Republicans Demand Obama Say He Wants Fitzgerald To Stay -- Even Though He Already Has
Hoping to milk the Blago mess for all it's worth, Republicans are demanding that President-elect Obama say whether he wants Patrick Fitzgerald to stay as U.S. Attorney -- even though he's already on record saying that he does.
In an interview published today by Politico, Illinois state Republican chair Andy McKenna, demanded that Obama say whether he favors keeping Fitzgerald in his post. "Some have wondered if Barack Obama would keep Fitzgerald," McKenna said. "It would be great if he confirms that he plans to."
Asked for comment, an Obama transition aide pointed us to a June 5 article in the Chicago Tribune which noted that Obama had been asked if he would keep Fitzgerald in an editorial board meeting with the paper in several months earlier. His reply (via Nexis):
"I still think he's doing a good job. Yes."
Asked why he would keep him, Obama continued:
"I think he has been aggressive in putting the city on notice and the state on notice that he takes issues of public corruption seriously."
That should put the matter to rest, but given the GOP's determination to use the Blago case to tar Obama's reformist image, it probably won't, unless Obama reaffirms his commitment to keeping Fitz in the current context.
O they're going to yelp because this is the first thing they've gotten ahold of.
Let them - Obama did nothing. Obama's either the cleanest politician I've ever supported, or the absolute smartest at covering up.
I vote the former - he's the cleanest politician I've ever supported.
December 10, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
it wouldn't hurt if he reaffirmed his commitment to it, tho...
December 10, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it wouldn't. I suppose he will if he thinks the same.
I wish this hadn't happened, but it's hardly the worst thing that could happen inasmuch as Obama is very much on the right side of this and was all along.
December 10, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this situation is problematic: there is a connection, however innocent, between PE Obama, Emil Jones, Jr. & Rezko. Avoiding "guilt by association" in IL is clearly impossible. I don't have to like it, but I'm going to have to accept that PE Obama's image is dimmed by this.
December 10, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also too, he palled around with terrorists who targeted their own country!
December 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's ridiculous!
December 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same logic.
December 10, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's getting hard to tell the trolls from the humorists, these days.
December 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be gone troll. Mc lost. Get over it!
December 11, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm sure he will. It just seems like a political bitch-slap to make him say "yes sir yes sir you betcha uh huh sure thing" every time the right yanks his chain...
December 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Luddite. In fact, Obama's response should be I stand behind my June 5th statement. No further elaboration should be given. I am sick of the GOP and their constant yammering about nothing.
December 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am too, but we might as well get used to it.
This is why they should always be the minority. The Repugs are pass masters at this kind of whining and hypocrisy and that works from the minority and doesn't work from the majority. They had the majority and still whined about how unfair life is, which just proved to me further that they belong in the permanent minority.
December 10, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Obama team wants this to end now, a surrogate should go on MTP and state that the only thing on record from the prosecutor's office about Obama and Blago is that the former is not involved with Blago's mischief in any way...
... and given that clear evidence, any further suggestion from GOP spokespeople that he somehow was, amounts to libel.
Then, when asked if that means the Obama team feels it's actionable, the immediate and straightforward response should be:
"If they try this again, all options will indeed be on the table. This is the President of the United States we're talking about, and to suggest he committed criminal activity will not be taken as 'politics as usual'."
Think that'll shut them up? I do.
December 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree Barry.
This would be similiar in some regard to how they handled that 'swiftboat' book that came out during the campaign. I think it was called Obamanation? Anyway, the campaign demanded equal air time every single time they would host that author or speak about his book...that squelched the whole thing.
This is the same sort of guilt and smear by innuendo, conjecture and speculation swirling that destroys folks due to the 'where there is smoke there is fire' mentality.
December 10, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reaffirm his commitment to what? Ethics? Why should he have to reaffirm anything? I love how everyone (including Dems) hold Dem Presidents to these bizzaro standards that none of the Republicans have to meet. Basically all we Dems end up doing is to becoming enablers for the very sort of nonsense from the right that we then decry.
