RNC Keeps Hammering Obama Over Blago Mess
The GOP is really cranking up its efforts to use the Blago mess to tear down Barack Obama's reformist image, and bring his honeymoon period to an abrupt end.
"Americans voted for change. Barack Obama promised that he would have the most open and honest administration and transition in history," said RNC chairman Mike Duncan, on a conference call just now with reporters. "But that's not what we're getting. What we're getting is the same old politics out of Chicago."
As a helpful suggestion for moving the country forward, Duncan called for Obama to hold a press conference and discuss all his links to Blagojevich -- and another prominent Illinois scandal, too.
"If he really wants to be transparent, if he truly is wanting to do the right thing and move the country forward, he has got to talk about his relationship with Rezko and with the governor," Duncan said, later adding: "He's got to come clean and have a press conference where he talks about what they've done in the past, the help that they've done, conversations that they've done."
Separately, Duncan announced today that he's running for reelection as RNC chair, going up against an already-crowded field of challenges. The Blago mess provides an interesting twist here, giving Duncan a leg up as the press coverage of his Blago-related criticism of Obama elevates his partisan profile -- an advantage that the other candidates can only envy.
who cares what duncan has to say?
the guy is just saying that to get elected. he's a sleazeball who got his ass kicked on nov. 4th.
obama's not gonna listen to what this guy has to say lol.
greg, you should ask him where specifically in the criminal complaint obama has been implicated?
December 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duncan is flailing around.
December 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well first off, he already had a press conference about Rezko if I'm not mistaken. He remained there until there were no further questions. Or was that on something else?
Second, the FBI will be asking the questions on this since it is an ongoing investigation. It would be inappropriate for Obama to respond at this time I believe.
December 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Blago mess provides an interesting twist here, giving Duncan a leg up as the press coverage of his Blago-related criticism of Obama elevates his partisan profile -- an advantage that the other candidates can only envy.
Golly. I wonder if he thought of that?! Nah, he must be genuinely worried about the good of the nation, mustn't he?
December 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I left you a link re: Pat Boone discussion, check it out, too funny!
December 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw64pU_wAYw
Here is the link.
December 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that's the SECOND time today I've sprayed tea all over the keyboard. . .
December 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's NOTHING compared to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdAf9fCcV2U&feature=related
December 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdAf9fCcV2U
December 10, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
RNC pinhead on MSNBC right now. Please make it stop
December 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Duncan's remarks appear to be a bit --- hmmm, impotent?
December 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Duncan should hold a press conference and explain in detail all the meetings he's ever had with Karl Rove, Abramoff, et al.
And don't forget to describe all the conversations.
December 10, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
December 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so reminiscent of the McCain-Palin whine about Ayers. Obama has to go on camera and discuss, in excruciating detail, every single person he's ever brushed against in his entire career...and then Republicans will let up?
No. I hope this turns into a gigantic backfire. As in: Republicans fixated on Obama's past, and ignore our needy citizens in the process.
December 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think this has the potential to turn into a gigantic backfire.
i think republicans realize that NOW is that time to hit president elect obama on these things, because he doesn't have the power to do anything about it right now. unfortunately for them, the election is over- they don't gain very much from running this into the ground. only if there is any substantive evidence that links p-e obama to any blagojevich nonsense will this turn into something that could hurt them.
by banking on this issue now, republicans blow a wad of ammo against obama and democrats that could've been used during the midterms.
December 10, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. They couldn't even wait for him to be inaugurated before criticizing him.
December 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And dumb asses that they are, again missing the whole point of why they loss the election by repeating the same mistakes. The only people who care about this and are enthralled are the rabid right-wingers and Fox friends. Ridiculous. I have not read much about it because I don't care, I just lost one contract I have had for 15 years. They think this matters to me? Hell no.
December 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's red meat for the wingnut base. Rove's old playbook, a decade late. It's disgusting and transparent to everyone else though. The RNC continues to further marginalize itself.
December 10, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's been a tactic for some time, this "come clean" bullshit. I don't know how big it was before the Repos tried it with Clinton over Whitewater and then Monica, but that strikes me as the big recent revival of whatever disease McCarthy had.
I think it represents a deep failure within Republican psyches, a kind of hypocrisy with morality as a facade over knowing that they too are only human, but demanding perfection from others.
December 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should not be the least bit surprising. The Republican party is intellectually and morally bankrupt. They have nothing to offer - no ideas, no plans, nothing. All they have is a broken-down slime machine.
