Hiding the Truth: If at First
You Don't Succeed, Hide, Hide Again
December 10, 2008
Get used to it.
The next four years is going to be rife with implausible lie after implausible
lie from Obama, his administration, and his minions. Already, the
lying is in full swing. Object lesson: Did Obama or did Obama not
meet with Governor Blagojevich at some point after the election, when the issue
of the selection of his replacement for his Senate seat would have been ripe?
There is plenty of
evidence so far that Obama did meet with the latest Illinois governor with an
appointment with the tailor of the state's vertically-striped suits. All
this innocuous evidence is piling up, but so are the denials. The
mis-speakings. The mistakes. Whatever it might be.
Including the latest from KHQA-TV, now denying its own November 5th web-site
report that the Governor and the President-Elect were to meet that afternoon to
discuss Obama's replacement. "That's one of Obama's first priorities
today," said Carol Sowers, KHQA's News Director, in her item. Here's a
jpeg of the November 5, 2008 story, now long pulled from KHQA's web site:
But now that Obama
needs the facts to be otherwise,
here
comes KHQA on its web site today with another lefty-libby bit of the
journalistic world to The One's rescue:
KHQA TV
wishes to offer clarification regarding a story that appeared last
month on our website ConnectTristates.com. The story, which
discussed the appointment of a replacement for President Elect Obama
in the U.S. Senate, became the subject of much discussion on talk
radio and on blog sites Wednesday.
The story housed in our website archive was on the morning of
November 5, 2008. It suggested that a meeting was scheduled later
that day between President Elect Obama and Illinois Governor
Blagojevich. KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place.
Governor Blagojevich did appear at a news conference in Chicago on
that date.
<Sigh> It's going
to be a long, though very amusing, four years.
Harry Reid on Making Hay With
the Most Despicable of Situations
December 10, 2008
Even with a master
political crook like Rod Blagojevich hamming up the spotlight, there's always
someone vying to re-gain that spotlight. Take Harry Reid f'rinstance.
Please!
While the rest of us normal people are worried that
the criminal Illinois governor might somehow manage yet to appoint
Obama's Senate successor (yes, it is still possible that this
vermin could and might do so), and the Illinois legislature is frantically
working to set up a special election to actually let the People of
Illinois (with as sickeningly poor judgment as they have) decide
instead of Roddy-boy who will be their Senator, the Chief Senate Snake Harry
Reid has a different idea, one which focuses upon what's most important in all
of this to him: Making certain that the replacement is another Dem:
In a less-than-stellar
(though about his usual) performance, Senator Reid wrote to Blaggy:
We
write to insist that you step down as Governor of Illinois and under
no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois
Senate seat. In light of your arrest yesterday on alleged federal
corruption charges related to that Senate seat, any appointment by
you would raise serious questions.
It is within the authority of the Illinois legislature to remove
your power to make this appointment by providing for a special
election. But a decision by you to resign or to step aside under
Article V of the Illinois Constitution would be the most expeditious
way for a new Senator to be chosen and seated in a manner that would
earn the confidence of the people of Illinois and all Americans. We
consider it imperative that a new senator be seated as soon as
possible so that Illinois is fully represented in the Senate as the
important work of the 111th Congress moves forward.
Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of
the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be
forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I,
Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.
We do not prejudge the outcome of the criminal charges against you
or question your constitutional right to contest those charges. But
for the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you refrain
from making an appointment to the Senate.
Reid claims to be concerned
that Illinois not be without a Senator for the few months that a lightning
quick round of primaries, then a general election, would require. But
make no mistake, even the most politically blinded out there (Yes, that
means you too, Chris Matthews) should be able to see perfectly clearly,
that this is not Reid's concern. He is scared to death that
Illinoiians (is that how you say it?) might just elect the Republican
candidate, after being burned so baaaaadly by their current piece of sh*t
Democrat governor.
Obama's Race Against the
Timeline: Trying to Escape Blagojevich
December 10, 2008
I don't normally like
to quote other blogs en masse, but Jim Lindgren's accounting of the
Obama-Blagojevich timeline in the weeks following the election, on
Volokh Conspiracy,
is just too spot on:
The Blagojevich Timeline: Everything Fits Easily
Except Obama's Monday Denial.
