".
A couple of days ago, Babboy, in making what I can only assume was a joke in poor taste, fabricated a COUNTERFEIT quote from me that incorporated that statement.
I justifiably deleted this COUNTERFEIT quote.
It's disappointing that some of you are apparently all to ready to believe that I would have made such a completely idiotic statement.
Thanks,
JacksonPerhaps it was fabricated, but you have not shown yourself to be even REMOTELY objective, so it would not surprise others that such a comment might come from you. You have shown yourself to be 100% partisan -having posted NOTHING critical of the Repubs which negates any credibility of any claim you might have to objectivity.
After all, almost everyone is saying the election was a mandate and landslide (possibly used a different word to mean exactly the same thing) and you refuse to admit it. Obama has more than DOUBLE the electoral votes-if that isn't a landslide NOTHING is.
So no, it would not be surprising to see such a post because you have NEVER posted anything positive about anything Democratic nor posted anything negative about anything Repub.
And lastly, Bush has no intelligence especially compared to Kerry and I suspect you voted for Bush. And there is no way McCain has anywhere near the intelligence of Obama and I suspect you voted for McCain. While that may be subjective, the fact that Bush has the LOWEST popularity numbers of any president since they have been measuring it (3 points lower than Nixon at the time Nixon resigned) implies that most likely question his intelligence.
Stowe
Very well written, but for me the bottom line is, I am burning my passport and never going back.I think someone is fulll of shit! Talk about histronics!
Suerte,
Stowe
I'm not a racist, well, just as little as neccesary, I lived in Somalia, close from Kenya (Obama's father's homeland) and in fact I also visited Kenya once. In Somalia a white boy is not allowed to play with black boys, nor in SA where I also lived. Well, I think in the US the same happened but a some decades before. Well, I'm concerned about who the US president is and I'm not a US citizen but I own property now in the US, and I'm a grad from an USA university, and I do business with many Americans, So, yes, I do, I'm interested in American politics and econ, and if I can express my oppinion I will do it.
However, I agree at some point with your statement that Ar and It are similar somehow in the corruption mentality in some issues, while are two way different countries. Anyway, it's a matter of understanding what the mentality is, and you can fit on it. I like people I can understand, I understand Americans, and I understand some Europeans and we do good businesses together. For instance Colombians, Peruvians and Chileans are not easy to read their minds, in my experience but there are always exceptions, in my opinion it's more a cultural thing rather than a racial thing. And that's why I don't deny business to anyone.
I am proud that Obama was elected. We need the change after the thrashing that the Bush administration has done to our country, and our relationships with the world. I would much rather elect an intelligent thinking and well spoken man who may disagree with some of my positions, than to risk electing a "shoot by the hip" candidate that I can't trust to work out issues with 3rd parties (I'm not taking about McCain here)
Also, I don't know whether this is real or not, but I FEEL safer about being able to declare that "I am an American", whereas before I've always kept a fairly low profile, even when traveling through Europe. I've never felt proud of Bush, and am thankful for the two term limit least King Bush were able to remain in office. At least I never resorted to saying "How abooat them Toronto Maple Leafs, eh" Canadian style.
However, I do have one question. Disregarding the effects of:
- the party fanatics on the election, who will always vote their party regardless of the candidate,.
- racism and xenophobia on both sides (for and against a 1/2 black with Muslim name) and.
- religious intolerance in the US (how could we ever possibly elect a president who isn't a devout churchgoer who receives his mandate from God!
How many of the votes for Obama were really a vote against Palin?
Not because she was a woman, but because she came across as a dumb uber-conservative idiot that would make Bush look well spoken, worldly, and moderate. I'm not saying that she is one, since I don't know her. But she certainly came across as one in the limited interviews she was allowed to have by her own campaign.
Besides the woes with the economy, did this chica cost McCain the election?
Perhaps it was fabricated, but you have not shown yourself to be even REMOTELY objective, so it would not surprise others that such a comment might come from you. You have shown yourself to be 100% partisan -having posted NOTHING critical of the Repubs which negates any credibility of any claim you might have to objectivity.
So no, it would not be surprising to see such a post because you have NEVER posted anything positive about anything Democratic nor posted anything negative about anything Repub.Stowe,
What a response: Someone posted a completely fabricated quote that was attributed to me, and your reaction is not to withdraw your statements based on that false attribution, but to instead to state that even if it was fabricated, it was still true.
Anyway, your statement to the effect that I have "posted NOTHING critical of the Repubs" is completely false.