December 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I am sure he will each and every time someone in the press asks him, which will probably be often.
December 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: "Republicans Demand"
republicans and, apparently, Greg here too
"It would be great if he confirms that he plans to." - Ill. repug chair
"it wouldn't hurt if he reaffirmed his commitment to it" - Greg
sounds like we have equivalent "demands" on Obama here (leaving aside for the time being that neither is actually a demand).
when repugs say, "jump," far too many of us on the left ask, "how high?"
we really gotta break that mind set -- yes, it would hurt to snap to inane republican demands as automatically and thoughtlessly as greg "demands" here. it's counter-productive to continue to allow repugs to frame everything political in this country
I'd expect to see/hear it from the mainstream corporate media, but it's a real shame to see that same old reactionary self-defeating crap on a prominent site like this that is trying to break on through to the other side
December 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has not been forthright with his relationship to the guy who jacked my cousin's car three years ago. In fact, he has never given any denials that he knew or was aware of the activities of this unscrupulous individual. The American people deserve a fuller accounting from our President-elect, and he should come forward now to lay out a full explanation of every meeting and communication he may have had with this car thief as well as any campaign donations he has received as well as a map of the six degrees of separation between him and that scummy man who drove away my cousin's favorite Mini Cooper. Anything less would be a betrayal of Obama's campaign promises of greater transparency.
December 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Applause.
December 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Xantar. You were better able to make my point than I did above about what this ridiculous standard that Obama's being held to.
December 10, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done.
December 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
On another note: goodness, Tena, what time do you get up in the morning?!
December 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk to my cat.
He has been getting me up the minute Mr. Tena leaves for the office at 5:45 every morning.
December 10, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans, for the most part, (hate to paint such a broad stroke), do not get why they lost, do not get what they have to do to get their credibility back and continue to bury themselves in useless mongering. They are toast if they do not wake up.
December 10, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And goodness, Tena, who does your hair? Smashing!
December 10, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I agree with you. I think that Obama is clean.
But I have a different question: Had this scandal broken in late October (a la October Surprise), would it have had an impact on the election (despite Obama's non-involvement)?
I know that it could not have happened, as the scandal is predicated on the fact that Obama would be leaving his seat in the Senate. But it's a question that I have been pondering regardless.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
December 10, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if Obama was actually married to a chicken?
December 10, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody would give a cluck! And nobody should give a cluck about this so called Obama, Blago association. Except those chickenshit Pugs!
December 10, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
CAN YOU PROVE HE'S NOT? HIS MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO "MICHELLE" OBAMA IS MERELY A COPY, AND THE PIXELS ARE WRONG. DESPITE COURT OFFICIALS DECLARING THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE VALID, WHY DOESN'T OBAMA JUST RELEASE IT? IF HE IS NOT MARRIED TO A CHICKEN, WHY DOESN'T HE SIMPLY TAKE THE TIME TO RESPOND TO MY FACIALLY RIDICULOUS CHARGES AND BE DONE WITH IT? WHAT IS HE HIDING??? ALSO, REZKO!
December 10, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a man who palled around with terrorists, after all.
You betcha!
December 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah, you need to be a bit more creative to get attention you want...
December 10, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah is so last year in a couple of weeks.
December 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you're not a real nutter because you used all caps instead of either a) not using any caps or b) using all caps RANDOMLY on SINGLE words in your sentence in A way that LEAVES the reader scratching his/her HEAD and saying "wtf did he think those words needed emphasizing and not the others?"
December 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get a grip, Lars!
December 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP would cry fowl
December 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a poultry excuse.
(Don't mind me; I'm just winging it! :-)
December 10, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it could have; yes. I think it's foolish to imagine it would not have had an effect.
December 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it makes sense to think about it in terms of "if it happened before the election". The fact that Obama won is what triggered the whole episode.