December 10, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not going to have to listen to TPMEC broadcast every bogus claim and baseless charge on this site, are we?
This isn't the campaign. All you are doing is helping to disseminate the Republicans' message. This isn't objective journalism; it's aiding and abetting the Republicans in their attempts to distort the truth and weaken the Obama administration.
December 10, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be true if you believe TPM's readership is a bunch of mindless sheep who don't think for themselves and won't read the distinctly skeptical posts by Greg and Eric. And while that may be true of a couple trolls here, by and large it isn't.
Greg and Eric are just letting us know what the Republicans are saying so that we're prepared to answer the talking points.
December 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, more than that, it's good for a laugh. The RNC these days, it's like "Jackass" the movie.
December 11, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't objective journalism
Excuse me? Reporting Duncan's remarks isn't objective journalism? Paraphrasing or not reporting at all would have been an example of non-objective journalism.
I appreciate knowing what Republicans are doing and saying. It'd be mad not to publicize that stuff. And knowing that it's going on allows TPM readers, if they so choose, to write more insightful e-mails and letters to editors...
December 10, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it wasn't for the fact that TPM participates in these conference calls, no one would ever hear of Mike Duncan.
If you really want TPM to be a conduit for Republican talking points, just provide a direct feed to Rush Limbaugh.
But, just maybe, a little reporting on the truth behind these smears would be time better spent.
December 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to the good folks here at TPM, you are vastly inflating their influence.
It's important to know what the other side is saying. They're very good at that hyperventilating style of politics used to throw off good debate. Frankly that's all they have left, clearly. Having a ready answer is key.
Anyone want to host a backlash? This is annoying in the extreme, but I think the press has already shown they have a bit of an appetite for some new drama. This 80% approval happy-happy business is boring them to death. If they're so receptive, it should be easy enough to mount a replacement drama: Obama defender backlash. :)
December 10, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You come here for objective journalism? Give me a break.
December 10, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares what the RNC has to say.
December 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
the rnc is still the opposition. the rnc will still raise money, contest seats, and go for the jugular. they're not taking a breather after gettin shellacked a month ago.
although i'm glad we were able to make great gains in the house and senate, i'm still ready to fight because i know that the republicans are still fighting.
December 10, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zzzzzzzzz...
Wait, did THE Mike Duncan say that? Oh...nobody knows him from a can of paint? And even if they did, they wouldn't care what he has to say? Why didn't you say so?!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
December 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It.is.so.boring.
December 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anyone but Republicans paying attention to this crap. Blago has been under investigation for 3 years and that nonesense he was taped saying makes him and his Chief of Staff look like the idiots they are.
Obama supporters have been listening to this guilt by association from McCain?Palin. We are not impressed or interested.
December 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'm going to be possibly abusive, so you're forewarned:
Fuck the RNC.
Why should we care?
December 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: I also say, FUCK the RNC.
December 10, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
December 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The RNC. Isn't that cute.
And you're both on report.
December 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't really expect the Repugs to say: O, we know Obama didn't do anything and we're with him on this.
December 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, it's too predictable, it's too much of dรฉjร vu. And we have a lotta other things to worry about.
I'd be surprised if this doesn't backfire.
December 10, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blago ">himself (links to pdf):
That's some conspiracy theory they're cooking up there, you betcha....
December 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.connecttristates.com/news/story.aspx?id=219212
This one is after the "non-meeting" to not discuss anything.
December 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
..sing and a miss..
December 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
swing that is..
December 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I haven't seen you in awhile = nice to see you.
O Wallace keeps swinging and keeps missing cause there's nothing to hit.
December 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I'm obviously so far off base, maybe you can help me. If Obama never met with the Governor or discussed the subject with him, how did Perp #1 know that Pres. Elect #1 wanted Candidate #1 to replace him and wouldn't give up anything for it?
December 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm....he learned it from someone else?
December 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say he never met him. But I do believe that the gov himself only said that he was aware that Obama wanted #1. I don't recall seeing anything that said Obama told him that he wanted #1 directly.
But even if he did, there's nothing illegal about stating his preference - it was his seat.
You just are dying for there to be something in this that you can point to and say Obama isn't what he claims, but Wallace- there isn't anything. Obama is what he claims. He was pushing for ethics reform in Illinois, which is what pushed the governor into acting rather more rashly because he wanted to get his crooked shit together before the ethics rules became operational.
I really wish you would stop and read again what the gov said about Obama and quit trying to imagine something there that isn't.
