Where Was This McCain During the Campaign?

President-elect Obama got some support today from a surprising source — and gets snide lip from Politico’s Mike Allen for doing so:

In a surprising rebuke to the warriors who fought for him through tough times, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday sided with President-elect Barack Obama and scolded the Republican National Committee for fanning the Illinois corruption scandal.

On ABC’s “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos asked: “The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan, has been highly critical of the way President- elect Obama has dealt with this.
“He’s had a statement every single day, saying that the Obama team should reveal all contacts they’ve had with Governor [Rod] Blagojevich. He says that Obama’s promise of transparency to the American people is now being tested. Do you agree with that?”

McCain replied: “I think that the Obama campaign should and will give all information necessary. You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody — right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don’t know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama’s campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me.”

Just this morning, the Republican National Committee released a Web video called “Questions Remain.”

6 Responses to “Where Was This McCain During the Campaign?”

  1. gcotharn says:

    McCain is disengaged from fact and grandstanding his moderate wisdom, as always.

    Barack has already lied to the American people in this incident. Fitz has released transcript of Barack’s staff offering Blogo financial quid pro quo in the form of Blogo being appointed National Director of the Change to Win campaign. Further, Barack’s staff evinced cognizance of guilt via promising the post two years from now, so as to somewhat obscure the quid pro quo aspects of the arrangement. Blogo and his wife wanted jobs immediately. Blogo’s staffer counseled him that Barack could renege on the agreement in two years time. When Blogo profanely ranted about Barack, the rant was about Barack offering a position in two years time, as opposed to offering a position immediately. Either way, quid pro quo employment was negotiated between Barack’s staff and Blogo.

    My personal opinion: you seem to have been rightly discrete in your statements thus far. Barack might have a problem. He appears to be carefully decoupling himself from his staff’s actions, as if his staff were not acting on his instructions.

    It’s reported/insinuated Fitz widely exonerated Barack. Not true. Fitz narrowly exonerated Barack, and Fitz words have been widely mischaracterized. Here is what Fitz actually said:

    “I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever, his conduct.”

    Much later in the press conference:

    “So I simply pointed out that if you look at the complaint, there’s no allegation that the president-elect — there’s no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that’s all I can say.”

    Fitz’ words can be read in a couple of different ways. His words could be innocuous, or they could be carefully narrow. Look again at “And that’s all I can say”? Could be innocuous. Or not.

  2. Kathy says:

    And you could be a case of raging paranoia. Or not.

    By the way, care to provide any links for the claims?

  3. gcotharn says:

    SEIU refers to the Service Employees International Union – something you may know but I did not before all this. The following is dialogue from Fitz wiretaps. Fitz doesn’t say the other parties are Barack staff, yet – for reasons covered by A.J. Strata – the other parties could only be Barack staff. The two hour call happened on Nov 10. Blogo and Blogo staff were part of the call. Blogo left for a late part of the call, and Mrs. Blogo sat in on at least that part of the call.

    [statement 8] HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability. HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
    …[Gap 5]…
    [statement 9] One of ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s advisors said he likes the idea, it sounds like a good idea, but advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH to be leery of promises for something two years from now.
    …[Gap 6]…
    [statement 10] ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said they would take the job now.

    So, a three way trade was being negotiated between Blago, Barack/staff, and SEIU, with SEIU needing to be brought on board with any eventual deal, and Blago being probed regarding a quid pro quo job directing SEIU’s program. Blago later directed profanity at Barack b/c the job would not be available for two years. Blago was obviously suspicious that Barack/staff would not keep their word. Blago and Mrs. Blogo wanted the job immediately. Or I should say jobs, b/c Mrs. Blago wanted a job also.

    This is not paranoia. This is Fitz wiretap transcripts. A.J. Strata writes about it here.

    It seems unlikely Barack could be convicted on any criminal charges, yet the financial quid pro quo in that conversation presents a political problem for the hope and change man who publicly and frequently scorned “old style politics”. Americans will say “What is my wonderful Barack doing down in the muck offering that guy a job in exchange for a nominee?” This will be a shock to voters. Americans will look at it like a dirty restroom in a restaurant: if this restroom is dirty, what else is dirty?

    It’s also a political problem that Barack directly lied to Americans when he early on said “I had no contact with the Governor’s office.” Barack is now clarifying that he meant “personal contact”, yet his early statement was a lie in the exact way “I did not have sex with that woman” was a lie. When your staff has been in contact with the Governor’s office, then you have had contact with the Governor’s office. Claiming anything else amounts to intentionally and directly misleading the American people – right to their face. I expect this direct lie to the American people will be a lingering political problem for Barack.

    Here’s a later, amended statement which is just as big a lie: “What I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making …That would be a violation of everything this campaign has been about.” These are lies spoken directly to the people.

    It will take awhile to sink in, but eventually the drip, drip, drip will cause the people will realize Barack lied to them before he was ever sworn in.

  4. Kathy says:

    A.J. Strata is a rabid, far right partisan. Nobody quotes A.J. Strata’s blog as a reputable source for anything. The fact that you do so makes anything you say after that devoid of any credibility.

    There is absolutely nothing illegal or unethical about Obama conveying, either directly or through his chief of staff, a suggested list of candidates for his Senate seat. He has every right to do that, and it would be astonishing if he had not had contact with Blago’s office about his own vacated Senate seat. To infer from that, that Obama or his staff offered money or other favors to Blago in exchange for Blago naming one of Obama’s preferred candidates has no legitimacy whatsoever. It’s not even guilt by association. It’s guilt by proximity, as Rachel Maddow said, and it stinks.

  5. gcotharn says:

    Your characterization of A.J. Strata’s politics is irrelevant, and is a classic politically correct dismissal in the face of inconvenient fact.

    Here’s how to attack my assertion about the Nov 10 meeting:
    There is insufficient evidence that Obama’s staff was the other party to that two hour call, and there is insufficient evidence that Obama’s staff authentically participated in a two way discussion of quid pro quo.

    I would disagree, then you and I would understand each other’s views and agree to disagree.

    Here’s how to attack my assertion that Obama lied:
    Assert Obama told the truth.

    Then you and I would agree to disagree.

    In a surprise move, you could agree my logic is sound. Just sayin.

    You could say thanks for my thoughts and links, yet you are not interested in further discussion of this issue at this time.

    Re your second paragraph
    The press question to Obama was: Are you aware what’s happening with your Senate seat? Obama’s reply was “I had no contact with the governor’s office”. Emmanuel’s conveying/promoting Obama’s list of candidates to Blogo amounts to Obama having contact with the governor’s office, and thus Obama’s response to the press question is revealed as a lie. No one is saying it is wrong to promote candidates. No one is saying a list of candidates equates to offering financial quid pro quo. We are saying the list of candidates revealed Obama’s lie. If we had said the other stuff, then maybe guilt by association would be a legit accusation.

  6. Kathy says:

    Your characterization of A.J. Strata’s politics is irrelevant, and is a classic politically correct dismissal in the face of inconvenient fact.

    No, it’s not irrelevant. When you’re arguing a point, and trying to support your argument, the sources you use for that support matter.

    If it’s “politically correct” to insist on reputable sources to support arguments, then I plead guilty.

    Here’s how to attack my assertion about the Nov 10 meeting:
    There is insufficient evidence that Obama’s staff was the other party to that two hour call, and there is insufficient evidence that Obama’s staff authentically participated in a two way discussion of quid pro quo.

    Well, obviously there is insufficient evidence. In fact, there’s no evidence. That is implicit in this entire subject of conversation. You and other right-wingers have been accusing Obama and his staff of trading money and/or favors for his Senate seat based on nothing but conversations between Blago’s office and Obama’s office about candidate suggestions. The entire point of my objection to this accusation is that there is no evidence. Why else would I be talking to you about this (other than that I’m somewhat crazy).

    I would disagree, then you and I would understand each other’s views and agree to disagree.

    Ah, so you don’t already understand that my view is that there is no evidence to be sliming Obama and his staff as having traded favors for a Senate seat? What did you think my view was?

    I see no evidence that Obama lied about anything, and there is no logic in what you’re saying to begin with, much less sound logic. You have defended Bush and other Republicans against charges of lying and/or unethical or corrupt behavior for which the evidence was far more solid than what you’re using to smear Obama.

    Also, I would suggest that you learn the art of choosing sources intelligently before you instruct anyone else on how to attack your assertions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>