Tit For Tat

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Many Democrats are glorying and gloating over the NYTimes story on McCain. Some after taking a moment, realize this story is troubling. Yglesias writes:

[T]hinking more clearly past my loathing of John McCain, the Times's effort to substitute innuendo for making a straightforward true or false assertion seems like a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt [Referencing Mickey's attempt to legitimize the "Edwards is having an affair" stories]. If they have reporting they're willing to stand behind of a McCain-Iseman affair, they should publish it. And if, as seems to be the case, they don't have the reporting, then they shouldn't write the story.

Good for Matt. But if Democrats take a moment, they will realize this development is not good at all. I mention one word to you - Rezko. I discuss on the flip.

Both Jeralyn and I have stated repeatedly that Rezko is a nonissue for Obama as he did nothing remotely wrong. But a Media likely to come under bitter attack from the Right Wing Noise Machine for this McCain story is not necessarily going to take its cues from us.

The Rezko trial starts March 3:

Rezko is accused of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich, the government alleges. In one case, Rezko allegedly tried to shake down an investment firm trying to land state pension work for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for the governor.

To assuage the outrage from the Right, I expect the Media to prominently cover Obama's ties to Rezko, even though Obama did nothing wrong.

No, this McCain story is NOT a good development for Democrats, imo.

< McCain Denies Relationship With Female Lobbyist | Guardian: Obama Campaign Urges Clinton To Concede >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Tit For Tat | 65 comments (65 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The media would cover Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:47:47 AM EST

irrespective of whether NYT published a story about McCain's campaign team's fretting about the lobbyist hanging around McCain.

As I recall (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST

You have been complaining that they have NOT been covering the story.


Incorrect. (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST

Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, have covered Rezko relationship w/Obama, and Rezko's bail revocation. I expect they will also cover Rezko's federal trial.

In my opinion, Rezko's relationship w/Obama will be an issue in the GE and I really don't understand why you and J are so adamant it won't be. The reason I think it will be an issue is because candidate Obama claims to be a new and different type of politician, one who doesn't dirty his hands by dealing with D.C. lobbyists, etc., and who, although he is a U.S. Senator endorsed by Ted Kennedy et al. is not part of the Washington establishment he wants to displace.


Well (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM EST

That does not answer my question. Were you or were you not complaining about the level of coverage of Rezko?


No. I've been "complaining" (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST

that you and J are so adamanantly dismissive of Obama/Rezko relationship being an issue in the GE.


So you felt it was being covered adequately (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST

by the Media.

I stand corrected.


you just did it again (none / 0) (#49)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:32 PM EST

thats not what they said. why do you feel the need to twist things?


Do you mind? (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:22:00 PM EST

Oculus is well capable of speaking for herself.

I think you actually will not care for her views on Rezko BTW.


While you're here, how about (none / 0) (#59)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:24:11 PM EST

requesting the Obama campaign e mail and, if you get it from the commenter, adding the entire text to the Guardian post? Thanks.


i wasn't speaking for oculus (none / 0) (#65)
by demschmem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM EST

i was pointing out another example of your poor logic. when someone disagrees with you, you pounce on tertiary points and dice words (often inaccurately as demonstrated here) seemingly to shame them - an age old argumentative technique. you then spice them with closing remarks like, 'i expect this of you.' i suspect this doesn't cross the official line of your censoring policy, but it distracts from the more interesting discussions that take place here and is a disservice to your posts.


: I am proud to say I'm (none / 0) (#66)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM EST

not all that worried; in the past, yes; but now, no.

I don't understand this logic (none / 0) (#61)
by Tano on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:16:07 PM EST

In your opinion, Rezko will be an issue because Obama claims to be a new type of pol, one with clean hands.

As far as I can see, Obama has done nothing to dirty his hands.

So why, exactly, will this be an issue?

It seems downright impossible for a politician to make it all the way to the WH without encountering people along the way who turn out to be crooked. That says nothing about the pol, but is merely a comment about the quality of people who litter the political landscape.

It certainly is appropriate to ask questions about relationships with people who turn out to be crooked, but without any bad answers, the story dies. What are you seeing here that would keep this alive?


: To me, the house deal doesn't (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST

pass the smell test, most likely because my very own Congress person, due to redistricting,, becamse none other than Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Senator Obama concedes entering into the house transaction with Ms. Rezko purchasing the adjacent property was a mistake in judgment on his part, probably because Mr. Rezko was under investigation at the time. Also, Obama's heart doesn't seem to have been in the right place continuing his assoc. with Mr. Rezko after the housing Rezko's company redeveloped and managed turned out to be defective and the heat was turned off due to Rezko's purported lack of money, yet Rezko kept making contributions, including to Obama. Many of the properties were foreclosed on or bankruptcy declared.
The evidence in Rezko's pending federal trial should have nothing to do with Obama, but could include testimony or evidence pertinent to Obama's relationship w/Rezko.

That is, it's not just about Dems (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST

and what's good for us. This sort of shoddy journalism is not good for the country, not good for the process of picking our leaders, etc.

