The main stream media’s covering for Barack Obama on his relationship with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is predictable, laughable, and tragic. The only reporter really doing any kind of investigative journalism on the connection between Obama and Blagojevich is ABC’s Jake Tapper.
On this morning’s edition of MSNBCs Morning Joe (Wednesday, December 10), the host, Joe Scarborough, attempted to make the connection but was roundly silenced by his own panel – liberals all – including his co-host Mika Brzezinski, and panelists Harold Ford, Jr. and Mike Barnicle.
Ford and Barnicle characterized the relationship between Obama and Blagojevich as “a typical political relationship”: the pols smile with arms around each other in front of the cameras, but when the cameras are off they really have no relationship at all. Amazingly this defense has worked for Barack Obama with all of his questionable relationships, including Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers. Now add the corrupt governor of Illinois to the list.
The facts bear out that Obama’s relationship with the corrupt governor of Illinois goes beyond merely smiling for the cameras. Jake Tapper notes Obama endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006 and “served as a top adviser” to Blagojevich when he ran for the Illinois house in 2002. Obama also served as one of “the top strategists of Blagojevich’s 2002 gubernatorial victory.” Tapper quotes President-elect Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel:
[President-elect Obama and myself] participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two [an aide to Blagojevich and Blagojevich’s campaign co-chair].
In August of 2006, Barack Obama told a crowd at an Illinois State Fair:
We’ve got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois.
In spite of the clear evidence for the political connection between Obama and Blagojevich, the media would have us believe that Barack Obama is above it all. How is this possible? Barack Obama cut his political teeth while immersed in the corrupt political underworld that is Chicago politics, and yet the media really expects us to believe he was “in it but not of it”?
Beyond that, the media expects us to believe that Obama never expressed interest in who would fill his now vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. Asked during a press conference (held in Obama’s CHICAGO transition office!) if he had any contact with the Illinois governor’s office about his replacement in the Senate, Obama replied:
I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.
But that doesn’t quite square with what his senior adviser David Alexrod told a local Chicago news affiliate on November 22:
I know he’s [Barack Obama] talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.
I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.
You would think such a blatant contradiction would warrant some tough questions from the media, who would not be satisfied with a simple, “I was mistaken.” Not so.
NBC’s chief political correspondent Chuck Todd defends Axelrod by saying it’s the job of these political spokespersons to make it look as if their boss is “on top of the situation.” From MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
Could an adviser around Obama want to always make it look like Obama was on top of the situation and may have over spoke in that way?
Can you imagine White House Press Secretary Dana Perino making such a retraction relative to a corrupt political connection to President Bush and the main stream media simply accepting it and writing it off as “her job”?
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is on record as stating it’s his job to make sure Obama succeeds. Obviously he speaks for all of the main stream media who clearly have no intent of examining Barack Obama’s corrupt political connections. They refused to do it during the campaign. Why should we expect any less from them now.
Nancy,
I think the misconception is that I am an Obama guy, while I so think he is light years beyond Bush in intellect and governing(he actually believes in government), I do have many issues with him. He talks of getting out of Iraq but at the same time he is ramping up aghganistan, we need to stop policing the world, it is destroying us. Not only that but it is exactly what the terrorist like Bin Laden want (who BTW is still free, 7 years after 911, some war on terror). They saw what happened to the Soviet Union in the 80’s and it is happening to us now. I am passionate about this, yes, frustrated, yes, feel like I am in my own evangelical bubble, yes. God is still God even though I have many issues with his followers. 😉
Jeff,
If you can hold out just one more month…You can give up the war…*: ) Take a breather and LAUGH!
Accepted. Thanks. I also get frustrated with government. Keep an eye on who is King. This will soon be passed away.
Don, let’s call it frustration that many in my circle are so blinded by what is spoon fed to them. All those things I listed are facts that the Bush administration has done, yet for eight years our group has backed him on most of it. What do we care about? We care about the previous presidents sexual escapades in the white house and we care that Bush’s theology is wrong. It is this thinking that is at the heart of why our group is so ineffective in social change. I know that Clinton lied under oath but the point is what was done prior to that, the attack lead but Gingrich who had many extra marital relationships in his past. Yet Christians praise his actions, Why? the Capital R, we are more political than faith driven, yes that frustrates me, Don.
Jeff
Your reponces seem so laced with anger.
“….. he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast.”
I find it so interesting how having sex in the oval office has a greater effect on folks than does starting illegal wars, illegally wire tapping his own citizens, and torturing other human beings. Clinton was not angel and certain did a lot wrong but comparing the two awful presidents of Bush v Clinton, Clinton looks like a saint. I can’t believe this is not up for debate among my right wing friends. OH, that’s right all this stuff I mentioned was all drummed up by the “left wing” “liberal” “mainstream” media. Labels are always a good way to get people to ignore the ugly truth.