Most people have misunderstood
the timeline of the Blagojevich Senate scandal. Pretty much everything fits
except Barack Obama's statement yesterday that he knew nothing about it.
If we didn't have Obama's denial to contend with,
the actions of all the parties, including those purporting to speak for
Obama, are consistent with Obama and his staff learning about Blagojevich's
corrupt plans on Monday, Nov. 10.
Consider the timeline, as revealed in the complaint
and press reports:
1. On the weekend of Nov. 8-9, Obama lets it be
known that his choice for Senate is Valerie Jarrett. Aides tell WLS-TV in
Chicago and CNN, which
announces Obama’s choice on Sunday.
Nov. 9.
2. On Monday, Nov. 10, Blagojevich holds an
incredible 2-hour conference call with multiple consultants: “ROD
BLAGOJEVICH, his wife, JOHN HARRIS, Governor General Counsel, and various
Washington-D.C. based advisors, including Advisor B,” discussing his corrupt
schemes. He follows this with two calls with Advisor A.
3. That very night, Monday, Nov. 10, at 7:56pm,
CNN reported:
Two Democratic sources close to President-elect
Barack Obama tell CNN that top adviser Valerie Jarrett will not be
appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate.
"While he (Obama) thinks she would be a good
senator, he wants her in the White House," one top Obama advisor told
CNN Monday.
Over the weekend, Democratic sources had told
CNN as well as Chicago television station WLS-TV that Jarrett was
Obama's choice to fill his Senate seat.
So what happened? The likeliest scenario is that
one of the many participants in Blagojevich’s Monday phone calls either
floated his plans to the Obama transition team to assess their response or
tipped off the Obama camp about the reckless ideas that Blagojevich had
planned.
In any event, within hours of Blagojevich
substantially expanding his circle of confidants, the Obama camp withdrew
Jarrett’s name from consideration and attributed that withdrawal to the
President's wanting Jarrett in the White House. And the Obama staffers went
out of their way to depict this as Obama's choice, rather than Jarrett's,
which would have been more common. The report claims Obama's involvement in
the decision and suggests a direct effort to undercut the idea that Obama
was pressuring Blagojevich to appoint Jarrett.
4. Moreover, by the next day, Tuesday, Nov. 11,
Blagojevich already had received his answer from the Obama camp that no quid
pro quo would be forthcoming: “ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the
President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but ‘they’re
not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F**k them.’”
5. On Wednesday, Nov. 12, Blagojevich pitched his
corrupt bargain idea to an SEIU Official who,
according to Ben Smith,
is President Andy Stern. Stern agreed to convey the offer to the relevant
actors. Blagojevich understood Stern to be contacting Jarrett herself, the
co-chairwoman of the Obama transition team:
109. On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH
spoke with SEIU Official, who was in Washington, D.C. Prior intercepted
phone conversations indicate that approximately a week before this call,
ROD BLAGOJEVICH met with SEIU Official to discuss the vacant Senate
seat, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH understood that SEIU Official was an emissary
to discuss Senate Candidate 1’s interest in the Senate seat.
During the conversation with SEIU Official on
November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed SEIU Official that he had
heard the President-elect wanted persons other than Senate Candidate 1
to be considered for the Senate seat.
SEIU Official stated that he would find out if
Senate Candidate 1 wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator
with ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that “one thing I’d be
interested in” is a 501(c)(4) organization.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH explained the 501(c)(4) idea to
SEIU Official and said that the 501(c)(4) could help “our new Senator
[Senate Candidate 1].” SEIU Official agreed to “put that flag up and see
where it goes.”
110. On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH
talked with Advisor B. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Advisor B that he told SEIU
Official, “I said go back to [Senate Candidate 1], and, and say hey,
look, if you still want to be a Senator don’t rule this out and then
broach the idea of this 501(c)(4) with her.”
6. The complaint doesn’t say whether Stern
contacted Jarrett or other members of the Obama transition team, but it is
likely that he did. Whether Stern was horrified by Blagojevich’s corrupt
idea and wanted to warn Obama or intrigued by the deal and wanted to assess
its chances, I can’t think of a good reason why Stern wouldn’t have conveyed
the idea to the Obama camp.
