’)In this entry he links to Judicial Watch’s list of what they call the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” in Washington. Lane says:
There are far too many Democrats on that list for the netroots’ liking, and the comments on them are far too disapproving – which is to say, there are Democrats on that list, and the group’s commentary is disapproving. Surely Judicial Watch understands that their only purpose in life is to get Democrats elected?
What is he talking about? Judicial Watch is a long-time conservative organization. Their biggest moment was during the Clinton years when they filed tons of useless lawsuits versus President Clinton.
Now, my guess here is that Moe Lane stupidly thought he was writing about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) which is a progressive-leaning group. It’s a pretty dumb mistake to make. I should point out that CREW on their home page currently is (rightly) targeting Democrat Charlie Rangel for misusing campaign funds.
But again, this whole thing demonstrates again the rigorous attention to detail symptomatic of the last 8 years of conservative rule. I’m glad the future of the right is apparently in the hands of Redstate.com and their ilk.
Interesting way of avoiding the substance of the list, Oliver… 6 of 10 are Democrats, as are both of the “dishonorable mentions.” That makes it eight of 12, or 2/3. Whatever happened to the “Republican Culture of Corruption?”
J.
Never mind, I know the answer: the Republicans were amateurs, and now the Democrats are showing them how it’s done by the real pros.
J.
Judicial Watch is a joke. There may be corrupt Democrats, but their activities are not systematic, or actual goals of the party. People like Bush and DeLay didn’t do what they did outside of the party infrastructure – it was the goal of the GOP to be corrupt.
Interesting way of avoiding the substance of the post, Jay. Once again a conservative columnist shows they can’t be troubled to get the most basic of facts straight.
Whatever happened to the “Republican Culture of Corruption?”
Never mind, I know the answer: the Republicans and the right, as demonstrated by the unsubstantiated and often outright false claims in the Judicial Watch list, are continuing to show how hypocrisy is done by the real pros.
“…the substance of the list.”
Are you taking about the “substance” where their Obama entry says that he is involved in the Blagojevich scandal? I don’t call that “substance,” I call that a lie.
You’ve really outdone yourself this time Oliver. What are the corrupt actual goals of the Republican Party?
Sean,
I know you have difficulty answering direct questions with direct answers but which of the claims of Judicial Watch are outright false.
Well, for instance, putting up incompetent political cronies in important positions that led to the deaths of Americans.
Even for you, Oliver, that’s lame.
Not as lame as Sean’s bald assertions, but admittedly that’s a pretty high standard.
J.
How anyone could mistake Judicial watch for an evenhanded organization is beyond me. Click on their “blog” link and look at their blogroll!
“News” links:
New York Times
New York Post
Washington Post
Washington Times
RealClearPolitics
WorldNetDaily
CNSNews.com
Newsmax.com
Drudge Report
Blogs:
Little Green Footballs
The Volokh Conspiracy
Powerline
Instapundit
Michelle Malkin
Captain’s Quarters
Hugh Hewitt
Stop the ACLU
How Appealing
Patterico’s Pontifications
Newsbusters.org
Belmont Club
Tapscott’s Copy Desk
Slantpoint
Wizbang
Meryl Yourish
Winds of Change
QandO
INDC Journal
Black Five
Hotline’s Blogometer
Publications:
The American Enterprise
National Review
Weekly Standard
Human Events
TechCentral Station
OpinionJournal
The only remotely sane links they have are to the NYT and WaPo at the top of their list, and I suspect that’s only so they can pretend to be a “serious” analytical organization. (also kinda funny that at least 4 of the linked blogs aren’t even publishing anymore!)
Jay Tea: but which of the claims of Judicial Watch are outright false.
Some from just one entry:
Or do you mean systememic like Chris Dodd, his committee membership and Countrywide, or taxation and the current chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, or the prospective AG who helped broker a pardon for money from the disbarred Lawyer on his last day in office, maybe you’re talking about Barney Frank and his ex forming public policy as pillow talk?
Speaking of Hurricane Katrina deaths and corruption are you talking about falsified Lousiana levy construction inspections or are we speaking of the absolute failure of the governor of that state? Maybe you are talking about the outstanding performance of the Mayor or the shameful performance of the New Orleans police dept.
Yes, I can clearly see that it was all a case of Republican corruption.
Jay Tea: Not as lame as Sean’s bald assertions
If my assertions were bald, what were yours? After all, I get for essentially echoed your own exact words back at you with the same level of detail you used.
Someone should tell AO that accusations are not the same as clear malfeasance. The President failed in Katrina, everyone but the last throes of the right acknowledges this. He failed for the same reason that the Harriet Miers nomination failed and Alberto Gonzales was a failure at AG: corrupt unqualified cronies in positions of power. Corruption is the entire reason that the Bush presidency is a massive failure, and the Republican party’s continued refusal to even acknowledge that is the root of why I say the entire enterprise is corrupt. But yes, Barney Frank is gay and had a lover so everything is equal.
Oliver,
Perhaps you don’t know what the word malfeasance actually means.
The examples of Dodd, Wrangell, and Holder are clearly malfeasance. Lousiana’s governor and New Orleans mayor incompetence, the failed levies malfeasance and corruption. New Orleans Police Dept. corruption, dereliction of duty, malfeasance. Barney Frank, conflict of interest which again leads to malfeasance.
“Corruption is the entire reason that the Bush presidency is a massive failure, and the Republican party’s continued refusal to even acknowledge that is the root of why I say the entire enterprise is corrupt. ”
Corruption is truly a nonpartisan failing in our government. You make a weak case for systemic Republican corruption, perhaps you are describing Illinois politics, a place where every one is dirty save Tony Rezco’s neighbor.
Amused 0: You make a weak case for systemic Republican corruption, perhaps you are describing Illinois politics, a place where every one is dirty save Tony Rezco’s neighbor.
The really amusing thing is how you can criticize someone for making a weak case for systemic corruption and in the very same sentence than make a pitifully weak claim of systemic corruption.
But yes, Barney Frank is gay and had a lover so everything is equal.
Lemme fix that for ya, Oliver:
Barney Frank had one lover who he met through a paid assignation and then ran a prostitution side-business out of Frank’s house, and another lover who was a high-ranking Fannie Mae official while Frank was overseeing that organization, but Frank is gay and a Democrat, so that makes it all better.
No charge for the cleanup…
And it is a fascinating list that Judicial Watch assembled. I’d dearly love to hear some arguments why certain Democrats should NOT be on it…
J.
Sean,
I think systemic corruption is a fair description of both Chicago politics and Illinois state politics. I didn’t think I had to make a case. I assume that it is just understood. How many governors of Illinois have done time?
It’s no stretch of the word corrupt to describe ACORN as such. I agree with you that Obamas alliance with Bill Ayers isn’t corrupt, unless of course you look closely at how they spent the money entrusted to them, its sleazy though and certainly fits the description of malfeasance or at least incompetence.
And you’re right, with a Democrat controlled house Obama’s presidency won’t be ruined by his ties to the whole ugly Blogo affair.
As for the question posed in the title, Mr. Lane is not stupid.
Reflexively dishonest? Sure. Deliberately cruel? Certainly. But not stupid.
You want an example of a lie in the article, AO? Here ya go:
Most of Blagojevich’s corrupt negotiations with the Obama team centered on the possible Jarrett appointment.
As yet, there has been no evidence that the governor had any negotiations–corrupt or otherwise–with the Obama team. The author is simply making this up. In short, lying.
“…Obama’s presidency won’t be ruined by his ties to the whole ugly Blago affair.”
And rightly so, since Obama has no ties “to the whole ugly Blago affair”.
Quaker,
“As yet, there has been no evidence that the governor had any negotiations–corrupt or otherwise–with the Obama team. The author is simply making this up. In short, lying.”
Am I quoting you correctly?
Here is an interesting tidbit. Kind of an amusing glimpse of the political environment that Obama is a creature of. There is no direct tie to Obama, unless you think that his chief of staff might be considered a direct link. A charming man, almost whimsical his command of the english language. Very classy.
FBI File #9536B
Wiretap on line 312-XXX-XXXX
November 10th, 2008
12:42 PM Eastern Time
RAHM EMANUEL: This is Rahm.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH: Hey Rahm, yeah it’s Rod.
EMANUEL: Uh-huh. What’s going on governor, I’m busy.
BLAGO: Well, it’s about that Senate appointment…
EMANUEL: We already gave you the list of people we like.
BLAGO: Yeah, I been looking the list over. Interesting names. Good people. How’s the transition going?
EMANUEL: It’s going fine, governor. Are you calling to fucking tell me anything, or what, cause I–
BLAGO: No no, I’m just wondering if you have all your picks already made. I heard something about Dashle for HHS–
EMANUEL: I’m not gonna discuss ongoing deliberations, gov, you know that.
:
BLAGO: Hey, come on Rahm, let’s not act like I’m a stranger here.
EMANUEL: Did I call you a stranger? If I thought you were a stranger, you think I’d be interrupting my important fucking business to take this fucking phone call?
BLAGO: Hey you don’t have to get curt with me, Rahm.
EMANUEL: This isn’t me being curt, Gov, this is me being fucking busy. Now what did you call about?
BLAGO: I’m just feeling you out, seeing if Valerie [Jarret] still wants that Senate seat, just wondering what kind of priority that is for the President-Elect.
EMANUEL: Actually, it’s not a priority. Valerie’s had second thoughts about the job.
BLAGO: What, she doesn’t want it anymore?
EMANUEL: She’s having second thoughts. You want more details, you ask her.
BLAGO: She won’t take my calls.
EMANUEL: Big fucking surprise.
BLAGO: What’s that supposed to mean?
EMANUEL: Um, I don’t know, what’s it supposed to mean governor? A.) You’re a fucking crook. B.) You’re a fucking asshole. C.) All of the above.
BLAGO: I’m clean Rahm, you know this. You think that fucking Fitzgerald would being twiddling his fucking thumbs if he had shit to go on?
EMANUEL: I gotta go, Gov. You appoint who you want, we really don’t give a shit.
BLAGO: What if I appoint Valerie, what if she takes it?
EMANUEL: What do you want me to say? We’d appreciate it, I’m not gonna fucking kiss your ring over it.
BLAGO: “Appreciate it”? Come on, this is a senate seat we’re talking about. It’s worth a fuck of a lot more than appreciation.
EMANUEL: You asked us for a list, we gave you a fucking list, you want to make your own list then make your own fucking list. [Raising voice] But if you’re asking for anything else from me, or Barack, or Valerie, then you can fucking stop talking right now Rod.
BLAGO: Wait a sec there Rahm. Wait just a fucking minute. Who are you to talk to me like that? I fucking made you.
EMANUEL: You made me? You made me? Tell me you’re fucking joking.
BLAGO: No no no, you listen to me shit-face. You see this list I got, the names motherfucking Obama fucking wants for the Senate. I just ripped it in two. How you like that? Oops, Harris just dropped it in the shredder. Harris?
HARRIS (muffled): Yes sir?
BLAGO: Did you just drop that list in the shredder?
[Whirring, shredder noise]
HARRIS (muffled): I did.
EMANUEL: Do you have me on fucking speakerphone?
BLAGO: It’s in the shredder, Rahm. The list is bye bye.
EMANUEL: Hold on a sec — you got me on fucking speakerphone? Who the fuck do you think I am?
BLAGO: Who are you Rahm? Who are you? You’re shit, you hear me? Don’t come back to Chicago Rahm, it’s not your town any more.
EMANUEL: Pick up the phone Rod.
BLAGO: I’ll put someone in the senate who will fucking fuck you. I might even put myself in there, how you like that Rahm? How you gonna explain that to fucking Barack, every time he’s gotta call me up for my fucking vote. He’d have to take my calls then, wouldn’t he?
EMANUEL: [Screaming] I said pick up the FUCKING phone!
BLAGO: [Picks up phone, speakerphone off] I got your attention now, didn’t I?
EMANUEL: Shut the fuck up and listen to me for one second Rod. And I want you to listen carefully, because this is the last time I’m ever going to talk to you. You are fucking dead to me. You been fucking dead to Barack since ‘06, now you’re dead to me. Know what that means? That means you’re dead to my people in Chicago, Daley on down, and all these friends you think you have aren’t gonna touch you with a ten foot fucking pole.
BLAGO: Oh now you’re the fucking Godfather? Fuck you.
EMANUEL: No fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
BLAGO: Fuck you!
EMANUEL: Listen up asshole. The shit’s gonna hit the fan, maybe tomorrow, maybe next month, and when Fitz finally brings down the hammer it’s gonna be my name that’s going through your head. You won’t know the hows or the fucking whys, but it’s gonna have my fucking fingerprints all over it. Have a great life fatso.
BLAGO: Hey fuck–
EMANUEL: [Click.]
End of conversation
Um, AO? You didn’t really fall for that,did you?
What might that be Quaker?
The transcript, Lunk. You know it’s fake, don’t you?
Let me see if I get this right, AO, your supposed evidence of “negotiations” between Obama’s camp and Blago is an extended conversation between Blago and Rahm that essentially boils down to:
Blago: “f*cking “negotiate” with me you f*ck or I’ll f*ck Obama up!”
Rahm: “We don’t f*cking negotiate, so go f*ck yourself…You f*cking f*cker of a f*ck! You are from now on officially f*cked!”
Brilliant.
Amused 0: I didn’t think I had to make a case. I assume that it is just understood. How many governors of Illinois have done time?
Well there’s yer problem! Now I can see that you’re fine with believing anything you’ve been told but that just don’t fly with the folks around here who, y’know, actually think.
We also don’t like it when people try to get others to do their homework. Do you know how many governors of Illinois have done time? Or do you just “assume that it is understood” without being able to answer your own questions.
I’ll get you started: There have been 40 governors of the State Illinois and one back when it was just a Territory. So 41 people. You tell us how many have served time.
LOL, Quaker I think you’re right I did get punked. I will stand by the balance of my posting above your comment of 8:52.
I see.
You have demonstrated that you are easily gulled. Yet you expect us to take your word for the reliability of the Judicial Watch hatchet job?
Ask nicely and I’ll help you spot more lies in their little “Top 10″ list.
Amused 0: LOL, Quaker I think you’re right I did get punked. I will stand by the balance of my posting above your comment of 8:52.
Translation: I am easily fooled. But everything I said before is completely accurate.
I am mostly responding to Ollies hypocritical thoughts on systemic corruption. I am not taking responsibility for each and everything on the Judicial Watch list.
Sean, in the last 40 years Illinois has had 3 governors do time with what looks like a possible fourth. I don’t know this for a fact but that may be a record.
‘that just don’t fly with the folks around here who, y’know, actually think.”
You flatter yourself.
I may be mistaken but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone admit they were wrong here.
Is Moe Lane Of Redstate.com Stupid?
Yes, yes he is. As is, quite obviously, Republican Pigeon Amused Observer. Keep on keepin’ on AO!
Do the questions get harder as we go along?
And here I just thought it was obvious the transcript was…ummm…suspect…thanks to the absurdly high “f*ck” quotient. I guess Blago’s and Rahm’s reps for being blunt is enough to lure in the predisposed.
Brilliant.
Whatever happened to the “Republican Culture of Corruption?”
Classic Jay Tea. A conservative organization pulls together a “ranking” of “wanted” corrupt politicians and lo and behold, most of the politicians are dems. Actually reading why these politicians are on the list and you will find nothing but unfounded, unproven conservative smears some of which are over a decade old (Travelgate? WTF?).
A toddler could see this for the political propaganda it is. But not Jay Tea. Nope. He treats this baldface spin as if it were an actual most wanted list, as HIllary Clinton was really the number one most wanted corrupt politician in America because she was niminated to be secretary of state. Now correct me if I’m wrong here but has Clinton actually been confirmed as SoS yet? Because if she hasn’t then just being nominated for the job doesn’t mean shit. And yet this is JWs LEAD ACCUSATION against her: “Let’s start with the fact that Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.” And then it’s on to White Water, Travelgate etc etc.
Really, Jay Tea, you must be the stupidest person alive.
Oliver,
Waaay back up at the top, you asked a question.
The answer is “yes”.
Gary
I may be mistaken but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone admit they were wrong here.
Surprising, I know, but you are mistaken. Jay Tea has admitted when he was wrong several times, as have I.
Will you admit to being wrong, even once?
As long as you are drawing breath, fafaroo, I’m safe from that title.
Yeah, the Hillary stuff is largely dated, but still unresolved. Dodd is obviously bought and paid for. Jarrett’s shady background is beyond dispute. Lewis is scum. Obama’s scandals will be cheerfully buried by his sycophants (especially the foreign campaign donations). Pelosi is immune. Rangel will go down in a spectacular explosion, Stevens, Young, Edwards, and Jefferson are all dead — they just haven’t stopped walking yet.
I’ll grant that Hillary should most likely be bumped. And it’s not proven (and unlikely to be proven, and quite probably not accurate) to refer to Obama’s dealings with Rezko and Blagojevich as “corrupt,” but it’s amazing how many scumbags Obama’s managed to associate himself with over the years. A good prosecutor could probably build a nice career out of just investigating and prosecuting Obama’s various allies, associates, sponsors, patrons, and close colleagues. He’s like a “Typhoid Barry” of corruption.
J.
Yeah, like Ken Starr, who chased down leads for 7 years, at a cost of 50 million dollars, and finally proved that the President lied about some blowjobs.
Yeah, the Hillary stuff is largely dated, but still unresolved.
By “unresolved” do you mean “investigated again and again with no finding of wrongdoing”?
That’s what I thought you meant. Good job, Mr. Tea!
Amused 0 at various points in just this thread:
I didn’t think I had to make a case. I assume that it is just understood.
…
I think you’re right I did get punked.
…
I don’t know this for a fact but that may be a record.
…
I may be mistaken but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone admit they were wrong here.
Clearly someone who knows what they are talking about.
Perhaps you don’t know what the word malfeasance actually means. The examples of Dodd, Wrangell, and Holder are clearly malfeasance.
No, what you’re discribing, AO, is misfeasance. If you’re going to be a scold, kindly take the trouble to do it well.
Just to save you the trouble, “describing” not “discribing.”
Amused 0: Sean, in the last 40 years Illinois has had 3 governors do time with what looks like a possible fourth. I don’t know this for a fact but that may be a record.
You don’t know it for a fact, but you don’t let that stop you from promoting it as indicative of Illinois being particularly corrupt.
What if I told you there were two other states which had 3 or more governors convicted in a 40 year span? Would that change your view that Illinois is a particularly notable hotbed of corruption?
What if we expand it to very high-ranking officials, but not specifically governors (e.g., Lt Governors, Attorneys General, Speakers, etc.), who have been convicted and find that Illinois doesn’t really come close to top of the list?
Or would you continue to insist that, although you don’t know things for fact you don’t need to make your case because, hey, it’s just understood, right?
Quaker,
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, not you though. You had your moment of glory, fleeting as it was. But that is behind us now. Malfeasance I meant and malfeasance it is.
Sean,
You go big fella, give us your cites. If you want to make a case for Chicago and Illinois not being corrupt, go for it. My Grandma came from Chicago, good luck with that.
Duros,
Try to work on those reading skills. I clearly said I was mistaken and the phrase ‘I have seen’ means just that.
Brucie,
You failed to mention the string of convictions as the bodies fell all around Clinton. Who was disbarred, who committed perjury, who sold pardons, who accepted foriegn campaign money, etc. etc. etc.
Malfeasance I meant and malfeasance it is.
If you insist. In the interest of fairness, may I declare that a stoat can fly like a mallard?
If you want to make a case for Chicago and Illinois not being corrupt, go for it. My Grandma came from Chicago,
Hardly seems right to blame her, but then I don’t know your grandma. Was she in politics or rackets?
The answer is “Yes, but not as stupid as Jay Tea.”
Amused 0: If you want to make a case for Chicago and Illinois not being corrupt, go for it. My Grandma came from Chicago, good luck with that.
Goodness, what could I possibly say, what actual facts could I possibly bring to bear that could hope to compete with your compelling argument that “It’s true because my Grandma said it”?
What if we expand it to very high-ranking officials, but not specifically governors (e.g., Lt Governors, Attorneys General, Speakers, etc.),
Oooh. that puts Rhode Island in the running.
Duros,
Try to work on those reading skills. I clearly said I was mistaken and the phrase ‘I have seen’ means just that.
Clearly you said nothing of the sort, lunchbox. I’ll work on the reading skills if you’ll work on the whole higher brain function thing. Your sentence was a thing of ambivalent beauty.
You go big fella, give us your cites. If you want to make a case for Chicago and Illinois not being corrupt, go for it.
Except he never said Chicago was not corrupt.
Dude, seriously, stay down.
If you want to make a case for Chicago and Illinois not being corrupt, go for it. My Grandma came from Chicago, good luck with that.
I don’t think I have to make my case. I assume it is just understood that only a conservative would implicate his own grandma in corruption just to make a point. But then, as a white guy, AO doesn’t have to worry. Her criminal tendencies aren’t genetic.
Quaker, you remain my hero.
Take a lesson, boys. Duros knows the right way to chase me from a thread.
Jay Tea, just for fun, please go back through the Judicial Watch “ranking” and list all the politicians who are actually under official investigation or have already been indicted for something.
Duros,
Did your momma raise any bright kids? Do you by any chance understand what the word seen means?
Quaker,
You’re not a whole lot smarter, you are just being obtuse both about my sainted Grandmother and the english language.
Sean,
You’re just acting like a liberal which puts you head and shoulders above your amigos Quaker and Duros.
Amused o: Sean,
You’re just acting like a liberal
Translation: You’re insisting on using facts and something more substantial than “My Grandmother said it is so*” to make your case.
.
* I still can just barely believe that A0 proclaimed that’s what his opinions are based on, and can’t believe anyone would actually think that’s a capstone argument. And, yet, he does.
Amused o: Sean,
You’re just acting like a liberal
Translation: I got nothin’.
Who was disbarred,
He wasn’t disbarred, his license was suspended.
Here let me sum up this entire stupid thread:
Democrats: “The Republican party is systemically corrupt. When you seen corrupt Republicans, it represents the goals of the entire party. When you see corrupt Democrats, it represents individual actors.”
Republicans: “If Republican party corruption is systemic, then all these examples of Democratic corruption indicate the same thing.”
Face it, its a waste of time to argue about it. Both sides have enough examples of malfeasance by the other side that nobody gets to play the angel as much as they might want, and noone is going to concede that their side sucks pretty hard too.
For my own, I do have to say that Oliver’s constant “anything bad that Republicans do represents their overall ideology and goals, anything bad Democrats do represents isolated actors” to be wishful nonsense on stilts. But thats what partisans do, and that’s 80% of what Oliver posts here. Just point, laugh at his childish naivete, and move on.
Yeah, people on the losing side of an argument usually resort to a personal insult.
Quaker,
You’re not a whole lot smarter, you are just being obtuse both about my sainted Grandmother and the english language.
What? Did AO just play the I Know You Are But What Am I card with No Backsies?
Didn’t see that coming. I am slain.
There’s no argument to be on the losing side of. This is you saying, “My side is better because I have decided to that republican wrongdoing = representative of all republicans.” Unsurprisingly, people not in ideological agreement with you don’t find your claim convincing, especially given numerous examples of Democratic wrongdoing.
The reason it is childish and naive is because you want (and judging from your frequency of posting on the subject, you *really* want) to take a subjective judgement and turn it into objective fact because .. why? I guess it makes you feel good and righteous to feel like you are on the “right” side. Well, newsflash – politics attracts people who aren’t exactly high on the integrity and honesty scales, and they are attracted to both parties. (In roughly equal numbers, from what I can tell. Or wait, maybe we should do a historical tally and count them all! Then we’ll know who is really righteous!) The political parties they lead will thus not be bastiens of truth and light. The best we can do is go with a certain political party based on whether we think they are more likely to support the things we think are important.
So by all means, tell people why you support issue a. Or why you think republicans have it wrong when they support issue b. But judging people simply because they have an R after their name, which makes you think you know how and what they think? Arrogant, childish, and naive. Grow up.
Face it, its a waste of time to argue about it.
The only thing really worth pointing here is that, as OW pointed out in his first comment, Judicial Watch is a joke. The list is a joke and folks like Jay Tea who take it seriously are a joke.
“Judicial Watch is a joke.”
I like how on the list, a supposed example of Hilary Clinton’s corruption is just simply the name “Webb Hubbell.” Yes, Judicial Watch is a joke.