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=390780#post390780
Thanks,
Jackson
After all, almost everyone is saying the election was a mandate and landslide (possibly used a different word to mean exactly the same thing) and you refuse to admit it. Obama has more than DOUBLE the electoral votes-if that isn't a landslide NOTHING is.Obama received 64,058,826 (53%) votes.
McCain received 56,500,053 (46%) votes.
That's not a landslide by any measure.
In a country of more than 300 million people, Obama received just 2.5% more votes than McCain.
That's not a mandate by any measure.
Thanks,
Jackson
QuakHunter
11-06-08, 12:25
Obama received 64,058,826 (53%) votes.
McCain received 56,500,053 (46%) votes.
That's not a landslide by any measure.
In a country of more than 300 million people, Obama received just 2.5% more votes than McCain.
That's not a mandate by any measure.
Thanks,
JacksonIn the popular vote Obama received:
1.5% more than GWB did in 2004
4.0% more than Kerry did in 2004
Slightly more than Al Gore did in 2000
My Daddy always said, "The difference between a Brown Noser and a Shit Head is depth perception".
Rock Harders
11-06-08, 15:02
Jackson,
Actually, Obama won by about a 6% margin in the popular vote, it is simple math. Those numbers you presented do not add up to 300 million, they add up to 120 million plus. A 7.5 million vote margin of victory divided by 120 million is about 6%. Although there are 300 million people in the USA, only slightly less than 200 million are actually eligible to vote. The turnout was about 64% , the highest in 100 years. I do not see how Obama's election, along with the increased majorities in both houses of Congress, could be viewed as ANYTHING BUT a true mandate.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
The ''uncertainties'', tax policies, economic policies, his inexperience, etc, are frightening investors. We need some great speeches and fast!I love it how all of the varied reasons for the market's problems are gone forever, and it is now all Obama's fault. LOL!
I think he is somehow responsible for my loose ends as well. The worthless fuck.
QuakHunter
11-06-08, 15:41
The USA is great, always will be.
Obama has our back. This picture is great.
Perhaps it was fabricated, but you have not shown yourself to be even REMOTELY objective, so it would not surprise others that such a comment might come from you. You have shown yourself to be 100% partisan -having posted NOTHING critical of the Repubs which negates any credibility of any claim you might have to objectivity.
And lastly, Bush has no intelligence especially compared to Kerry and I suspect you voted for Bush. And there is no way McCain has anywhere near the intelligence of Obama and I suspect you voted for McCain. While that may be subjective, the fact that Bush has the LOWEST popularity numbers of any president since they have been measuring it (3 points lower than Nixon at the time Nixon resigned) implies that most likely question his intelligence.
StoweSince when have you shown yourself to be REMOTELY objective, or posted ANYTHING critical of the Democrats?
You are wrong. Bush's IQ was higher than Kerry's, based on their armed forces admission tests. That's the only basis you can use for comparison, because Kerry's SAT scores, unlike Bush's were a closely guarded secret. Have you every listened to Kerry talk? What comes out of his mouth is a bunch of gobble-d-goop.
Oh, I forgot, you're ignoring my posts. Guess I just wasted my time writing that.
The Black President who has come with a faithful flock of sheep will oversee the destruction of the United States.
There are mightier people behind him being elected and all will be clear to those who doubt.
Get out now from the North as the fools paradise is ending.Muchas Gracias
One thing I do agree with W. When he 'says' in the latest Harold and Kumar movie:
"You don't have to believe in your government to be a good American. You just have to believe in your country."
I certainly don't think that anyone can dispute that -- unless of course you are one of the ones who want to burn your passport.
KeithEdwards
11-06-08, 21:37
There is nothing historic in the first Negro president.
The population is getting darker by the hour.
At least, it appears his cabinet will be White.
Unfortunately, the world thinks this is a big deal.
To know them is to love them, not.
QuakHunter
11-06-08, 22:16
The simple people will think at first that he is one of them but all hopes will be shattered. The North will turn on its feet and the South will change irrevocably.I am a simple person and I'm not sure if he is one of me so if my hopes get shattered I'll let you know.
But if the North turns on its feet, will the South follow? Will it be a Tango or a Waltz? For God's sake man, tell me!
I want to wear the right shoes.
Panos, what color is the sky in your world?
Jackson,
Actually, Obama won by about a 6% margin in the popular vote, it is simple math. Those numbers you presented do not add up to 300 million, they add up to 120 million plus. A 7.5 million vote margin of victory divided by 120 million is about 6%. Although there are 300 million people in the USA, only slightly less than 200 million are actually eligible to vote. The turnout was about 64% , the highest in 100 years. I do not see how Obama's election, along with the increased majorities in both houses of Congress, could be viewed as ANYTHING BUT a true mandate.