December 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Triggered some of it - not all of it, but you're right, the election set all this off.
December 10, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if the charge of selling the Senate seat had emerged before the election McCain's contention that Obama was already acting as if he had won would have gained enough credence to put Sarah Palin in the Naval Observatory.
December 10, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but how could this scandal have broken out in October? Barack wasn't elected until November 4 and therefore his Senate seat wasn't available until November 4. Your math doesn't add up.
December 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A reasonable conjecture in October would have been an Obama victory.
December 10, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg i am the last person to criticize you, but i must admit that the heading of this post is a bit misleading. There is nothing in the quotes you included from the Illinois Republican Chair that gives the inference that the Republicans are demanding Fitzgerald stay. The Republican chair is expressing his desire to see Fitzgerald stay in his current post, thats all. There is no demand being made imo.
December 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may have misread Greg's headline. It doesn't say that the Illinois Republican Chair is demanding that Fitzgerald stay. It says that the Illinois Republican Chair is demanding that Obama say that he wants Fitzgerald to stay. In that sense, the headline is accurate.
December 10, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't sound much like a demand to me. More like a suggestion.
If that's all he's got, then Greg's headline is very hyped. What's worse is that he's got David Kurtz parroting the same hype on the front page.
The TPM echo chamber in operation?
December 10, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
My fantasy press conference or interview:
"Mr. McKenna, you've said 'some have wondered' about the Fitzgerald position. Could you possibly give us the names of those who have not been aware of President-Elect Obama's stated position on this matter?"
(Applicable to all "some say" quotes from R's..!)
December 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Repugs are punk'd yet again.
December 10, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
heh! I likes it.
December 10, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as I hear the strawman invoked, "Some have wondered"...I pretty much tune out the rest.
December 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well yah.
That's always a giant tip-off. ;)
December 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I mentioned in a previous post. Obama's had staffers going through the DOJ for a month or so now right?
Isn't there a pretty good possibility the Obama team has known about this ongoing investigation or would they have not gone over this type of investigation? Since it involves bribery for a National position, U.S. Senate, I would guess it might have come up when reviewing ongoing investigations during the transition team meetings.
It would be interesting to know I guess.
December 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that one. Fitzgerald probably got the go ahead on the wiretaps from DOJ in October and odds are hasn't been reporting what is going on on a daily or even weekly basis. It probably was hush, hush to avoid any leaking to the criminal.
Also, the criminal has been under investigation for years so the obama team knew to stay as far away from the crook as possible from public information and they did. It didn't take a rocket scientist, even though obama is pretty close to one, to know to stay away from the criminal in all respects.
December 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't the investigation public knowledge? I'm asking because I haven't really been paying attention.
December 10, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's been public knowledge for years and Fitzgerald has been indicting staffer after staffer of Blago, circling his way to the kingpin. That's the way Fitz operates.
December 10, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't quite work with Cheney though.
December 10, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it was public knowledge, which shows what a dumbfuck Blago is.
December 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday, I said that fitzgerald should be promoted to deputy ag, however, he is probably serving more of a useful purpose for the country right where he is. A modern day elliot ness. Once he retires and writes books on all this stuff he will be a millionaire. Also, can you see the bio movies? Holy cow. Keep him right in chicago and clean the place up. I am sure obama will not cut him loose. He'll probably give him a medal or something.
December 10, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is as close as we've ever come in the White House to a rocket scientist, I agree. I knew he was smart but I underestimated how smart he is, which was foolish on my part knowing that he was summa cum laude and the head of law review at Harvard. For some reason I didn't realize the extent of his brilliance.
God we are the luckiest country on earth!
December 10, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate that analogy. I actually _am_ a rocket scientist. It's not all that hard. Once you get your head around solving simultaneous equations is six degrees of freedom and 12 state Kalman filters it's really just a matter of connecting the dots with simple logic.
What Obama does is _way_ harder. It requires a non-savant type of intellect and broad understanding of a huge array of topics and the depth of character not to fold up like a wet dollar bill in the face of resistance and/or idiocy.