7. On Thursday, Nov. 13:
ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor A to call
Individual A and have Individual A pitch the idea of the 501(c)(4) to
“[President-elect Advisor].” Advisor A said that, “while it’s not said
this is a play to put in play other things.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded,
“correct.” Advisor A asked if this is “because we think there’s still
some life in [Senate Candidate 1] potentially?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said,
“not so much her, but possibly her. But others.”
8. If, as seems likely, Individual A then pitched
Blagojevich’s corrupt bargain to the “President-elect Advisor” and that
advisor is Rahm Emanuel, as has been suggested by others, then Emanuel would
then have known of the bribery attempt.
Valerie Jarrett tells CNN contributor Roland
Martin that President-elect Barack Obama offered and she accepted a
position in the Obama administration – she will be the Senior Adviser to
the President and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental
Affairs and Public Liaison.
10. Nov. 14 to early December: After occasionally
feeding speculation about who might fill Obama’s seat, the Obama transition
team suddenly goes remarkably silent about his preference.
11. On Nov. 23, Obama’s “senior adviser David
Axelrod
appeared on Fox News Chicago,”
answering a question about the Senate seat.
While insisting that the President-elect had
not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to
avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the
governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have
surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
Note the language used. While on Nov. 9, Obama
staffers were telling multiple news outlets whom Obama wanted for his Senate
seat, by Nov. 23, Axelrod was distancing Obama not only from any individual
choice, but he used the pejorative term “kingmaker” to emphasize Obama’s
avoidance of any even marginally corrupt influence. It is likely that
Axelrod had in mind the corrupt bargain that Obama’s camp had already turned
down.
"I had no contact with the governor or his
office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."
As I’ve said before, as with Bill Clinton, Barack
Obama’s words should be read carefully to see what he is saying and not
saying. Apparently, Obama started to say that “we were not” “aware of what
was happening," but corrected himself by saying that “I was
not aware of what was happening."
That language leaves open the possibility that his
staff was aware, but he personally was not. But why would Obama’s staff
withhold information from him? I assume that Obama is telling the truth
about not having spoken to the governor himself, since that might be easily
refuted.
CONCLUSION:
From the evening of Nov. 10 until yesterday,
Blagojevich, Obama, and his transition team acted in ways that are
consistent with a knowledge of Blagojevich’s bribery attempt and a rejection
of that attempt. What doesn't fit easily with the timeline is Obama's
statement yesterday.
It should be noted that it is not a crime to fail
to report a bribery attempt. The federal misprision of felony statute would
seem to make it a federal crime to fail to report a federal felony:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual
commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States,
conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some
judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both. 18 USC s.4.
But case law has conclusively determined that mere
non-reporting is not enough. Active concealment or the acceptance of a
benefit for concealing is required.
Yet, looking at this timeline of Blagogate, it
seems quite possible that someone in the Obama Camp is either lying or at
least not revealing what they know. I also find it hard to believe that
Obama’s closest advisors were hiding major corruption from him, especially
as he was making decisions about where to place Senate candidates such as
Jarrett.
Something important is missing from this story.
Let's hope that, whatever it is, the absent fact or explanation will allow
the narrative to fit Obama's denial more naturally.
Since by all accounts, the Obama camp refused
Blagojevich’s bribery attempt, it would be extremely unwise to lie about it.
Remember, it’s not the crime that trips you up; it’s
the cover-up.
UPDATE: My parsing of Obama's statement above gets
some strong support from this LA Times interview, noted by
Byron York:
It hasn't gotten a huge amount of coverage, but
Obama did an interview with the Los Angeles Times yesterday. He said he
had never talked about the Senate seat with Rod Blagojevich. But when he
was asked whether his staff had, he clammed up. From the interview:
Q: Have you ever spoken to [Illinois] Gov.
[Rod R.] Blagojevich about the Senate seat?
Obama: I have not discussed the Senate seat
with the governor at any time. My strong belief is that it needed to
be filled by somebody who is going to represent the people of
Illinois and fight for them. And beyond that, I was focused on the
transition.
Q: And that was before and after the
election?
Obama: Yes.
Q: Are you aware of any conversations
between Blagojevich or [chief of staff] John Harris and any of your
top aides, including Rahm [Emanuel]?
Obama: Let me stop you there because . . .
it's an ongoing.... investigation. I think it would be inappropriate
for me to, you know, remark on the situation beyond the facts that I
know. And that's the fact that I didn't discuss this issue with the
governor at all.