Suerte,
Rock HardersRock,
Your math is correct, but you missed my point.
In a country of more than 300 million people, Obama received just 2.5% more votes than McCain.Obama's vote edge represents 2.5% of the entire population of the country.
Thanks,
Jackson
Rock,
Your math is correct, but you missed my point.
Obama's vote edge represents 2.5% of the entire population of the country.
Thanks,
JacksonJesus it really bothers me when people screw up math and confusing percentage points with percents. Rock Harders needs to recalc the numbers. Obama won by SIX PERCENTAGE POINTS NOT 6 PERCENT. There is a BIG difference. In reality he won by 13.5%.
Either way, pretty much everyone, even many on Fox are saying it was a slaughter. Only those that cannot be objective say otherwise. Fabricating some bogus comparison to the total population just substantiates Jackson is reaching for ANYTHING to justify his wish that his candidate, and party, did not get his butt kicked.
Suerte.
Stowe
Stowe,
What a response: Someone posted a completely fabricated quote that was attributed to me, and your reaction is not to withdraw your statements based on that false attribution, but to instead to state that even if it was fabricated, it was still true.
Anyway, your statement to the effect that I have "posted NOTHING critical of the Repubs" is completely false.
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=390780#post390780
Thanks,
JacksonYeah, right. Show me ONE other post where you 'supposed' criticized the Repubs. Most anyone reading that post would see that in fact you are ripping the Dems for something that was really the fault of the Repubs, then saying the problem is Bush didn't stop them-tsk, tsk on Bush. Damn, that is really excessive criticism. You need to count to 10 before you post such harsh comments about the Repubs.
What garbage. That is like a 'left-handed' compliment where the person is saying one thing but meaning something else.
Show me another post where you directly criticized the Repubs and then I will retract part of what I said. However, you still walk lock-step with the base. You really do follow Reagan's 11 commandment-as do most, if not all, Repubs.
Stowe
Stowe,
What a response: Someone posted a completely fabricated quote that was attributed to me, and your reaction is not to withdraw your statements based on that false attribution, but to instead to state that even if it was fabricated, it was still true.
Anyway, your statement to the effect that I have "posted NOTHING critical of the Repubs" is completely false.
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=390780#post390780
Thanks,
JacksonHey Dude,
Perhaps you should re-read my post. Why should I apologize to you or retract my post as I NEVER associated that remark to you. I said 'someone' posted it.
Ok, so I apologize to 'someone' for saying that they made a comment that they did not make. I never said you said it so don't claim or imply that I did!
Suerte.
Stowe
Yeah, right. Show me ONE other post where you 'supposed' criticized the Repubs.Hey Bro,
That's irrelevant. This thread is a debate wherein each of us is expected to present the arguments supporting our positions. We are not expected to present the counter-arguments against our own positions.
Case in point: Show me ONE post where you've critized the Dems for anything.
Yea, that's what I thought.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jesus it really bothers me when people screw up math and confusing percentage points with percents. Rock Harders needs to recalc the numbers. Obama won by SIX PERCENTAGE POINTS NOT 6 PERCENT. There is a BIG difference. In reality he won by 13.5%.
Either way, pretty much everyone, even many on Fox are saying it was a slaughter. Only those that cannot be objective say otherwise. Fabricating some bogus comparison to the total population just substantiates Jackson is reaching for ANYTHING to justify his wish that his candidate, and party, did not get his butt kicked.
Suerte.
StoweStowe,
First, McCain lost the election. I personally didn't lose anything.
Second, Obama won the election. You personally didn't win anything.
Third, the numbers and percentages illustrated that nothing in any of these election results could possible be construed as "a landslide" or "a mandate" except by a genuine sycophant worshiping a Messiah.
Here are the numbers again:
Obama received 64,058,826 (53%) votes.
McCain received 56,500,053 (46%) votes.
Obviously Obama won, but not by anything anywhere near what any rational person would define as "a landslide".
Fourth, 56.5 million American Citizens agreed with me and voted for McCain also. Out of curiosity, do you believe that these 56.5 million American Citizens "got our butts kicked"?
Fifth, if possible, perhaps you might consider acknowledging your candidate's win with a little bit more class. Think "Gracious Winner".
Thanks,
Jackson
Jesus it really bothers me when people screw up math and confusing percentage points with percents. Rock Harders needs to recalc the numbers. Obama won by SIX PERCENTAGE POINTS NOT 6 PERCENT. There is a BIG difference. In reality he won by 13.5%.
Either way, pretty much everyone, even many on Fox are saying it was a slaughter. Only those that cannot be objective say otherwise.
StoweWow Stowe, 13.5% , you can divide. That's a problem with you and some other lefties. You ignore reality if it contradicts your prejudices. Earlier in this thread I threw out some numbers from a left wing think tank that indicated the wealthy paid a smaller percentage of the income tax when the marginal tax rate went up. You replied with obsfucation. Because it went against your prejudices. Forty-six percent of the Americans voting choose McCain and it's a slaughter. It's only a slaughter in your mind.
Daddy Rulz
11-07-08, 19:51
Fifth, if possible, perhaps you might consider acknowledging your candidate's win with a little bit more class. Think "Gracious Winner". JacksonBut I still haven't gotten my check, when does the "spreading around" start? Sid has had too much money for too long, now that the revolution is here it's time for Daddy to get paid.
If I don't see a check soon me and the Bad Mofo gonna have to tussle!
As far as the math goes, seem to remember some Red Staters in 2004 crowing pretty hard about a 51/48 split.
Early in May, 2008, I was mugged in the microcenter. I remain a liberal democrat.Stormy,
We are all glad that your injuries were minor. But I am sorry to say that you are looking at this wrong. I mean you had money and this guy apparently had none. I think simply this is just the concept of "wealth distribution" being applied in Argentina.
Sorry, I could not past this up to tweak you.
I also said I was looking more favorably on torture after my experience. That I hear is the first step toward admission to the Republican Party. Right? I'm with you now, bro.
Stormy, unfortunately Republicans are not for torturing ordinary criminals. There is always hope for the future though! The real question you have to ask yourself is "What did I do to cause him to rob me?" If you did take that view I think you would qualify as a true liberal brainless Democrat. I know that you are not 'brainless' like some in our party and simply want a society that offers equal opportunity for everyone who is willing to work for it. Since you have that qualifier built into your makeup I cannot think that you are really a 'real' liberal. Our greatest failing in the Democratic party is our inability to get rid of programs where we have spent billions of dollars of our citizens money for solutions that do not work. It does not mean the problem does not exist and needs to be worked on. At least with Obama it looks like out military adventures are over for the time being. Where we are really screwed is we cannot get out of Iraq anytime soon.
I think the only real reason you wanted to 'torture' him is you misplaced anger at him when really we both know that you are rightfully angry at the cops that would not get off their ass and do anything. It is in organizations that cannot shed dead weight that is a real issue for both Argentina and American society. Like the bastards who created the sub prime mortgage mess on wall street and this includes Barney Frank who "was willing to roll the dice". They should be locked up. The hand writing was plain for all to see that the money was going to speculators and not working people who needed the extra help a sub prime load could provide. It was the speculators that overheated the market and all the other idiots who went out and got 2nd and 3rd mortgage to buy SUV's , big screen TV's and the like. Once again our party failed to see where the program was going wrong and could not forsee the calamity that will cripple us for the next six years. Thus dooming the possibility of anything that can be labeled a sub prime loan. Obama will bear the brunt for the bad economy and I afraid we will waste billions to bail out the big wigs in Wall Street who should be left to rot. The Democratic party will have to bear the weight of these bailouts and it will tear us down during the next election cycle.
I also said I was looking more favorably on torture after my experience. That I hear is the first step toward admission to the Republican Party. Right? I'm with you now, bro.
QuakHunter
11-08-08, 17:58
"Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli's virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds."
"Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him."
Doesn't really mean anything, just trying to put a little perspective out there.
QuakHunter
11-08-08, 18:21
The richest empire will soon be no more. Do not worship false gods dressed in white or black. The northern clock is tick tocking 11."The richest empire will soon be no more." Help me, are we talking Star Wars like Empire here? If so, who gets to wear the cool white uniforms and can I screw that Princess chick with the cinnamon rolls on her ears?
"Do not worship false gods dressed in white or black" I agree. Everyone knows that you don't wear white after Labor Day and that Green is the new black this fall.
"The northern clock is tick tocking 11" Help me again, since the toilets swirl the other way, do the clocks in your world go clockwise or counter clockwise? I know that doesn't make sense, but since you are the resident philospher on this board I want your opinion.
An ancient English philosopher once said, "Time is on my side, yes it is. Tiiiime is on my side". His name was Micketh Jaggereth.
I also said I was looking more favorably on torture after my experience. That I hear is the first step toward admission to the Republican Party. Right? I'm with you now, bro.An Obama presidency will be sufficient torture for most Republicans, thank you.
Thomaso276
11-08-08, 19:00
When Bush won in 2000
Nominee George W. Bush Al Gore.
Party Republican Democratic.
Home state Texas Tennessee.
Running mate Dick Cheney Joe Lieberman.
Electoral vote 271 266
States carried 30 20+DC.
Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
Percentage 47.9% 48.4%
When Bush won in 2004:
Nominee George W. Bush John Kerry.
Party Republican Democratic.
Home state Texas Massachusetts.
Running mate Dick Cheney John Edwards.
Electoral vote 286 251
States carried 31 19+DC.
Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,444
Percentage 50.7% 48.3%
Republicans and lots of mainstream media called the re-election a mandate - they were swept up in the war atmosphere.
Race 2008
Not even close in the history of presidential races 53 to 46% ++double electoral votes 364 to 163 popular: 65 million to 57 million.
"Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him."
Sorry bro, this was a route mandate all in one.
Daddy Rulz
11-08-08, 19:38
An Obama presidency will be sufficient torture for most Republicans, thank you.I realize I'm pissing into the wind here but really Jax how do you know? I detested Bush before he was elected Pres. I was allowed to, I endured him as Gov. of The Great State of Texas and watched him, among other things slash the public school budget under a program called, believe it or not, "No child left behind." Ex number one is an educator in The Great State of and I remember her having to buy basic classroom supplies out of pocket because there simple was no money in the budget for chalk.
He also signed the bill that allowed hospitals to remove life support from vegetative patients if they had no means to pay even against the wishes of their families. Kinda had me and all the Texans I know that read newspapers thinking "what the fuck" during the Karen "we should believe in a policy of life" Shivo thing.
When he was elected Pres, I wasn't wild about it but I thought I would give him a shot before passing judgment. (Mostly because I detested Rush for starting the Clinton countdown the day after his inauguration) And I honestly could say that I wasn't really a shrub hater until he started making moves regarding Iraq.
We have a President elect that seems committed to at least trying to stop using wedge issues to push us apart. His rhetoric (and I know words are cheap, I'm a bit concerned regarding his choice for Chief of Staff, but the guy running your office should be a bit of a pit bull) is about uniting red and blue not dividing it. "We are not a collection of red states and blue states but The United States." Why not suspend judgment until you have action to base choice on?
Even Sid is saying things like, "I hope I'm wrong" with his anti Obama stuff, he might not like him but is willing to look.
QuakHunter
11-08-08, 19:44
Sorry bro, this was a route mandate all in one.Route Mandate? Do you mean it was a rout and a mandate all in one?
Or do you mean it is a road, highway or lane called mandate?
I personally believe it was a rout, but mandate is a stretch.
And thank you for calling me bro. I feel we should all live in peace. Plus I liked the Mod Squad and it sounds really cool like when Linc used to call everyone bro.
Hey Bro,
That's irrelevant. This thread is a debate wherein each of us is expected to present the arguments supporting our positions. We are not expected to present the counter-arguments against our own positions.
Case in point: Show me ONE post where you've critized the Dems for anything.
Yea, that's what I thought.
Thanks,
JacksonHey Jackson,
I guess you missed most of my posts. But let me know if these are examples enough where I criticize or denigrate my own party or individual Dems. If this isn't enough I am SURE I can find more.
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=391812&postcount=1454
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=391512&postcount=1391
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=391504&postcount=1387
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=388932&postcount=821
Suerte.
Stowe
Stormy,
We are all glad that your injuries were minor. But I am sorry to say that you are looking at this wrong. I mean you had money and this guy apparently had none. I think simply this is just the concept of "wealth distribution" being applied in Argentina.
Sorry, I could not past this up to tweak you.Hey Snowbird,
This is a perfect example of wealth distribution and it is so much clearer to me now. You are right - I have also been looking at being robbed incorrectly. I kept thinking criminals were trying to take my possessions but in reality, they are just trying to obtain possessions for themselves. And how can that ever be wrong? I mean, a true liberal would really believe that, correct? Guess I am not a true liberal as I would do what Stormy tried to do and kick the guy's butt!
Te que vaya bien.
Suerte.
Stowe
Electoral votes even larger. Ohio, FL, NV, CO, all went his way. Landslide it is.
Obama is fairly conservative when matched up against a porteno.
Hopefully Recoleta will appear in major metros in America.
The signs are that way so far.
Keep fingers crossed for a monger revoluation in the USA.
QuakHunter
11-12-08, 14:37
This Editorial Cartoon sums up the way a lot of people feel.
Daddy Rulz
11-12-08, 20:27
This Editorial Cartoon sums up the way a lot of people feel.Winning 51 percent of the popular vote in Tuesday's election, Bush administration officials were quick to declare that the results constitute a "mandate" for Bush's second term. This interpretation of the election caught hold in the mainstream media-- a sign perhaps that White House spin was triumphing over the actual numbers recorded on Election Day.
