Still one more scandal

lets try this one on for size. amazingly its from abc news, and is a link in post number 1 of the blagojevick thread on this very forum. i will copy and paste the article and highlight the first mention of blagojevich's affiliation.

FBI: Illinois Governor Sought To "Sell" Obama's Senate Seat
Wanted President-Elect to "Put Something Together . . . Something Big"
By BRIAN ROSS
December 9, 2008


Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich wanted President-elect Barack Obama "to put something together…something big" in exchange for going along with Obama's choice to fill his vacant U.S. Senate seat, according to a FBI affidavit unsealed following the governor's stunning arrest.

"I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there," Blagojevich said in a phone call secretly recorded by the FBI on Nov. 5, the day after the election, according to the affidavit.

Click here to read the full affidavit.

"It is conduct that would make Lincoln roll over in his grave," said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in announcing the charges today in Chicago. He said the governor's efforts to "sell" the Senate seat was the "most sinister and appalling" of a range of alleged corrupt acts detailed in today's case.

Fitzgerald said "there's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it, and that's all I can say." His comment did not close the door on the possibility that Obama or someone on his staff may have known of some aspect of the governor's demands.

Obama addressed the scandal over his Senate seat Tuesday afternoon, saying, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." But Obama's senior advisor David Axelrod told a Chicago affiliate of Fox News that Obama had in fact spoken to Blagojevich about his empty Senate seat.

"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," Axelrod said in the Nov. 23 interview.

The controversy continued Tuesday evening, when Axelrod issued a statement retracting his statement. "I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject," said Axelrod.

The president-elect, who was speaking to reporters following a meeting with Al Gore about green energy and climate change, also said, "Obviously, like the rest of the people of Illinois, I am saddened and sobered by news that came out of the U.S. Attorney's office today, but as this is an ongoing investigation into the governor, I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to comment at this time."

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. said he met with Blagojevich yesterday "for the first time in years" and voiced his desire to fill Obama's empty Senate seat. He said he was "shocked" by Blagojevich's arrest, adding "If these allegations are proved true, I am outraged by the appalling, pay-to-play schemes hatched at the highest levels of our state government."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called on the Illinois State Senate to set a special election to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat, claiming that "No appointment by this governor under these circumstances could produce a credible replacement." As the Governor of Illinois, Blagojevich retains power to fill Obama's seat, however sources say that isn't likely.

ABC News' George Stephanopoulous reports that Illinois state legislators will meet next week to pass a bill for a special election in February. Beyond a special election, the Illinois Secretary of State has the power to certify Blagojevich's pick, and the U.S. Senate can choose not to seat whoever he might appoint.

nope, nothing so far

so we go to page 2 of the link, where we find

Candidate 1 May Be Valerie Jarrett
There are strong indications that Candidate 1 may be Valerie Jarrett, Obama's close confidante who has since been named a special presidential adviser. Senate Candidate 1 is identified in the federal documents as an adviser to the president-elect.

Durbin in his news conference said Blagojevich was considering Jarrett until she withdrew her name from consideration. "The governor asked me if I thought she [Jarrett] was serious about not being appointed and I said 'Yes, she told me point blank that she was,'" Durbin said.

The federal complaint also states that Candidate 1 eventually withdrew from consideration.

In addition, Durbin declined to speculate whether Senate Candidate 5 could be in peril.

Blagojevich Wanted Obama Cabinet Appointment, Well-Paying Job, or Campaign Money, FBI Says

The FBI says Blagojevich wanted an appointment to the Obama cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a well-paying job, or huge campaign contributions as the price for naming Obama's successor.

Blagojevich was overheard by the FBI saying "I want to make money," complaining he was "financially hurting."

Blagojevich also sought a high paying job for his wife, according to the FBI. "Is there a play here, with these guys, with her" to work for a firm in Washington or New York, he reportedly asked.

The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the president-elect can get Rod Blagojevich's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the president-elect's pick to the Senate."

Told by two other advisers he has to "suck it up" for two years, the FBI says it heard Blagojevich complain he has to give this "motherf***er [the president-elect] his senator. F*** him. For nothing? F*** him."

The governor is heard saying he will pick another candidate "before I just give f***ing [Senate Candidate l] a f***ing Senate seat and I don't get anything."

hmm, still nothing. onward to page three...

Candidates for Obama's Senate Seat
According to the affidavit, one candidate for the senate seat, identified as Senate Candidate 5, promised to "raise money" for Blagojevich. The governor described, in a recorded call, an earlier approach by an associate of Senate Candidate 5.

"We were approached 'pay to play.' That, you know he'd raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator," Blagojevich was quoted as saying.