Smart as I am, I couldn't hold a candle to Obama's mental horsepower in most areas (math and whatnot excepted) and I like that! Our President should be ridiculously smart on an absurd number of fronts. What a joy it is that we've finally elected someone in Obama who fits the profile.
So yeah, we _are_ lucky! And we're good. And smart. Anti-intellectualists can suck it!
December 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem "in" 6 Deg. not "is".
I'm a geek not a nerd, gimmie a break!
December 10, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I chose this screen name earlier in the year...little did I know.
Anyway one positive from all this is that its serves as a warning to Obamas people to keep everything above board, and a reminder of how scandals can undo an administration.
The chorus of clicking camera shutters yesterday at Obamas meeting with Gore reminded me of when IranContra broke, just a frenzied mass of reporters all trying to be the next Woodward or Bernstein, well maybe not Woodward he just makes stuff up.
December 10, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it you were going for FitZgerald as opposed to Fitgerald.
December 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda like the birth certificate frenzy.
Why won't he release his birth certificate?
He did.
No, it was a fake!
The state of Hawaii said it was valid.
Why won't he release his birth certificate?
December 10, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And factcheck.org sent someone to physically view the birth certificate and it is authentic and there was a birth announcement in the hololulu paper in 1961 for obama, but, but, but . . .
He's got to be foreign born, but his mother was an american citizen, so who gives a f*ck. Incidentally, dems were in the forefront in the senate stating that mccain was eligible for the presidency eventhough he was born on foreign soil. This really is absurd.
But, he must be a martian or something. What a freaking joke.
December 10, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I thought the GOP line was that Fitzgerald was that out of control prosecutor who was mercilessly hounding poor, defenseless Scooter Libby.
Which leads me to believe the next think the GOP will demand is that Obama must promise not to pardon Blagojevich or commute any prison sentence he receives.
December 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks that that a pardon or commutation isn't in the cards anyway. Old bloggo is going down and doing time. Obama would not consider a pardon or commutation. He's not like the king.
December 10, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter, the Republicans would demand it. Just like with Fitzgerald.
December 10, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is missing the point. Where does this leave the Cubs?
December 10, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, that they and Blogo are both cursed?
December 10, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see Barack reaffirm his commitment to Fitzgerald by naming him the Deputy AG responsible for corruption investigations. That move would send a strong message that Obama will not tolerate corruption from anyone at any time.
December 10, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if we aren't seeing some serious hardball politics from the Obama camp on this. If that rumor that the tipoff that triggered this mess came from Rahm Emmanuel is true, then maybe what's really happening is that Obama had had enough of Blago trying to extort him over the senate seat.
If so, I approve. That's a good lesson for anyone else who thinks it's a good idea to try to extort our president. Under those circumstances, it would be no accident that news that Emmanual supplied the tip has leaked.
December 10, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are really hoping that Obama keeps Fitz in Chicago instead of moving him to Washington to clean up DOJ.
December 10, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
For any of you who participate in online polls, MSNBC has a link to one about whether the Blago indictment will hurt Obama:
http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2008/12/10/2197979-do-you-think-the-charges-against-gov-blagojevich-will-hurt-president-elect-obamas-administration
December 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans want to keep Fitzgerald in Chicago, where he is mostly investigating a Democratic political machine. If I were them, I would be most worried that Obama would appoint him to investigate the Bush/Cheney Administration.
December 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the scooter bs, I bet fitzgerald is chomping at the bit to go there. Nonetheless, corruption is corruption and maybe fitzgerald is better at cleaning up illinois, which sure needs it. I bet obama keeps him there for now. Promotion later.
December 10, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are, of course, the same Republicans who slimed Patrick Fitzgerald when he prosecuted Scooter Libby, and demanded that he resign or be dismissed.
December 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. After reading Michael Schear, the NYT thing and Tapper's blog at ABC, its clear is that after five years of acting like emasculated sheept, the Clinton Rules are already back in effect in the MSM.