Call me “old fashioned”, but when it becomes public knowledge that a president is doing the things that he was doing on “company time” instead of state business, it’s a big deal. When he lies about it under oath, it’s a bigger deal. The impeachment vote was sure to have had political ingredients involved in it (as one might expect), but the court is responsible for Clintion being disbarred. Evidently, the court thought it was a big deal too.
You give up your right to be “graded on a curve” when you become an elected official. Much is given to, and much is expected from those we elect. They have the ability to affect so many – positively and negatively. If we continue to set the bar lower and lower for our elected representatives, that is precisely what we will get (are getting). It is not unreasonable for us to expect our president to be on his best behavior while on the job, and to be truthful under oath during a court proceeding. The job is too important for anything less. Integrity, integrity, integrity. EVERY decision a president makes is based on his integrity (or lack of it).
I can’t believe this is still subject for debate.
I don’t care about the politics of it. The country must come before politics. This is one reason President Washington was so critical of political party affiliation. One tends to lose sight of what is good for the country in favor of what is good for the party. Make no mistake about it, both parties are often guilty of this.
Arthur, the entire Clinton ordeal was overblown and the hypocrisy of a guy like Newt Gingrich leading the charge against Clinton was even more absurd.
Famous Presidential Quotes: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Now who would have said that? Must have been a toal intellectual…*; )
At least in the Obama regime the media has finally thrown off any pretense of neutrality. Tim says it well when he points out that conservatives exist in media and are biased, but they don’t attempt to hide it. The Newsweek cover story on gay marriage shows that the media, emboldened by the Obama victory, has “come out of the closet” ideologically and is now openly supporting leftist causes. Hopefully now those who naively assumed that there “is no media bias” can see how silly that claim is. I listen to NPR on my commute in the morning, but I know when I turn it on that I am getting a liberal slant on the news and take everything said with a conservative grain of salt.
Chris,
“I remember being a college student when the whole Clinton/Lewinsky affair was blown out of proportion.”
Blown out of proportion? I would think that someone who crows about being a “journalist” so often would have a little more insight into the basic facts. It wasn’t his affair, it was that he lied under oath. The sitting President of the United States lied about that affair, under oath, and we call that perjury in America and it is a crime. The liberal mantra has been that it was “just” an affair, but what he was impeached for in the House was perjury and obstruction of justice, not the affair.
Jeff,
“I think very much that there is no liberal media bias” – your words.
An undisputed fact is that a vast majority of the members of the “mainstream media” align themselves with the Democrats or their platform – which is considered, by anyone’s reckoning, liberal. Yet they proclaim to all that they are unbiased in their coverage and treatment of political issues. I am not convinced of that. The terminology that they choose to use when reporting or investigating various topics often reveals that bias. As an example, think “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life” and “pro-choice instead of “pro-abortion”. In one case, the people who prefer to be labeled as “pro-life” are labeled by the media as “anti-abortion” (note the negative connotation). Yet, in reference to the very same issue, the people who prefer to be labeled as “pro-choice” are not re-labeled “pro-abortion” by the media – thus granting a more positive connotation to people with whom they more closely agree. This is, by definition, bias. Other examples, far too numerous to mention, follow much the same pattern. You don’t have to look too hard to see it.
I can’t begin to talk about actual content as a vehicle for bias. Items either included or excluded from articles, news stories, investigative reports, etc., all can betray a bias that a person may have. Again, too many examples for my meager typing skills.
The conservatives also have their biased media: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc., etc. The big difference is that these people do not try to pass themselves off as unbiased. They are admitedly and unashamedly pro conservative. They are open proponents of their ideology. Their agenda is not veiled.
To me it’s an issue of “degrees of honesty”. I believe that one side is being more honest than the other. Why do many go through the effort to conceal the leanings of their organizations? If that ideology is so great, why portray yourself to be something else? I beieve this to be disingenuous.
I have read some of your posts and know that you have stated that you have liberal leanings. That may be one of the reasons that you do not detect the unstated liberal bias of the mainstream media. It’s hard to find fault in something with which you agree. Please take that into account the next time you declare the mainstream media to be “unbiased”. Your point of view may be tainted.
I can detect the bias in both liberal and conservative media outlets – even though I am “tainted” toward the conservative. Why is it that you can’t? As a Christian first (and I hope you are a Christian first), we have to guard against the world’s delusion and see things as clearly as possible – realizing that ALL worldly powers have their own agendas. To state that there is no liberal media bias is to proclaim them completely impartial. Please forgive me if I have a hard time believing that – too much evidence to the contrary.
I think you make some good points and ask thoughtful questions in many of your posts on this blog. But it takes away from your own credibility when you say something like “there is no media bias”. In much the same way, if I were to say that I believe that Barney the dinosaur is the anti-christ, it would bring into question my thoughts on other things – no matter how well thought out they were (sorry for the exaggeration). You can do better than that.
I say all this without an axe to grind. It’s not you vs. me. We’re just talking. God bless.
Tim
One final thought:
” I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.”
Where was this excuse when I needed one?
Oh, thats right, I still feel “guilt” when I lie. Thank you Holy Spirit!
Jeff,
“And yes Paul, I think very much that there is no liberal media bias, they appear to be in bed with Obama because he is in charge.
It’s called pandering to the powerful so ratings will stay high.”
If this be the case,
Why do those doing the most pandering have the lowest ratings?
And with respect to the post;
What else would we expect? I have two young grandchildren living with me, and every single time there is a problem the finger points to the other or the classic responce “I don’t know” is offered.
One classic quote from the Vick era, that has stuck with me through all the years applies here:
“The best thing about speaking the truth is that you will never have to remember what you said.”
(” I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.”)
These boys would fit in well at the Sivyer house! Ta Ta
I remember being a college student when the whole Clinton/Lewinsky affair was blown out of proportion. Oddly enough, I remember that it was then the “Conservative Main Stream Media” that was out to get him. The media conventionally will go after the people in power–that’s the role of the media, to question authority and make sure it’s acting accordingly.
But there’s only so far you can go. For instance, if Obama said he had no idea this was going on and there is no hard proof that they were close friends or allies, then you can’t just print hearsay. Saying “they discussed appointees” is really not proof of anything, because you would expect them to meet to discuss that. It’s very possible that they met to discuss appointees and Obama still had no idea what underhanded deeds were going on. (Of course, I still know Conservatives who like to say that the media was meddling with Nixon during the Watergate fiasco and that they should have never made it public because it was just a “little break in”).
There’s another thing us reporters have to remember: never burn your source too early. Obama is going to be in office for at least four years. If reporters try to dig up dirt now and attack him, that can cost them access to the President, to exclusive news or “leaks”. Reporters are in a business that is quickly going the way of the dinosaur, they’re traditionally underpaid…sorry, but they can’t risk burning a relationship with the president when food is going to be on the table.
For instance, the new leader of the community I cover has worried me with some of his practices in the last few weeks. But I cannot begin to dig up on that just yet because I have to build a good relationship; I can’t burn that bridge yet.
But I just find it funny–for the past 8 years the media has scrutinized and criticized Bush and talk-radio hosts have held onto their fear and ideologies; it’s simply flipped. It’s not a bias, it’s not morality…it’s simply politics. And it’s gotten so bad now that I actually hear people who seem to say it’s a sin to have voted for Republican or to be a Democrat. I think they’ll be very surprised when they get to Heaven.
There we go with the “it’s my blog” routine. Comon man, I am just trying to unpack the issue here. The fact is that this corrupt guy tried to get Obama into his action and he called Obama a mother F**** for not doing it. This guilt by association thing can go anyway you want, with any person.
And yes Paul, I think very much that there is no liberal media bias, they appear to be in bed with Obama because he is in charge. It’s called pandering to the powerful so ratings will stay high. And I pay more attention that what I should, and what is healthy at times. Again, with all we know about the Iraq war and all the false intelligence that was taughted if we truly had a “liberal” media then there is no way that the intelligence would have been able to be used. In fact all true liberal sources like Moveon who were asking all the right questions were basically ignored. I understand how that concept works though, David Brock’s books clearly show how the usage of “liberal” media bias is an effective tool for labeling those you disagree with or reports you don’t agree with.
BTW, I have checked into the Wright and William Ayers, WAY OVER BLOWN, but it was good McCain/Palin fodder wasn’t it?
Jeff,
Obama may not have been a part of the governor’s actions in the same way he wasn’t a part of Jeremiah Wright’s actions, or Tony Rezko’s actions, or William Ayers’s actions, (list trails off here….).
The point is OBAMA’S ASSOCIATIONS. When is the main stream media going to take seriously the corrupt associations of Barack Obama?
Jeff,
The point of the post is IT’S MY BLOG and I get to express my opinion in spite of drive-bys leaving comments that don’t even attempt to address the issues raised.
If you honestly believe the media is treating Obama NO DIFFERENTlY than Bush merely because the media by nature “suck up to power,” you aren’t paying attention.
It has nothing to do with “liberal” bias as much as it has to do with sucking up to power, “News” is for profit since Reagan deregulated it, therefore they need to have a working relationship with those who are in power. We saw the exact same thing during the prime of the Bush years.
What is the point with this anyway, they both served as polititians in Ill, there is going to be some form of relationship. Are you incinuating that Obama was part of the Governors actions? If not, what is the point of this post? There is no Liberal bias, if there was we would have never had a war in Iraq. Republicans and Democrats have members of their party that are corrupt and both have members that are decent and care about the well being of this country.
Obama…a true harbinger of change…with a fresh washed face…changing history, one fact at a time. And, lest he misspeak…a whole media backs him up with…”What he meant was…”