The affidavit said Blagojevich was interested in a high-paying position with an organization affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), called Change to Win, and that he suggested in a conversation with a SEIU official on Nov. 12, 2008 that Obama wanted other people to be considered for the Senate seat besides Senate Candidate 1. Previous phone conversations indicated that Blagojevich knew the SEIU official "was an emissary to discuss Senate Candidate 1's interest in the Senate seat," the affidavit said.

"HARRIS suggested that SEIU Official make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of Change to Win and, in exchange, the President-elect could help Change to Win with its legislative agenda on a national level," noted the affidavit.

SEIU has denied any involvement, saying in a statement, "We have no reason to believe that SEIU or any SEIU official was involved in any wrongdoing."

Change to Win released a statement saying the organization never "considered, discussed or promised" any position to Blagojevich or his staff, and that the group only learned of conversations between the governor and his advisers discussing such a position upon the release of the affidavit today.


Affidavit Says Blagojevich Knew He Was Under FBI Investigation
The FBI affidavit says Blagojevich thought he might get something "tangible up front" from Senate Candidate 5.

Aware that he was under FBI investigation, Blagojevich apparently considered appointing himself to Obama's Senate seat, the affidavit says. He is quoted as saying "he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting senator as opposed to a sitting governor."

He was arrested this morning on a two count criminal complaint.

golly gee willikers, still not one word. maybe its on page 4

Blagojevich Appears in Federal Court, Must Surrender Passport

Blagojevich and Harris appeared briefly in federal court in Chicago this afternoon. Bond was set at $4,500 for both of them, and Blagojevich was ordered to turn in his passport and gun card. Cameras were not allowed in the courtroom.

"If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," said the head of the FBI's Chicago office, Robert Grant, about the state of Illinois.

He said veteran FBI agents were "disgusted, sick" as they listened to the intercepted conversations of the Illinois governor.

The governor was taken into custody in handcuffs from his home by two FBI agents just after six this morning, according to Grant.

Grant said he had first called the governor to tell him there was a warrant for his arrest.

"Is this a joke?" the governor responded, according to Grant.

Blagojevich has previously been linked to former political fundraiser Tony Rezko, who was convicted in June of charges stemming from him using his influence with the governor's office in a multi-million dollar kickback scheme. Blagojevich's relationship with Rezko, who is in jail while he waits sentencing on Jan. 6, was a consistent theme of Rezko's trial.

still want to toe that party line boys? is there any rational way anyone can continue the argument after this? this is the initial report on this story. a story of scandal and corruption by anyones definition.

not

one

time

is blagojevich's affiliation with the democratic party mentioned





have fun kids
 
You know I just thought it was ironic the first two I posted were two that are often complained loudly about being the "Liberal media". The fact is that some media outlets do have a liberal slant, I don't think anyone who was honest would argue the point. A few have conservative leanings, yes probably a bit less common, but still it happens. Most try to be objective in reporting news stories.

Then there is Fox....There is no greater example of politics coloring what they report and how they report it. No credible media outlet is clearly as biased. "Fair and Balanced"? Well if they have to announce it as your slogan it clearly shows they aren't. Even so a lot of stories reported by Fox are fairly objective. The trouble is often more about what they report on and all this right wing pundits.

Who are they trying to convince anyway?

If you want to talk about Liberal media. Listen to a sampling of talk radio. It is vastly conservative. In the end people should think for themselves and realize that every reporter everywhere has some kind of slant, they would hardly be human if they didn't.
 
THIS POST was about nothing but a democratic senator with a scandal equivalent to Larry Craig's ... John Edwards.

So now you want me to get you comparative stories from the same outlet ie:NYT about the two scandals to see how the party affiliation was covered?

This is what I mean about how you try to keep other posters chasing their own tail while you sit back laughing. No proof; no story; no link; no testimony is good enough.

Jim, the problem is I don't think you understand the concept of proof. All your "proof" in almost every thread relies on some sort of generalization. No matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not a logical way to think you turn around and do it agin in the next thread.

In this case you seem to think if you can find a couple isolated stories that mention party affiliation late in the story then that prooves media bias. When your points are based on irrational generalizations it makes it ridiculously easy to disprove them.