Shit. I was really enjoying life without having to read Bob Somersby's blog every day just fine. And he's going to be in a big "toldja toldja" frenzy, too, I'll bet.
December 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be "sheep," of course. And the five years in question would be 2001 - 2006.
December 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, this is all hyperbole, it is not a huge scandal. It is politics as usual, just a more stupid variety. Actually, it is the MSM suffering withdrawal from election frenzy. They should be screaming about Bush's numerous elimination of safeguards such as the family leave act and wildness protection in Utah. Sigh.
And Greg, I disagree. Obama does not and should not need to comment on Fitzgerald and reaffirm his commitment. Just adds fuel to the fire and belittles Obama's position and purpose at this time.
December 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Really, this is all hyperbole, it is not a huge scandal."
Neither was Whitewater.
December 10, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually there is a big difference with whitewater. The clintons were up to their eyeballs in whitewater and obama has been running as far as he can from bloggo, as indicated by bloggo's recorded statements. It's apples and oranges in my book.
December 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But its like Whitewater in that the lack of any evidence of scandalous behavior on Obama's part seems only to spur the MSM to even greater feats of footless speculation and ominous foreshadowing of vaguely defined future revelations.
The more the evidence points to complete innocence, the battier the MSM becomes: that's Whitewater in a nutshell. And unless we ridicule them relentlessly, they're more than ready to do it again because their inability to find a serious flaw in Obama, combined with his failure to eat donuts and barbecue with them, has been driving them crazy and priming them for an eruption of Clinton Rules for months, now.
December 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone worrying about how the Blagojevich scandal will affect Obama? It only demonstrates that the president elect is honest and principled. The agents have his refusal to play ball with the governor on record, verbatim. I see this as an uncommon opportunity to showcase the ethical over the corrupt.
December 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Republicans and their guttersnipe enablers in the press, the answers don't matter. Just the question: "Is Obama linked to Blogojevich?"
December 10, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Blagojevich scandal had to happen; the sooner this works through to Governor Quimby in jail the better. I personally am worried about this this story because I lived in Chicago 1990-2008 and what passes for "clean" there would not pass any outside judgement of ethics. (The pay-to-play scheming, the outright racketeering by politically connected officials, etc., is, in the view of many, less overt today and more difficult to trace, but still moving.) The weakness here for Obama is that he is loyal to some that have histories with less uncomplicated ethical practices than he.
Selecting Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff complicates the picture of Obama as reformer, in my eyes. Emanuel name surfaced during Fitzgerald's "Hired Truck" investigation involving Chicago Water and Streets and Sanitation department officials. As a consequence of this investigation we found out that Emanuel (and others) benefited from having no-bid contractors for transport work going door-to-door to canvass for Emanuel and others. Emanuel's statement on this was he was not aware that the truck contractors had done the canvassing, nor who had orchestrated it. I'm willing to believe that, and hasten to add no charges have been filed against Emanuel by Fitzgerald's office, and perhaps never will. I should also add that if you read Fitzgerald's blog there's some evidence that he's an Obama supporter. (at least he's on the same campaign email lists that many of us are!) But I hope Obama asked for received clarification on it from Emanuel during the interviews for the Chief of Staff job.
Just to be clear, it turns my stomach to be writing this, as I believe P-E Obama to be a transformational figure at the national/international level such as I never could have imagined prior. He, and we that support the many causes that he represents, will come out of this because his political genius represents a way of calculating a new future out of the many perils of the past. But I would expect him to be on the defensive about his loyalties to politicians in a system that frequently fails the public trust.
ps. I don't know how to link Fitzgerald's blog, so I cumbersomely add it here. It's a sometimes amusing, slightly rant-ish set of comments that offer a seemingly open view of a truly idiosyncratic mind.
http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/
December 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, the GOP and its Wide Stance (tm) on the tissues of the day!
December 11, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink