American Politics after the 2008 Elections

[QuakHunter]

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.

[Trebek]

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!

[Lunico]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...38743#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.

[El Perro]

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!

[Trebek]

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.

[Trebek]

Looks like the Obama team is falling into place in a real sweet way.

[Daddy Rulz]

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?

[QuakHunter]

We have too many problems to not be pulling together.

Amen Brother. Now back to the Women who need our dollars.

[Daddy Rulz]

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]

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]

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]

This Editorial Cartoon sums up the way a lot of people feel.

[Trebek]

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.

[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

[Stowe]

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

Hey 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/foru...postcount=1454

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/foru...postcount=1391

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/foru...postcount=1387

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/foru...&postcount=821

Suerte.

Stowe