So I was correct that Obama was indeed drawing a
distinction between what he knew and what his staff might have known.
As I said above, there is something missing here.
It wouldn't surprise me if Obama staffers were working with the prosecutors
(from the week of Nov. 10th on), a possibility suggested in comments below.
But it would surprise me if Obama staffers went to the feds without telling
Obama.
Axelrod's Vision: The Grease of
Government
December 9, 2008
As the first major
outbreak of scandal descends upon the as-yet-to-be-sworn-in Obama
Administration, his chief of staff and politics-as-usual guru, David Axelrod, in
the August 21, 2005 Chicago Tribune, explained his insider's take on what
we simple morons on the outside might otherwise conceive was "corruption":
Many
years ago, when I was a City Hall reporter at the Tribune, I flopped
down in a chair across from an editor I greatly respected to
complain about the tawdry state of politics in Chicago.
Disgusted by the excesses I had seen, I argued vehemently, with all
the surety of youth, that the best thing for the city would be the
complete abolition of political patronage.
The editor, who was no stranger to government, listened respectfully
to my fulminations. But when I was through, he surprised me with
another view.
"The egregious abuses of the system should go," he said. "But to
some degree, patronage is the grease that makes government work.
"The ability of a mayor, a governor, a president to do favors is one
of the political levers through which they get things done.
Political organizations provide a discipline that allows you to pass
your program. You take politics completely out of the process and
you may not like what you see."
I left the editor's office shaking my head, shocked that a man of
his depth and experience would have kind words for a system I
regarded as corrupt and contemptible.
I found myself thinking about that conversation after the tsunami
created by U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald's recent indictments of
some mid-level city workers, who were paraded before the cameras as
executors of a "conspiracy" to place political workers in city jobs.
No one can or should defend the test rigging, document shredding or
some of the other acts alleged in Fitzgerald's complaint. If proven,
they are crimes and deserve to be treated as such, reflecting a
system in need of reform.
Better-qualified applicants should not be passed over for lesser,
politically-sponsored appointees. Public promotions should not be
conditioned on political work. (Nor should well-qualified applicants
be excluded because they come recommended by a political figure.)
Indeed, the decades-old Shakman federal consent decree proscribes
hiring and firing for political reasons. But as I listened to
Fitzgerald's news conference after the government brought charges
against the city workers, I realized he was saying something much
more.
Fitzgerald proclaimed his vision of a day when the recommendations
of elected officials, business, labor and community leaders will no
longer count--a day when we entirely remove politics from
government. And he seemed to be declaring his intention to use the
criminal code to enforce that vision.
It is this system, free of political influence, I had envisioned as
a young man. But after a lifetime of observing government and
participating in politics, I wonder if such radical "reform" is
really desirable.
The democratic process is often messy. Diverse constituencies fight
fiercely for their priorities. Their elected representatives use the
influence they have to meet those needs, including sometimes the
exchange of favors--consideration for jobs being just one.
When a congressman responds to the president's request for support
for a judicial nominee or a trade deal by replying that he'd like
the president's backing for a new bridge in his district, he's
fighting for his constituents. If the money for that bridge is
approved over a worthier project elsewhere, should the deal between
the two officials become a crime?
How do presidents, governors and mayors govern without the ability
to help those upon whom they are counting to support their programs?
Is this a prescription for reform, or gridlock?
It is the meshing of often-conflicting interests through the
political process, using the levers of power afforded to elected
officials, that has characterized our experiment in democracy for
the last 229 years. And, it has worked reasonably well.
Fraudulent acts such as test-rigging are one thing. But if hiring of
a qualified worker who comes recommended by a politician is treated
as evidence of a criminal act, then Fitzgerald's approach will
ensure that only applicants without political involvement are
considered.
No mayor would subject his or her appointees to possible indictment
for accepting the recommendation of prospective workers by
political, business, labor or community leaders. Unless those
workers--even those seeking the most menial of jobs--scored the
highest on objective tests, the city would be subject to the charge
of political hiring. Even those who did well in subjective
interviews or offered some other, compelling qualification would be
suspect if they had political ties.
That reality will lead in coming months to radical change. Although
the nature of that change will be defined by the city and the
courts, the effect will be the same: no recommendations, no favors,
no politics.