The Boston Globe (11/4/04) reported that Bush's victory grants him "a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years." The Los Angeles Times (11/4/04) made the somewhat peculiar observation that "Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51 percent of the vote." USA Today (11/4/04) was more definitive, headlining one story "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach," while reporting that Bush "will begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first." The Washington Post (11/4/04) similarly pointed to Bush's "clearer mandate," implying that the election of 2000, in which Bush failed to get even a plurality of the popular vote, was a mandate of sorts, if an unclear one.
Broadcast media also took up the "mandate" theme. MSNBC host Chris Matthews announced at the top of his November 3 broadcast, "President Bush wins the majority of the vote and a mandate for his second term." CNN 's Wolf Blitzer (11/3/04) offered his assessment that Bush is "going to say he's got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does." NPR 's Renee Montague (11/3/04) also relayed the White House's spin, before quickly agreeing with it: "The president's people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate."
They (Repubs) called 51% a mandate, 52% MUST be a landslide.
QuakHunter
11-12-08, 21:03
Winning 51 percent of the popular vote in Tuesday's election, Bush administration officials were quick to declare that the results constitute a "mandate" for Bush's second term. This interpretation of the election caught hold in the mainstream media-- a sign perhaps that White House spin was triumphing over the actual numbers recorded on Election Day.
The Boston Globe (11/4/04) reported that Bush's victory grants him "a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years." The Los Angeles Times (11/4/04) made the somewhat peculiar observation that "Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51 percent of the vote." USA Today (11/4/04) was more definitive, headlining one story "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach," while reporting that Bush "will begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first." The Washington Post (11/4/04) similarly pointed to Bush's "clearer mandate," implying that the election of 2000, in which Bush failed to get even a plurality of the popular vote, was a mandate of sorts, if an unclear one.
Broadcast media also took up the "mandate" theme. MSNBC host Chris Matthews announced at the top of his November 3 broadcast, "President Bush wins the majority of the vote and a mandate for his second term." CNN 's Wolf Blitzer (11/3/04) offered his assessment that Bush is "going to say he's got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does." NPR 's Renee Montague (11/3/04) also relayed the White House's spin, before quickly agreeing with it: "The president's people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate."
They (Repubs) called 51% a mandate, 52% MUST be a landslide.Daddy,
I'm not the Boston Globe, The LA Times, USA Today or Washington Post. I am also not Wolf Blitzer, Chris Mathews or Renee Montague.
I'm just some schlep who thought the cartoon, accurately so, was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying Bush was a divisive figure after he was elected with 51% , but Obama was a unifying force with 52%.
You say above "(Repubs) called 51% a mandate". That is the first time in my adult life I have heard the publications or talking heads named above described as Republicans. You might have more of an insight than me, but I wouldn't describe the Boston Globe, The LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Mathews or Renee Montague as having any Republican or Conservative leanings.
Neither election was a mandate and outside of the electoral vote (Obama) neither was a landslide. I simply made a comment about "The way a lot of people feel".
The same pimps in the media sure are being cited quite frequently when apparently they don't speak for any of us.
Daddy Rulz
11-12-08, 22:27
Daddy,
I'm not the Boston Globe, The LA Times, USA Today or Washington Post. I am also not Wolf Blitzer, Chris Mathews or Renee Montague.
I'm just some schlep who thought the cartoon, accurately so, was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying Bush was a divisive figure after he was elected with 51% , but Obama was a unifying force with 52%.
You say above "(Repubs) called 51% a mandate". That is the first time in my adult life I have heard the publications or talking heads named above described as Republicans. You might have more of an insight than me, but I wouldn't describe the Boston Globe, The LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Mathews or Renee Montague as having any Republican or Conservative leanings.
Neither election was a mandate and outside of the electoral vote (Obama) neither was a landslide. I simply made a comment about "The way a lot of people feel".
The same pimps in the media sure are being cited quite frequently when apparently they don't speak for any of us.I meant the people (Repubs) I knew that voted for Bush and were rubbing my face in it. My apologies for not being clearer.
Personally I don't think 51% or 52% is a mandate. I think the win in addition to the gains in the House and Senate certainly speak to the desire of the majority though.
My hope continues that on the 21st of January he makes good on the promise (or rhetoric) of ending the politics of wedge issues and governs the UNITED States of America. Though the Executive, and entire Legislature being in the same hands gives me reason for concern. But it will guarantee that he won't get mired in whom he may have gotten some head from.
I have no doubt you posted it in a light spirit, but personally (IMHO) I think cartoons like that perpetuate the hate. I'm not into censorship post as you like, I just don't like them. We have too many problems to not be pulling together.