All I have to do is find a couple examples that don't fit the generalization you've made and it's done.
So here:

Blagojevich party affiliation mentioned in first paragraph.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-blagojevich10-2009jan10,0,7889697.story

Bush's party affiliation never mentioned in the entire story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070200825.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html

Dixon's party mentioned in 2nd paragraph
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/us/10baltimore.html?ref=us

Larry Craig's party never mentioned.
http://news.opb.org/article/3989-former-idaho-sen-craig-gives-legal-fight/

Torricelli mentioned as Democrat 2nd paragraph.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/19/news/mn-52975

McGreevy Democrat mentioned first sentence
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,681442,00.html

Palin's party never mentioned
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep11/0,4670,PalinTroopergate,00.html

So there. By using your own logic against you I can now say that the entire media is biased towards giving favorable coverage to republicans. Done.

See how easy you make this?

I already realize your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with facts so you'll probably go ahead and make some other unfounded generalization again in your next thread.

I did find your examples in post #8 interesting in that the first was more about the Enquirer than it is about Edwards (It's called "The dark art of the 'National Enquirer.'") and not really a news story, the 2nd one has no link, the 3rd is a blog about reporting, the 4th one has no link, and the last one requires a login so that we can't read the story. Kind of a strange group there.

Of course, your ready response will be "But in none of those stories was "Republican" the first word." Remember hyperbole

Remember STRAW MAN? Please do a little reading on that Jim.
 
It might have something to do with it being something everyone already knows....

Ya think?

(obviously not)

is that all you got?

i didnt know who the governor of illinois was before this story broke. had i been asked which party the governor of illinois belonged to, i most likely would have guessed correctly, given the fact that it was illinois. were i to name a state, would you know the party affiliation of its governor off the top of your head? dont bother, we all know the answer

but that, my dear man, is not the point being discussed. now is it? the point before the group is the media and its inconsistencies between reporting events occurring in each party. so just like your older sister, you shoose to sidestep when the chips fall in your lap. you even ended your 'rebuttal' with a question. tired, man. real tired. been done to death. go find a new and different tactic. that one is copyrighted

anybody else? surely our reigning megagenius has something to ask...i mean say
 
I already shot down Jim's argument. Weird that you didn't notice that. I thought you guys were girlfriends.

I suppose you have more questions though, or maybe you'll split again when you're in a corner.
 
If you want to talk about Liberal media. Listen to a sampling of talk radio. It is vastly conservative.

Perhaps if the left found someone with less venom that Radi Rhodes or Janeane Garafalo, more humor than Senate-seat stealing Al Franken or more intelligence any of them.

Liberal radio is just waiting to happen. We all wanted it to succeed. Unfortunately, it's vapid & arrogant. Maybe next time.
 
only because you were caught without an answer or enough questions to deflect the conversation away

four pages. not one mention. but theres no bias
 
only because you were caught without an answer or enough questions to deflect the conversation away

four pages. not one mention. but theres no bias


What were you looking for exactly? I'd be happy to help out.

Just don't make it vague so I know what you're looking for.
 
Perhaps if the left found someone with less venom that Radi Rhodes or Janeane Garafalo, more humor than Senate-seat stealing Al Franken or more intelligence any of them.
Liberal radio is just waiting to happen. We all wanted it to succeed. Unfortunately, it's vapid & arrogant. Maybe next time.

39,000 and rising, but remember, it is quality, not quantity, that is the deciding factor.

this thread licks.

This thread is one of the sillier ones I've seen in awhile.

Always good to see others understand.
 
What were you looking for exactly? I'd be happy to help out.

Just don't make it vague so I know what you're looking for.

dont think you should have any trouble figuring it out. its fairly simple. but i will use small words

i will assume we can agree that the story in question was 'breaking news' at the time it was published. if thats a point of contention let me know and we can work together from that point

i am looking for one single mention of governor blagojevichs political party affiliation. just one time where it was brought to the readers attention that he is a democrat. just one. anywhere in the four pages. one. one little mention. even a (D-Ill) footnote would suffice. anywhere in the four page report

is that too vague for you? if so, let me know and maybe i can simplify it
 
Oh I see where you went wrong now. You're under the impression that the one artcile you want to focus on is the most important thing ever and that you should ignore all the other examples in this thread just so you can focus on that one. You then wanted to make some generalization from you the one artcile you chose to focus on. That's not working.

There are many articles that do mention Blago's party just as there are many articles about republican scandals that don't mention party affiliation. It's whatever the particular writer comes up with and not some larger tinfoil hat conspiracy.
 
Now this is real and stunning progress. I really, truly mean that.

You actually went out and did some legwork, posted the result with links, and made your points and contentions.

It did fall apart somewhat at the end with the parroting of lines like "your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with facts" which others have used to post to you; but you will get better as time wears on.

What you have done with that singular post is nothing more than what others here have been encouraging you to do for months -- debate the facts.

If you would do this consistently, or at least more often, people would not be so loathe to debate you. Everyone is simply tired of the one-liners and repetitive comebacks which make no sense.

Congratulations. I applaud you on this.

Now, to the post:

Your links show that there are, indeed, many stories out there which contradict my contentions. The problem is that there are far more examples, supported by studies using LexisNexis searches, which support my contentions by a wide margin. I have posted a couple of those studies in other threads of this nature. If necessary, I can re post them here and we can discuss it.

Jim, the problem is I don't think you understand the concept of proof. All your "proof" in almost every thread relies on some sort of generalization. No matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not a logical way to think you turn around and do it agin in the next thread.

In this case you seem to think if you can find a couple isolated stories that mention party affiliation late in the story then that prooves media bias. When your points are based on irrational generalizations it makes it ridiculously easy to disprove them.

All I have to do is find a couple examples that don't fit the generalization you've made and it's done.
So here:

Blagojevich party affiliation mentioned in first paragraph.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-blagojevich10-2009jan10,0,7889697.story

Bush's party affiliation never mentioned in the entire story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070200825.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html

Dixon's party mentioned in 2nd paragraph
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/us/10baltimore.html?ref=us

Larry Craig's party never mentioned.
http://news.opb.org/article/3989-former-idaho-sen-craig-gives-legal-fight/

Torricelli mentioned as Democrat 2nd paragraph.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/19/news/mn-52975

McGreevy Democrat mentioned first sentence
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,681442,00.html

Palin's party never mentioned
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep11/0,4670,PalinTroopergate,00.html

So there. By using your own logic against you I can now say that the entire media is biased towards giving favorable coverage to republicans. Done.

See how easy you make this?

I already realize your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with facts so you'll probably go ahead and make some other unfounded generalization again in your next thread.

I did find your examples in post #8 interesting in that the first was more about the Enquirer than it is about Edwards (It's called "The dark art of the 'National Enquirer.'") and not really a news story, the 2nd one has no link, the 3rd is a blog about reporting, the 4th one has no link, and the last one requires a login so that we can't read the story. Kind of a strange group there.



Remember STRAW MAN? Please do a little reading on that Jim.
 
What he is saying is that a major news organization, watched by millions and in the tank for the democrats, readily showed their bias by failing to mention the party affiliation of Blagojevich the day after the scandal broke.

ABC has never been shy about showing its biases against the republicans and conservatives in general. About the only guy they have on board there who is fair is Jake Tapper.

Oh I see where you went wrong now. You're under the impression that the one artcile you want to focus on is the most important thing ever and that you should ignore all the other examples in this thread just so you can focus on that one. You then wanted to make some generalization from you the one artcile you chose to focus on. That's not working.

There are many articles that do mention Blago's party just as there are many articles about republican scandals that don't mention party affiliation. It's whatever the particular writer comes up with and not some larger tinfoil hat conspiracy.
 
Now this is real and stunning progress. I really, truly mean that.

You actually went out and did some legwork, posted the result with links, and made your points and contentions.

It did fall apart somewhat at the end with the parroting of lines like "your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with facts" which others have used to post to you; but you will get better as time wears on.

What you have done with that singular post is nothing more than what others here have been encouraging you to do for months -- debate the facts.

If you would do this consistently, or at least more often, people would not be so loathe to debate you. Everyone is simply tired of the one-liners and repetitive comebacks which make no sense.

Really Jim, I always debate the facts or point out the flaws in your reasoning. Especially lately you have completely relied on Straw Man arguments or sweeping generalizations and that is why people are so tired of reading your posts and have encouraged you to fix your wording so they make more sense.

Everyone is tired of your illogical generalizations and you've show no sign of learning from this.

Also if you could learn to debate without insults or not very well disguised insults people might have a better opinion of you. And if you could learn to speak for yourself instead of trying to claim some group leadership you don't have I could quit responding as if I knew what "everyone" thought.

It's like you just made another generalization and you are only able to speak in generalizations anymore. Please Jim, just stick to the facts and use some reasoning. If you try to be insulting people that respond to you want to be insulting. That reduces your everything you say to blatant trolling.

Just calm down and have a discussion like an adult here and then we can just talk about stuff without all this extra crap.

Your links show that there are, indeed, many stories out there which contradict my contentions. The problem is that there are far more examples, supported by studies using LexisNexis searches, which support my contentions by a wide margin. I have posted a couple of those studies in other threads of this nature. If necessary, I can re post them here and we can discuss it.

No Jim, there is no evidence to support your contentions by any margin unless except the ones that come from utterly biased sources like newsbusters. There are certainly studies that both show media biased towards the right or to the left but there isn't anything that is unbiased and definitive.
 
Back
Top