December 10, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, SFCWallace, I actually agree with you on this much. Even setting aside Mr Axelrod's remarks on television a week and something ago, the fact that Blagojevich was mad at Obama for not playing ball indicates that (contra Obama's claim yesterday), there had been some sort of contact between them. That said, who cares? The reason why such contact might be of interest would be if there was reason to believe that Obama was offering a quid in return for Blagojevich's quo. The one thing, however, that is crystal clear from the documentation released yesterday is that there was no such quid being offered.
In other words, a lie coming from Obama's mouth might well be interesting if it signified that there was a dirty cover-up afoot, but we actually know already that there is no such dirty cover-up. As such, the only thing to be tracked down and investigated here is (at most) a meaningless lie. Moreover, it might not even be a lie (see Nate Silver's analysis, for instance). As such, while your immediate point seems quite convincing to my mind, I am lost as to what the larger point of this observation is supposed to be.
Put bluntly, who cares if a politician lies, if there is nothing more behind the lie? Ordinarily we could not know whether or not there is anything more behind a lie without further investigation, but this is one of those rare cases where, even if we stipulate that he was lying, we know already that there is nothing more to it. With that in mind, why should we care about meaningless inconsistencies between Obama's remarks yesterday and the transcript's released by Fitzgerald's office?
December 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's what we call a pattern...an MO... "Bill Ayers was just a guy from my neighborhood" turns out he held his political coming out party at Ayer's house...Crime? No. Lie? Yes. "I had no idea that Rev. Wright had those beliefs." Crime? No. Lie? Yes. "...we, uh, er, uh I never had a disscusion with him about that..." Crime? Probably not. Lie?...???
December 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, you have convinced me, there is a pattern here. That said, I still come back to my earlier question: so what?
The pattern, as you noted, is that Obama tends to lie about matters of absolutely no consequence, presumably in order to avoid getting bogged down in distractions of equally little consequence. So he was closer to Ayers than just living in the same neighborhood. So he heard Wright say controversial things. So he (or his office, which comes to the same thing) talked to Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. For all that, he did not plan terrorist acts with Ayers, or join in anti-American rants with Wright, or make himself a party to Blagojevich's corruption.
In other words, there is no there there. If Obama's untruths were intended (like Bush's) to cover up some deeper misdeed, I could see why they might be regarded as significant, but given that we know (with more certainty than we can claim with regard to the issue of whether this was a lie or merely a mistake) that there is no deeper misdeed here, I am lost as to why any of this might be regarded as at all important.
It is this sort of relentless focus on the sensational but irrelevant that just won your party a rather spectacular defeat. I cannot imagine why you think it worthwhile to pursue this same course of action to an even more absurd degree.
December 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
He Troll Jizzed..in..his pants - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4
December 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see:
(a) It was widely reported in the press that Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett.
(b) Based on past experiences and Obama's evident lack of any past dirty dealings, he knew it was likely impossible to get anything from him.
It's really not that hard.
But again, if you have evidence to the contrary, you can contact the U.S. Attorney's Office:
(312) 353-5300
I'm sure they'd be interested, because right now, all the evidence they've seen suggest that this has nothing to do with Obama.
December 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can contact the U.S. Attorney's Office here if you have any evidence of wrongdoing on Obama's part:
(312) 353-5300
If you do, I suggest you call immediately, because Patrick Fitzgerald is under the impression that the charges have "nothing whatsoever" to do with Obama.
December 10, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Obama has had a press pool assigned to him since the election, how come we never heard about this meeting?
Oh. I just had a thought. Maybe because it never took place?????!?
December 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all they have.
I sort of don't think the Repugs know how to deal with a politician who is clean. They certainly aren't used to that in their ranks.
Obama is the cleanest pol I've seen since Lloyd Doggett, who is ridiculously honest, too.
December 10, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'll join that chorus. All in favor of the resolution to f*ck the RNC, raise your hand.
December 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
{raised hand}
December 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raised hands and feet....
December 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raising both hands - as an ex-Chicagoan, I know how to vote: Early and often!
December 10, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like the Republicans want to skip 1994 and jump right ahead to 1998. Oh well, their hysterical caterwauling adds more resonance to Obama's message of establishing a respectful tone, and you can be certain that Republican moderates are going to be more interested taking part in governance than joining the extreme right in eight years of ineffectual rambling.
December 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can we say "keeps hammering" when the story only just broke??
Let's have just a tad more Responsibility In Headlines around here, if you please.
Even a generous Interpretation that the GOP is using Blago as just another hammer stroke to hit on Obama is out of line.
December 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sez you - who are you?
I think you're out of line.
December 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy. I am speaking the truth to power.
Why do you care who I am? Are you in bed with the hammer spies?
December 10, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing Mike Duncan was the first in line calling for Bush to hold a press conference to discuss his relationship with Abramoff? Same thing with Libby?
December 10, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
December 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooooooooooooooooooo - Kaaapow!
That was a straight TKO, Schrodingers -
December 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done...
December 10, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons didn't ruffle Obama.
Guilt by association charges involving Wright, Ayers, etc., were just brushed off.
McCain and Palin didn't make him flinch.
The Republicans are going to need a lot more to make the Obama administration stumble.
I'm just glad they're getting an early start. What could be more patriotic than to distract a presidency from its first attempts at fixing a damaged nation?
December 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As crazy as this may sound, I think Duncan actually has a good idea. I don't believe Obama has anything to hide so maybe the best move is to answer questions about who on his staff talked to Blago's people and what they knew. Unless someone on his staff tipped off Fitzgerald, in which case there may be reasons not to reveal that.
December 10, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that Duncan and the RNC won't take the truth for the answer. As with Rezko, no matter how much Obama discloses, they'll always refer to these mysterious "questions" that they never seem to be able to actually articulate.
December 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when folks started the rumor that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Obama responded by releasing his birth certificate which showed that he was born in Hawai'i. The response from the kookier end of the right was to insist that the birth certificate was a forgery, and then to point to this "forgery" as proof that Obama really was foreign born ("if he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he release his real birth certificate?"). I think that the same dynamic would play out here. No matter what Obama says or does, there will always be something else that he could have said or done, and that something will be put forward as evidence of a cover-up. Already one can find folks on No Quarter who are convinced that, because the feds have been tapping Blagojevich's phones, Fitzgerald must have taped conversations between Obama and Blagojevich. If those (purely hypothetical) tapes are not released, this will be taken as proof that Obama is obstructing the investigation. There is no pleasing the kooks, so there is no sense in trying to satisfy them.
December 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again I am amazed at the amount of brazen fortitude and b*lls that they GOP has when compared against the Dems. If only Dems would hit this hard back at the GOP over their scandals, they would have an even larger majority.
Good for the Repubs ... They are very, very down, but come out swinging.
BTW, Obama is probably being a bit restrained in his responses because (a) that is his nature and (b) he may be helping in the investigations.
December 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Dems should really emulate the Reps, because it's working so well for them... Ahem. Sorry, you're off message by about a decade or two.
December 10, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? So who is winning the media battle over Blago? GOP or Dems? No contest: GOP wins again.
December 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jumpin' Jesus -- here we go again. The only difference (and, boy!, what a difference!) between now and 1993 is that Al D'Amato is history, the GOPs don't control the Senate or any of its committees*, and this nonsense has nothing to do with Whitewater, the WH travel office or Vince Foster's suicide. (But, then again, I'm probably overlooking the GOP's capacity to scrape the bottom any barrel it can climb into.)
(* Counting Joe L in Homeland Security does not count, smartass!)
December 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Eric what about the new CBS (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_obama_economy_cbs1248.php) and LAT polls (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_obama_transition_timesbloom.php)???
December 10, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who in the hell is Mike Duncan anyway? I'd never heard of him until recently
December 10, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duncan and the RNC are dinosaurs. Dead enders. Where's the bright future in bigotry, religious fundamentalism, and laissez faire? What other salient qualities does the RNC posses?
Your typical Republican true believer these days is a bitter and bigoted old white guy living in the suburbs. The very definition of a dead ender.
btw: SFCWallace, what's on your "bucket list" besides trollin TPM 24/7?
December 10, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are immune to the truth. It can not enter their closed minds.
And the "SFC" (a fraud if ever there was one) has nothing better to do than this, otherwise he'd be elsewhere. Even more immune to truth, if you ask me. Or even if you don't.
December 10, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just the begining of the attempts to kneecap the Pres-Elect..As to Duncan and the rethugs--Who cares how thinly they try to tie obscure associations to someone Obama was in the room with 10yrs ago?
Laughable...news is really slow ---maybe they should look to the economy or how Congress has let the Fox in the henhouse with the TARP!
December 11, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can we help deflect, prevent, or clean up after "kneecap" attempts against Obama and his team?
December 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink