TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 16,  2008

HOLD THAT HOLDER?

Posted at 7:52 ET

One item that's getting very little attention is the fact that Mr. Obama's Cabinet nominees will have to be confirmed, and that confirmation hearings can prove embarrassing and testy.

Ken Blackwell, the African-American former Ohio secretary of state, makes a compelling case against Eric Holder, the nominee for attorney general.  The attorney general's post is one of the most important, and sensitive, in any administration.  Past nominees have ranged from the brilliant - Edward Levi under Ford - to the outrageous - Robert F. Kennedy under JFK - to the mediocre - most of them - to the bizarre - Janet Reno under Clinton.

Holder may fall into several categories at once: 

Most of the president-elect’s Cabinet appointments have been praised...
...but even the Washington Post has raised questions about Eric Holder’s nomination as U.S. attorney general.

Eric Holder has had a very impressive career. He graduated from Columbia Law School, served as a city judge in D.C., was a federal prosecutor, and then deputy attorney general under Janet Reno.

But two of his final acts at the Justice Department are simply unpardonable: the infamous pardons of Marc Rich and the FALN terrorists.

Blackwell is correct.  These items deserve extreme scrutiny.  The Justice Department has a strict process for evaluating possible pardons.

But Holder helped Rich evade that process. Marc Rich, a billionaire, had been indicted of 65 counts of tax evasion and arms-dealing with Iran. He fled to Switzerland, where he lived an extravagant lifestyle. Holder personally worked with Rich’s attorney to get the pardon directly to then-president Clinton. Holder made clear that he did not oppose the pardon, while Rich’s wife was giving over $400,000 to the Clinton Library. She also raised significant money for the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton’s Senate race. President Clinton granted the pardon.

The pardon looked far worse than a bad idea. It looked like corruption. It looked like malfeasance in office — selling out justice for potential personal gain.

Extreme Clintonism.  But it gets worse.

As bad as that is, the FALN pardons where worse. Sixteen terrorists of the FALN group were imprisoned for felonies involving bombs, guns, robbery, and sedition. But in 1999, Eric Holder facilitated President Clinton's commuting their sentences.

These were unrepentant terrorists. America is now at war with terror, and yet when we imprisoned over a dozen confirmed terrorists involved in bombings and other terrorist acts, the man who would be our top official against acts of terror helped convince the president of the United States to let them go.  Whatever the consequences of that act may have been in 1999, in 2008 it should be political suicide.

But apparently is not. 

This nomination might also shed light on the kind of policies Obama will pursue. Despite Obama’s new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.’s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes.

And more...

Holder also has far-left views on unrestricted abortion, and opposes the death penalty. And, in a war on terror, Holder believes that all the rights that U.S. citizens have in civilian courts should be extended to foreign terrorists captured abroad.

Hey, just the kind of guy we need right now.  Not.

Some Republicans will mount an opposition to the Holder nomination. Regardless, Holder will likely be confirmed. But GOP senators must get him on record on all these issues, and force him to fully explain under oath all of his views and his choices regarding terrorists and pardons.

This is important stuff, and it's not being publicized enough.  The left started whining, after Obama picked Hillary for State, that it wasn't getting its ideas into the new administration.  Apparently, Obama was listening when he named Eric Holder.  Tough questions please.  And full answers please.

December 16, 2008.      Permalink          

MILITANT - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  From AFP:  Journalists and photographers at the US news agency the Associated Press (AP) are withholding their bylines to protest management's stance in contract talks, their union said.

COMMENT:  An international crisis of the first magnitude.

BEST QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  From The Times of London, attributed to a friend of Hillary Clinton, commenting on the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy to fill Clinton's seat in the Senate:   “New York is in crisis with its finances collapsing, joblessness soaring and the upstate facing economic catastrophe. It needs representation rather than an episode of Dancing with the Stars.”

DOW UP - AT 4:31 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed up 360, and is approaching 9,000, after the Fed announced its dramatic rate cut. 

COMMENT:  The stock market has increasingly less to do with the real economy.  It seems more silly than smart.

ROUND UP THE USUAL THREATS - AT 3:58 P.M. ET:  UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Online death threats have been made against U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, and U.S. authorities have been asked to help investigate, an aide said Monday.  Enrique Yeves, d'Escoto's spokesman, said the threats were posted within the past week. He did not say where the threats were posted or elaborate on the nature of the threats.

COMMENT:  Oh, be still my heart.  This is the old death-threat gambit, a favorite of the left.  D'Escoto is a hard-left America- and Israel-hater, a front man for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.  He's gotten into some hot water recently for his excesses, so out comes the "death threat" card.  Have you ever noticed that these left-wing heroes who complain of death threats never get killed?

SCHOOL CHOICE - AT 3:06 P.M. ET:  From The Washington Post:  President-elect Barack Obama nominated Chicago schools executive Arne Duncan as his education secretary this morning and is expected to tap Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) later this week to serve as secretary of the interior, all but finalizing his selections for major Cabinet posts.

COMMENT:  Don't know much about Salazar, but Duncan appears to be a wise and careful choice.  He has a fine reputation among reformers, but has also shown an ability to keep peace with teachers' groups.

NEW YORK COMES DOWN TO EARTH - AT 2:58 P.M. ET:   From The New York Times:   Bankruptcy filings are accelerating in the New York metropolitan area at a faster pace than in the rest of the nation, according to figures released on Monday by the federal bankruptcy courts. In the federal courts that serve the region, filings for bankruptcy protection — by individuals and businesses — were pouring in at the rate of about 175 per day in the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, the data showed. The filings in the city, New Jersey and Connecticut increased by more than 36 percent in the quarter, faster than the nationwide increase of 34 percent.

COMMENT:  This is significant because of the historic illusion that New York City was exempt from the effects of most recessions - because Wall Street would keep the city flush with money, and real-estate prices would only go up.  Yeah, right.  Wall Street is laying off 48,000 people.  Real-estate prices are still absurd in Manhattan, but softening. 

ALMOST ZERO PERCENT DOWN! - AT 2:48 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:   WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve entered a new era on Tuesday, setting its benchmark interest rate so low that it will have to reach for new and untested tools in fighting both the recession and downward pressure on consumer prices.  Going further than analysts anticipated, the central bank cut its target for the overnight federal funds rate to a range of 0 to 0.25 percent, a record low, virtually bringing the United States to the zero-rate policies that Japan used for six years in its own fight against deflation.

U.K. TERROR CONVICTION - AT 10:31 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  LONDON —  A terrorism trial centering on the use of a bomb-laden Jeep to crash into Glasgow’s main airport terminal on a Saturday in June 2007 ended on Tuesday with the conviction on mass murder charges of a 29-year-old British doctor with family roots in Iraq who was one of the two men who mounted the attack.

COMMENT:  The amount of "terror" news coming out of Europe and the U.K. these days is far greater than that coming out of the U.S., and we should take note of it.

THE SOLE ISSUE

Posted at 9:26 a.m. ET:

Everyone by now has seen the tape of an Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at President Bush in Baghdad.  Some news operations are repeating it with apparent glee.

But Ralph Peters has a terrific take on the incident, in today's New York Post:

When an Arab heel aimed those shoes at our president, it showed the world the extent to which Bush loosened the laces of Middle Eastern tyranny.

If an Arab journalist had thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein or one of his guests, the tosser would've been beaten, then tortured, then killed. Today's Iraqi government is considering whether the man should be charged under the state's democratically validated Constitution.

Bush won. Even if shoe-thrower Muntadar al-Zaidi (who works for an Egypt-based media outfit) walks out in his stocking feet and becomes a hero to dead-enders, he unwittingly showed what a great thing has been accomplished in Iraq.

And...

The only countries in the Middle East where a journalist could survive after such behavior are Iraq, maybe Lebanon - and Israel. Even Jordan doesn't allow such freedom.

But the interest of the Bush bashers in human freedom is minimal.

The media have been having a ball with the video of the Great Baghdad Shoe Toss. But they've missed the point completely. Our sacrifices let that pathetic reporter muster the courage to hurl his shoes at our president: He knew he could get away with it.

Brothers and sisters, the world has changed since 2003.

And...

Terrorists will still be able to explode the occasional bomb 10 years from now, but daily life for most Iraqis has returned to commonplace concerns. The economy's booming and democracy, messy but vibrant, appears to have put down roots.

Al Qaeda lost hugely, Muqtada al-Sadr's star is waning, the Baathists are finished and Iraqis are taking ever more responsibility for their own security. The recent status-of-forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad - which the media sought to portray as a US defeat - shows a country on the mend and gaining confidence.

Finally...

For all of our errors in Iraq, we've done a selfless, honorable thing.

Bush deserved better than the indignity of having shoes flipped at him - a serious insult in the Arab world. But the incident's real message was: Mission accomplished!

Yes indeed.  The president can be justly criticized for many things, but, as his tenure ends, we should recall the good things he has done.  It's sad that most of our news outlets will refuse to do so.  That is to their discredit, and will only hasten the demise of some of them. 

It's clear from his comments that Mr. Bush sees himself as another Harry Truman.  It's hard to know.  There are similarities - the stubbornness, the pursuit of grand goals, the poor relations with the press, the low approval ratings.  We won't be able to provide a clear assessment of the Bush 43 presidency for years.  For now, though, I do think we can reject the irrational hatred to which the man has been subjected.  It has not helped the country, the media, or the search for truth.

December 16, 2008.      Permalink          

THEY DON'T LOVE PARIS - AT 7:34 A.M. ET:  From AP:  PARIS — Police neutralized explosives discovered today in a prestigious Paris department store, and France's national news agency said it received a claim of responsibility from an Afghan group.  Officials said the explosives were found in the restrooms of the Printemps department store, a favored shopping destination for tourists and a Christmas season attraction because of its festive window displays.

COMMENT:  Reminds us there's a real world out there.

SLAMALOT CAMELOT

Posted at 7:29 a.m. ET

I don't like the whole thing.

The press this morning is loaded with the political story of the day - that Caroline Kennedy wants the U.S. Senate seat that will be relinquished by Hillary Clinton when Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state.

In my early years I worked in both New York and Illinois politics.  They had one thing in common:  Despite many decent, upstanding officeholders, they also had a culture of corruption underneath.  Favors were available.

Look at Illinois and New York today.  Together again.  Favors are available. More change we can believe in.

We know about Illinois.  A seat in the Senate is available because Senator Barack Obama has been elected president.  The governor put that seat up for sale.  Many details are still to come.

Here in New York a Senate seat is available.  There are many qualified people here - from political figures to diplomats to academics and entrepreneurs.  Caroline Kennedy, who has never held public office, and whose views on virtually every major issue are unknown, is engaged in a campaign to be appointed by Governor David Paterson (one "t") to serve the remainder of Clinton's term.  She would have to run for a full term in 2010.  As a Kennedy, in a heavily Democratic state, she would be odds-on favorite.

But Caroline offers little more than her name.  And her interest is already splitting the Democratic party.  In the primaries she endorsed and campaigned for Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton.  She then served as head of the search committee examining possible vice presidential candidates, and bypassed Clinton.  Now she wants Clinton's seat.  Some would consider that less than elegant, and more than nervy.

The Clinton people are reportedly livid.  They have a right to be. 

I have no evidence for this, but my gut tells me that Kennedy would not be taking this step without the approval, and even the encouragement, of the president-elect.  Why would he do it?  First, he'd have a new ally in the Senate, and one with name glitter.  Second, he'd be sending a message that there's a new boss in town, and that the Clintons are employees.  Having Kennedy in the Senate blocks the Clinton faction from holding the seat, and possibly keeping it warm should Hillary want it again.

Hillary may be devious, but she's no fool.  She can read the signs.  Caroline Kennedy is 51.  In 2016 she'll be 59, and Hillary will be 69.  Caroline will have had eight years in the Senate.  She could run for president, with Obama's blessing, dashing Clinton's ambitions to be the first female chief executive.

What might Hillary be thinking now?  She might be thinking that Obama had this in mind when he nominated her for State, thus opening the Senate seat.  "Why that little...#@$@"  She might be thinking that going to State is a bad move, taking her out of electoral politics and putting a prime competitor in her place.  She might be thinking that she's been had. 

She might, or might not.  But I would not be shocked to see some bare-knuckled politics played here.  Hillary may demand an ironclad commitment from the governor that he won't appoint Caroline.  If she doesn't get it, she could easily withdraw her nomination for State, and remain in the Senate.  Now that would be juicy.

Oh, by the way, having bashed a sitting governor, Sarah Palin, as unqualified to be vice president, how will Democrats defend the qualifications of Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate?  Just asking.

December 16, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY,  DECEMBER 15,  2008

TOO DARNED HOT - NOT

Posted at 7:21 p.m. ET

The president-elect announced his environmental team today.  He has pledged that fighting global warming will be a priority for his administration.

That's too bad.  The incoming administration appears to have drunk the Gore-Aid.  And yet, day by day, skepticism about the "consensus" surrounding global warming is increasing.  The Australian prints a piece by prominent Danish skeptic and statistician Bjorn Lomborg.  This kind of dissent needs to be heard more often in the U.S. if our debate is to be informed.  The problem is, many people don't want it informed.

According to Obama, "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change".

Such a statement is now commonplace for most political leaders across the world, even though it neglects to address the question of how much we can do to help America and the world through climate policies v other policies.

Examples:

Consider, for example, hurricanes in America. Clearly, a policy of reducing CO2 emissions would have had zero consequence on Katrina's devastating effect on New Orleans, where such a disaster was long expected...

...Instead, direct policies to address New Orleans' vulnerabilities could have avoided the huge and unnecessary cost in human misery and economic loss. These should have included stricter building codes, smarter evacuation policies and better preservation of wetlands (which could have reduced the ferociousness of the hurricane).

And...

Likewise, consider world hunger. Pleas for action on climate change reflect fears that global warming may undermine agricultural production, especially in the developing world. But global agricultural/economic models indicate that even under the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would reduce agricultural production by just 1.4p er cent by the end of the century. Because agricultural output will more than double during this period, climate change would at worst cause global food production to double not in 2080 but in 2081.

Do you get the feeling that this man has done his homework?

Every time spending on climate policies saves one person from hunger in 100 years, the same amount could have saved 5000 people now. Arguably, this should be among Obama's top priorities.

What?  And violate the religion of global warming?

Obama went on to say why he wants to prioritise global warming policies: "The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking.  We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

When someone tells you that "the science is beyond dispute," run in the other direction.  Real research scientists generally don't talk that way.  They're careful, and cautious.

Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall during the past two years). The UN expects about a 30cm sea-level rise during this century, about what we saw during the past 150 years.

Do not trust this man.  He believes in facts.

Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level: the US has in all academic estimates been getting wetter through the past the century (with the 1930s dust bowl setting the drought high point). This is even true globally during the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: "There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture."

And...

Furthermore, famine has declined rapidly in the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates that this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable, to say the least.

No question about it:  This man's last name is Exxon-Mobil. No doubt about it.  I have sources.

Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives. If we are to get our policies right, it is crucial that we get our facts right.

But it's so much more fun the other way.  And there are those great parties, and posters.  This man is too serious.

December 15, 2008.      Permalink          

POLS, INVESTIGATE THYSELVES - AT 3:14 P.M. ET:  From AP:

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's team says an internal review shows his staff "was not involved in inappropriate discussions" with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich over the selection of Obama's Senate successor.

An Obama spokesman says Monday in a statement that Obama's lawyer Gregory Craig has kept federal prosecutors informed of the internal review "in order to ensure our full cooperation with the investigation" into allegations against the governor.

COMMENT:  Let's see how long the in-the-tank media accepts an "internal review."  If this were a Republican scandal the cries of "special prosecutor" would be echoing off the Rocky Mountains.

DYNASTY - AT 2:41 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times: 
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of an American political dynasty, has decided to pursue the United States Senate seat being vacated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a person told of her decision said on Monday.

COMMENT:  As a New Yorker, I find this embarrassing.  It seems more like a grudge match between the Kennedys and the Clintons than concern for the residents of New York.  Caroline knifed Hillary in the back by endorsing Obama in the primaries, now she wants Hillary's seat.  But there are other, far more qualified candidates.  Clearly, if she becomes senator, Caroline Kennedy can run for president in 2016.  Hillary, who will only be 68 then, is obviously aware of that.  This can get very raw.  Oh goody. 

MADNESS - AT 2:35 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  BAGHDAD — An Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President Bush and called him a dog became a huge celebrity in the Arab world and beyond on Monday, with many supporters exalting him for what they called a courageous act in the face of American arrogance about the war.

COMMENT:  I never cease to be amazed at the pathetic ignorance of the Arab world.  It's not the fault of the people.  This is what they're taught - and it's one reason why they're living centuries behind.  This was once a great civilization. 

ILLINOIS UPDATE - AT 2:31 P.M. ET:   Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Illinois House of Representatives will consider impeaching Governor Rod Blagojevich after he was arrested by the FBI for trying to auction President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat.  A 21-member panel comprised of 12 Democrats and nine Republicans will begin deliberations tomorrow, House Speaker Michael Madigan said today in a meeting with reporters televised on WGN-TV. Blagojevich, a Chicago Democrat, was arrested and accused on Dec. 9 of trying to sell Obama’s post and pressure the Chicago Tribune to halt critical editorials.

MAYBE THEY CAN PROBE HIM AND BLAGO AT THE SAME TIME - AT 2:26 P.M. ET:  Reader Jean Spik alerts us to this:  Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- A federal grand jury is investigating how a company that advised Jefferson County, Alabama, on bond deals that threaten to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, did similar work in New Mexico after making contributions to Governor Bill Richardson’s political action committees.

COMMENT:  He's Obama's secretary of commerce designate.  So much change we can believe in.  I don't know if I can stand any more.

STILL STUCK IN PARK - AT 9:47 A.M. ET:   KABUL (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Monday an announcement on a auto industry rescue was not imminent, leaving the industry's fate clouded in uncertainty for a little longer.  "We're not quite ready to announce that yet," Bush told reporters on Air Force One during a flight from Baghdad on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan.

RIGHTEOUS ANGER IN ILLINOIS - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  From AP: 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Republicans and Democrats alike are calling for Illinois lawmakers to begin impeachment proceedings against Gov. Rod Blagojevich, saying the step is necessary to restore public confidence in state government.

"The General Assembly must move to impeach Rod Blagojevich immediately," said DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett, a potential Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

COMMENT:  Is the first they've heard that their governor is a nut job?  All this sudden righteousness.  The man didn't come to town last week.

REALLY OUTRAGEOUS

Posted at 8:46 a.m. ET

The hatred of President Bush is taking no holiday, even in this season of supposed good will.  We would have hoped that the mainstream media would at least restrain some of its worst instincts, as the Bush administration enters its final five weeks.  That hope would be in vain.

One of the wildest anti-Bush attacks appeared in an editorial yesterday in The San Francisco Chronicle.  What angers us is the casualness with which the Chronicle ignores facts and history.

The Chronicle quotes Mr. Bush's regret, stated recently, that intelligence about Iraq's WMD turned out to be wrong.  The president did not blame anyone.  He simply stated his regret.  To the Chronicle, though, this was perfidy:

The president's attempt to disassociate himself from accountability for the phony pretext for war is simply outrageous.

No, what's outrageous is the Chronicle's attempt to portray Mr. Bush as disassociating himself from accountability.  He neither said nor implied anything of the kind.  Ever.  And the term "phony pretext" is inflammatory and misleading.  Virtually all major intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD.

The Bush administration was sounding alarms - such as Rice's January 2003 suggestion that ceding to uncertainty might cause the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" - even though U.N. inspectors were coming up empty.

For the record, the UN believed Iraq had WMD.  Added to the record, even though we didn't find stockpiles of WMD after we entered Iraq, we did find WMD programs in place, to be restarted after the UN sanctions were lifted.  That discovery has been downplayed by the mainstream media, even though it is critical to understanding the Iraq weapons picture.

Most infamously, Bush's 2003 State of the Union address included the 16 words claiming that Hussein had tried to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium, even though red flags had been raised within the State Department about the veracity of the claims.

Most infamously?  The Chronicle had a journalistic obligation to point out that Great Britain, which supplied the information, stands behind it.  There is other evidence, ignored by the Chronicle, suggesting that those 16 words were accurate.  The term "most infamously" is, again, misleading and inflammatory.

The best that can be said of the Bush White House is that it was insufficiently vigilant about scrutinizing the intelligence it presented to the world to justify a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that has cost more than 4,200 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars a year - and incalculable damage to U.S. stature in the world. At worst, it was a campaign of deceit. Historians will be taking a close look at the substantial evidence that the Bush administration was determined to engage Iraq in war from the day it assumed power - and used the fear and confusion in the aftermath of 9/11 to sell this war to the public.

Wild, wild, wild.  Didn't Colin Powell spend days at the CIA, personally examining the intelligence?  Where is the deceit?  Show it.  The fact is, as Douglas J. Feith points out in his book, "War and Decision," the intelligence hadn't changed since the Clinton administration.  Yet the Chronicle doesn't accuse Mr. Clinton of deceit.  Wonder why. 

And there is no evidence that the Bush administration was determined to go to war in Iraq from its first days.  It knew Iraq was a problem, and war might be an option.  But the Chronicle overstretches.

History will not forget that the rationale for this war - which has brought so much death, debt and misery - was thoroughly discredited.

They just won't give up.  Again, those WMD programs were in place.  Iraq is now a fledgling, if fragile democracy.  Hatred of Bush, though, is a religion that is being pursued, regardless of facts.

Bad journalism.  Another reason why people are turning away from newspapers.

December 15, 2008.      Permalink          

THE PLOT THICKENS

Posted at 7:45 a.m. ET

Ed Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, complained last week that Barack Obama didn't have administrative experience, and that this was contributing to his sluggishness of his handling of the Illinois governor saga.

Rendell was right.  The scandal, which involves the governor soliciting favors and funds in exchange for Obama's abandoned Senate seat, continues, with bits of information coming out each day.  The classic way to handle a scandal is to get everything out as quickly as possible, punish those who should be punished, and put it behind you.  Thus far, Obama has been disappointing.

This morning The Wall Street Journal, which has done fine reporting on this story, reveals contacts between Rahm Emanuel, Obama's designated White House chief of staff, and the governor's office, regarding the Senate seat:

Barack Obama had begun thinking about his Senate successor even before the presidential election, and dispatched Rahm Emanuel days after the vote to contact aides of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to begin talking up Mr. Obama's preferred candidates, associates of Mr. Emanuel said this weekend.

Associates?  We can speculate that Emanuel may want some of this information out there, and is going around the Obama information operation to put the best possible spin on the story.  Also, please note that there is nothing improper about holding discussions with a governor's office about filling a Senate seat.

Mr. Emanuel didn't talk to Mr. Blagojevich directly about the matter, by phone or in person, according to people familiar with the matter. He spoke by phone with aides to the governor, those people say.

An aide to Obama speaking with aides to the governor.  Some real spin here, I suspect.  Aides may not know everything.  Aides may not be "authorized" to do certain things.  Lots of deniability in what's leaking out.

The Chicago Tribune reported Saturday that Mr. Emanuel relayed to Mr. Blagojevich's team a list of candidates who would be acceptable to the Obama camp, and that these conversations were captured on a tape possessed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. There is no evidence that this was part of a deal or quid pro quo.

Correct.  Nothing improper about that, legally or morally.

Now the conversations about the Senate seat may be central to whether Mr. Blagojevich's legal and political problems will spill over and affect the president-elect before he even takes office. The discussions themselves don't suggest anything improper, legal experts say. Obama advisers say it was natural for the president-elect to take an interest in his successor.

But that's not the issue, and all the spin in the world can't protect Emanuel or Obama from the central question:  What did they know about the governor's attempts to extract bribes for the Senate appointment, and when did they know it?

Rahm Emanuel was elected to the House, succeeding Blagojevich, who'd held the seat until his election as governor.  The two have had contact over the years.  The information in this Journal story provides pieces of the puzzle, but the puzzle still has many holes to be filled.  This will go on as long as the president-elect does not or cannot answer basic questions about what was known regarding the bribe attempts.

Suggestion:  The president-elect should appoint a person of impeccable reputation to investigate the actions of his staff and make a full, public report.  But he's got to do something to get this behind him.

December 15, 2008.      Permalink