Now, hiring likely will be up to independent bureaucrats armed with
computers who, through some arithmetic equation, will determine the
best potential laborers and librarians.
Will that produce a better and more responsive bureaucracy? Will it
improve basic services like trash and snow removal?
I hold no brief for politically-connected workers who coast on their
public jobs. But there are many others who go the extra mile because
they know the quality of services they provide citizens reflects on
their political sponsors.
We have an idea of what the alternative looks like. The federal
bureaucracy, sheltered from politics by law, has not always been
known for its responsiveness and efficiency. Yet that seems to be
where we're headed in Chicago.
A quarter century after my conversation with that editor, we are
about to achieve the government I longed for.
Why am I not thrilled?
Its truly amazing how you can take this piece from three
years ago and simply insert it into today's news from Chicago and no one
would notice the difference. Corruption. Politicians taking
bribes, selling out their offices, engaging in the routine criminality of
their daily lives. Chicago. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
But then again, it's Chicago, its Illinois, its the most corrupt political
sewer in the nation. Breeding Daily Parts I and II. Just before
Rod Blagojevich took over there was George Ryan, who just a year ago began
serving a 6-1/2 prison sentence for his corruption. Oh, and Fitzgerald
put him away, too. Before that there were Dan Walker and Otto Kerner.
And let's not forget Barack Obama, who is just beginning
to make his corrupt mark on Illinois and the nation at large.
In the Post-11/4
World . . . November 5, 2008
How things are . . .
now in the Post - 11/4 world . . .
Obama . . . Messiah . . .
Our new national anthem . . .
Just out here chillin' . . .
. . . in the Conservative
Wilderness . . .
Cavuto to Menendez:
Are You a Moron, Senator? November 3, 2008
Now, obviously, FOX
News financial analyst, Neil Cavuto, did not come out and literally ask New
Jersey ultra-Lib Sen. Robert Menendez, if he "was a moron?"
But he really should have.
In their discussion of the Obama
tax plan, Menendez steadfastly refused to answer with anything
closer than a parsec to honesty and candor, Cavuto's simplest
questions about the top marginal tax rates under Obama's plan.
But Neil did tell Menendez,
"Senator, You're a Genius!"
Ah, sarcasm like this should not
be wasted on idiots like Bob Menendez. But with intellects
like the Senator from the great smelly state of New Jersey, a state
in which its citizens suffer from the highest overall taxes
in the nation, on the side of the Senator hailing from the most
corrupt state in the nation (thanks to Chicago), the federal white
collar pens should be full to the gills if Bambi is elected.
Obama on Obama: Is He
For Himself or Against Himself? November 3, 2008
If 2004 Democrat
Presidential candidate, John F'in Kerry, can be said to have
invented the Flip-Flop, then Barack Obama has finessed and mastered
it as a high art form.
Here
are just a few of some of Obama's more masterful flip-flops,
courtesy of
Mary Katherine Ham (H/T to
NewsBusters), demonstrating some of that Change You Can
Depend On.
Iran Preconditions, The Surge,
Coal, Public Campaign Financing, Second Amendment, Nuclear Energy,
Jerusalem, Rev. Wright, . . . He's Got It All!
Actually, Obama's is not change
you can depend on . . . its that you can depend upon him to
change . . . constantly . . . minute by minute, moment by moment . . . as the need
arises.
Obama: I Will
Bankrupt the Coal Industry November 2, 2008
Barack Obama wants to
be President. He also wants, among other
enviro-wacko-mentalist things, to Bankrupt the Coal Industry.
In a
previously-unreleased audio of a January 17, 2008 interview by
the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama lets fly with some of his
far-leftist ideas on the environment, and what he would do to kill
off the coal industry.
"[I]f somebody wants to build a
coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them
because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that
greenhouse gas that's being emitted. . . . [I]if somebody
wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that
it will bankrupt them."
(Interestingly, though certainly
not surprisingly, notes Tom Blumer at NewsBusters, the
Chroncle's article from January 18, 2008, makes no mention
of these particular views of Obama's.)
KGO-AM 810 Radio
Lib-Talker, Karel, Wants "G.D.M.F" Joe the Plumber "Dead" November 2, 2008
In accordance with
the Left's "liberal" policy of tolerance for all points of view, and
for all kinds of people, . . .
Liberal San Francisco, KGO-AM 810,
talk show host, Karel (Charles Karel Bouley), broke into the audio
of an ABC news report on a John McCain rally in order to deliver the following well-wishes to Samuel
Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka Joe-the-Plumber:
"F------G--D--- Joe the
G--D-----M-----F------ plumber! I want M-----F------ Joe the
Plumber dead!"
For those who would like to
provide their views to KGO program director, Jack Swanson, you can
e-mail him, or call him
at: (415) 954-8700. Or you can
e-mail your thoughts
directly to the terrorist in question, Karel. Or you can
contact KGO's
advertisers
with your comments.
By the way, KGO was also the home
of talker Bernie Ward, now serving time for his conviction on child
pornography charges. What a nice radio family KGO must be.
(H/T to
NewsBusters)
Obama and Planned
Parenthood: Killers Together October 30, 2008
The group Students
for Life of America, have released this undercover look at the
practices of Planned Parenthood in its Freehold, New Jersey
facility. In it, a young woman in her 22nd week of pregnancy,
is "counseled" by a PP "nurse" about the procedure. The
PP worker then admits to the girl, who wants to know if it is
possible for the baby to be born alive, that it is possible.
She assures her, however, the it can't survive on its own, and would
soon die.
The video also contrasts PP's
practice of partial-birth abortion infanticide with Obama's
late-'90s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when
an Illinois state Senator, and his pledge to stand four-square with
Planned Parenthood.
To characterize Obama and the
people at Planned Parenthood as "pigs" seems just so overly
charitable. How about: Inhuman?
John Murtha Essential
Six-Pack Flashback: The Abscam Tapes October 21, 2008
(Flashback:
January 7, 1980)
John Murtha:
January 1, 1980 - History in the making . . .
FBI Abscam
"Sting" Video of Special Agent Anthony Amoroso Jr Meeting with U.S.
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA; Johnstown), Mel Weinburg (the "sting" man)
and Howard Criden (a Philadelphia attorney) - in which Murtha states
that he isn't interested in the $50,000 bribe offered in exchange
for his legislative efforts to get two Saudi men admitted to the
U.S., "at this time."
Murtha,
however, was willing to go along with the scheme, in exchange for
Arab investments in businesses in Murtha's district. But, if
their relationship worked out, Murtha clearly indicated, he would be
interested in money for himself at a later date. Through the
totality of the meeting, it is clear that Murtha is thoroughly
engaged in the scheme, knows and discusses what is going on, and the
overall exchange of bribes for legislative/official activity on the
part of all involved.
Murtha, one
of Congresses most thoroughly corrupt politicos, barely escaped
sanctions from the House ethics committee, though six other members
of Congress were given the heave ho, prosecuted and convicted.
(Join us then in reliving those carefree days, much earlier in
the Swine from Johnstown's career, in the following six-part
hour-long video of what this creep is really made of . . .)
John Murtha: Those
Dern Gun-Toating, Bible-Thumping, Racist Rednecks October 21, 2008
John Murtha:
On his racist constituency:
After taking a
minor drubbing (after all, the msm doesn't give a darn) for
characterizing all of Western Pennsylvania as a bunch of racist,
redneck boobs, who wouldn't spit on a black man if he were on fire .
. .
Jack
(I-didn't-take-the-$50,000-but-I-could've) Murtha wants us to know
that all of Western Pennsylvania is not racist . . .
Just a
whole bunch of them . . .
(WTAE-TV
Channel 4, October 21, 2008)
Barney Frank: Soaking the Rich October 21, 2008
Barney Frank:
On the Democrat plan for the economy:
An
immediate increase in spending. . . Deficit fear has to take a
second seat. . .
There
are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax. . . and
recover some of this money. . .
/
/
.jpg)
We
write to insist that you step down as Governor of Illinois and under
no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois
Senate seat. In light of your arrest yesterday on alleged federal
corruption charges related to that Senate seat, any appointment by
you would raise serious questions. 
The Blagojevich Timeline: Everything Fits Easily
Except Obama's Monday Denial.
Many
years ago, when I was a City Hall reporter at the Tribune, I flopped
down in a chair across from an editor I greatly respected to
complain about the tawdry state of politics in Chicago..jpg)
==> 
: 