QuakHunter
11-13-08, 16:46
We have too many problems to not be pulling together.Amen Brother. Now back to the Women who need our dollars.
Daddy Rulz
11-18-08, 21:56
The DEM Congresswomen are ripping Pauley a new asshole! Pauley is a bumbling fool. At the same time, they are applauding Bair!It's like he completely disregarded Congress and just wrote checks. Do you think he got paid for it?
Looks like the Obama team is falling into place in a real sweet way.
Really hoping Hilary steps aside for the Secretary of State post and someone else can move into that secretarial role.
Bush is being self destructive in his final days and Cheney is getting close to being arrested in Texas.
I feel good all over! A brilliant choice! CHANGE!Too bad. I don't get it. I guess this is positive payback for Hillary's strong support from the convention on. But, you would think there are better options. I would have much preferred Bill Richardson. If memory serves me, this is three chicks in a row in this position. I wonder if Bill C will be gallavanting around the globe with Hillary or staying at home looking for some stray. Maybe good news for him!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/27838743#27838743
I don't have strong feelings about her, besides the fact she's hot. But this was just poor scouting on her the part of her aids.
George Bush is back again with a last minute anti environment, anti labor, anti Obama agenda.
Here's to hoping it doesn't pass.
I find Obama and Biden's grandmother's deaths along with Tim Russert, who asked some tough questions in favor of Obama along with William F Buckley's death to be mini holocaust going on for George W Bush. William F Buckley's son endorsed Obama.
George Bush has nothing to stand on right now other than prolongued, unfinished Iraq war and a failure in privatizing social security.
I don't see how he makes it until January 20th.
Dick Cheney did a terrific job for Halliburton, Israel, and Oil, which is thankfully back to normal. OPEC made out well in Bush's administration. Hurtin at 5 dollars a gallon?
Don't forget, we have Bush to thank for American idol, dancin with the stars, the hummer, and more pharmacies and fast food restaurants than ever before!
QuakHunter
12-31-08, 12:40
Interesting reading; very insightful regardless of which side you are on. Blago is a Pig.
Subject: What Really Happened In Chicago.
________________________________________
This written by Dan Westerbeck, retired lawyer from Chicago, and former quarterback at Ohio State U - What Really Happened in Chicago.
Fellow Citizens,
Since most of you do not understand the "Chicago way" of doing things and come from places that are, relatively speaking, governed by elections, you may need an interpreter for news from Chicago, especially about Cook County politics. That's why I'm here.
You may think today's story is about the crooked Illinois governor selling Obama's Senate seat. What you don't know is how the Bush Justice Dept. Probably steered Obama away from disaster even before taking office. Here's how the pieces of the puzzle fit, based on the known facts as well as those alleged in the Criminal Complaint, my knowledge of federal criminal case management and protocols, and some deductive reasoning.
ACT I.
As you know by now the Governor of Illinois was arrested for, among other things, attempting to auction off Obama's US Senate seat. The federal criminal Complaint (three pages backed up by a 76 page FBI affidavit) states that Gov. Blagoyovich (Blago) was attempting to set conditions for filling that seat with the Obama transition team. This implies a certain level of communication between Blago and Obama or their staffs, although the Complaint does not specifically state that. (You'll see why not. David Axelrod, Obama's chief political stategist (from Cook County) said two weeks ago that he, Obama, and the Obama team had been in constant contact with Blago and his staff about filling the seat and had liked a number of the candidates mentioned. (He obviously hadn't gotten the word then.
Obama has denied having anything to do with naming his successor, denied having any communications with Blago, and generally felt sorry about everything. Now the press will ignore Axelrod, accept Obama's statement, shift the spotlight to Blago, and search for the other conspirators, including who was willing to pay for the Senate seat. End of story for Obama; just another corrupt Cook County scam miraculously not involving Obama in any way. Yawn.
But let me tell you what really went down and how the nation just averted a Constitutional crisis.
Three critical facts must be noted. The Illinois governor appoints people to vacant US Senate seats. Second, the feds have wiretapped Blago off and on since 2004 in their "Pay to Play" investigation. You had to pay him money in order to play--bid for state contracts to manage money, pave roads, supply linens, etc. (That's the Chicago way. He is destined for a federal penitentiary because the tapes have been rolling for 5 years now. A number of his cronies have been indicted and convicted on the basis of the wiretaps. Third, and most important, Blago's offices have been bugged by the feds for the past 4-6 weeks, possibly longer--that's around election time for you less intelligent. (The feds probably detected sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy on the wiretaps and through informants such that they could plant the bugs in Blago's offices.
Obama's hand picked successor for his Senate seat was Valerie Jarrett who is on his campaign staff. This was well known before the election and Ms. Jarrett had even announced her candidacy. She was a slam dunk. The ONLY question on the table after the election was what price Blago would extract from Obama for appointing Ms. Jarrett--appointing Blago as ambassador to Lithuainia, nami ng him Secy. Of Transportation, some Democrat Party post, establishing a library and foundation a la Bill Clinton. Whatever. Blago was constantly talking on the tapes of his need for more cash and how the "fucking Senate seat was worth a lot of money" (per the federal complaint)
ACT II.
The US Attorney here, Patrick Fitzgerald, is fearless and has jailed Republicans (former Governor Geo. Ryan) and Democrats alike. Some guys on Mayor Daley's staff are doing time for the same thing---taking bribes (sometimes described as campaign contributions) Ironically Blago was elected as a reformer and a break from the George Ryan school of corruption. In any event, Fitzgerald has kept the Justice Dept. Fully informed of all the Blago investigations, wiretaps, bugs, etc. And where they were headed since he needed their approval (as well as a court's) to run them. It is a certainty that the Attorney General knew of the Blago investigation because the target was the governor of a state (very high profile)
Once Obama was elected, Fitzgerald and the Attorney General saw what was coming---a Blago-Obama negotiation over the Senate seat. Given what they knew about the corrupt process Blago was engaged in through their taping / bugging, such a negotiation would be disastrous politically for Obama and possibly even criminal. Those tapes will have to be played in court some day. (That may be why Obama looked a little rattled today in announcing his total absence of knowledge and communication on the entire subject of his successor.
After the election Obama and his staff began to get briefings as part of the transition process. It is likely that the Attorney General informed him of the ongoing investigations of Blago and of the wiretaps and bugs. Obama got the tipoff, but perhaps forgot to tell Axelrod. But he did tell Valerie Jarrettt something because four weeks ago she withdrew her name from consideration for the Obama Senate seat.
Normally in a federal conspiracy prosecution you let the tapes roll and the conspiracy play out in order to catch all the big fish. (I was a Federal Prosecutor in my distant past. Remember, the feds have wiretapped Blago since 2004, per previous testimony in court. Once you get one of the conspirators to wire up, as the feds did here, you let him meet and talk to everybody forever--weeks, months, years even.
However, since they already had the governor nailed, the only bigger fish left in the pond were Obama and his staff. And listening to Blago on the tapes they knew where he was headed---right to Obama to get his price for the Senate seat.
So after the election, as Patrick Fitzgerald and the Attorney General pondered this, their choice was stark: 1. Do we follow the normal protocol and let the tapes roll and maybe reel in Obama staffers (or Obama himself) bargaining with Blago in the US Senate seat auction? Or 2. Do we tip Obama in a briefing and abruptly terminate the investigation at the governor's level and thus preclude it from reaching Obama and his staff?
I think they made a political and legal calculation in the nation's interest and chose the latter course. They saved Obama, or certainly his staff, from the taint of the criminal auction and also prevented the sale of a US Senate seat by a corrupt Cook County Democrat politician by arresting Blago today.
That's why Obama has been saying for weeks that he himself has nothing to do with the selection of his successor. Although such a position is contrary to common sense and political tradition, in this case, he's probably telling the truth at least insofar as the past month is concerned.
So Obama now owes the Justice Dept. And US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, in particular, a big one because he kept the president elect from stepping in to a first rate criminal scandal by tipping him on the Blago wiretaps and bugs. And the Bush Attorney General and US Attorney Fitzgerald probably saved the country a huge new scandal as well since Obama's team would have been further ensnared in a federal criminal investigation after inauguration.
ACT III.
What job does Patrick Fitzgerald want since Obama owes him big time?---Pope, Federal Judge (even Supreme Court) Ambassador to Ireland, Attorney General (Eric Holder may not make it anyway because of the Marc Rich pardon and Obama would throw him over in a minute if Fitzgerald asked for it) We shall see, but the Cook County Democrat Machine certainly wants to be rid of Fitzgerald and the only way to do that is kill him (that went out with Capone) or promote him. Unfortunately for them, Fitzgerald professes to like his current job. And there is no way Obama will ask for his resignation now or appoint a new US Attorney unless Fitzpatrick wants to go.
So you see, things are never quite what they seem to be here in Chicago. You thought this was all about a lone crooked Cook County politician who became Governor. That's where the press will be headed because it will be entertaining.
But now you know the likely story of how close we came to having a federal criminal case swirling around a new president.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.