This is shown by Tucker Carlson stating last night that this sort of shoddy stuff was not supposed to happen again, that there had been an agreement to not go after sleaze stories again. So that alleged agreement conveniently come only after unrelenting attacks on Bill Clinton to subvert the Dem agenda.

I.e., these stories are not just about personal attacks; they are attempts by journalists -- by their increasingly mega-corporate owners, perhaps -- to keep us, whether Dem or GOP, from selecting the leaders with the agendas that we want implemented.

Tucker Carlson decrying shoddy ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST

...journalism is like Saxby Chambliss talking about cowards.


Funnier is Hannity (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:58:18 AM EST

talking about "yellow journalism."


: OMG (none / 0) (#64)
by glanton on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST

I would have loved to have heard that!!!! Actually, that justifies the presence of this whole unsavory business right there.
[Newscaster's voice]: Hannity, Limbaugh, et al take a principled stand against yellow journalism. Hell thaws at 11:00.
Hopefully we'll get more claptrap like that on Hannity & Colmes in the coming days.

BTW (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59:08 AM EST

I wish I did not disapprove so much of this sex angle. I could have a lot of fun with Joe Lieberman on this.

You should have that fun yourself.

Contrast Holy Joe on clinton and now on McCain.


: has rightwing media pushed the Rezko story? (none / 0) (#39)
by Josey on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST

Exactly. I could not get (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM EST

to my remote in time to mute the Bowtied Wonder, as I usually do. And then, when he came out with that statement, I was so stunned that I had to hear the rest.

But then I came back to my senses and back to reality . . . and punched my remote.


: You have a stronger stomach (none / 0) (#52)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST

than I do Cream if you can watch Lil Tucker the Fearful of being castrated one. Not that it's not a fear most men wouldn't share if they really thought a woman could do it by being elected.

Meteor Blades (none / 0) (#45)
by auntmo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST

Exactly what I was thinking!

These MSNBC gnats decrying the "lack of professionalism" by the NYTimes, after the trash we've seen them fill the airwaves with, strikes me as ironic, to say the least.

Shallow TV pundits and irrational AM radio talkers have done much to dumb down America's discourse.


Apparently the Rezko trial start date has been (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by pukemoana on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM EST

moved to March 3.

When did this happen? (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST

The motion for new date was denied in January.


From First Read (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:52:17 AM EST

"A federal judge denied a request to delay they the fraud trial of businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a one-time key Obama fundraiser and friend while the now-presidential candidate was in the Illinois state senate and during his U.S. Senate run. Rezko was also an adviser to and fundraiser for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich."


I read that about two weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST

when it was moved, interestingly, from starting the trial before the Wisconsin primary, but a few miles to the north (and the Chi Trib has heavy readership in southeastern Wisconsin).


: That's for sure (none / 0) (#53)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST

There are several large subdivisions in Kenosha County that are almost ALL former Illinois residents that still word in Illinois but found cost of living and mini mansions a lot cheaper here. Course our cost of living and taxes went up but hell, who cares about that.

BTD, you are absolutely right (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by BigB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST

There is nothing good in this for Obama in particular. Once the media publishes such stories about the Republican front-runner, to avoid cries of bias from the right wing, they will also have to look at stories about the current Democratic front-runner, whatever they maybe.

a great deal wrong (none / 0) (#51)
by Foxx on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:42:34 PM EST

The press should have vetted Obama a long time ago. That they didn't has left us with a very vulnerable candidate. We are in bad shape if we have to worry about the press looking at him!!!

Obama did a great deal wrong in the Rezko matter. Perhaps not ILLEGAL. He associated for many years and took a great deal of money from someone obviously sleazy. Someone leaving his tenants in deplorable conditions while Obama is touting his "community organizing." He didn't return the campaign contributions until way too late.

Then he lets Rezko put up 600k so Obama could buy his house. AFter I believe Rezko was under indictment, or at least clearly vulnerable to it. Don't tell me about the seller's denial, it's not believable.

And Obama's lied about a lot of it.

Let's not spin our wheels denying it to ourselves.


: Rezko was being investigated, (none / 0) (#55)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST

not under indictment, when the house/adjoining lot deal closed. Indictment came later.

Perhaps the Times (none / 0) (#60)
by litigatormom on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST

will do another expose similar to the one revealing that Obama wasn't constantly stoned throughout his high school and college years.

Something like this: "contrary to Obama's statements in his best-selling autobiography to a heavy smoking habit, friends say that Barack Obama rarely smoked more than a cigarette or two prior to the time his wife Michelle made him quit in 2006. "People think that Barack was a heavy user, but really, it was more of a social thing, you know, hanging out in front of the office building with his friends once or twice a day, shivering in the cold."


One DKer thinks we should go after the wife too (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by BarnBabe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST

It was mentioned that since this revelation, we should go after the 2nd wife and her problem with drugs in the past. I answered that it was not a good idea as it would bring up a certain candidates problems also. His answer was that people can forgive drug useage before 21. Maybe, but if you are attacking someone for it, it will come right back as not so forgiving.

I agree that being so overly gleeful just might come back in your face. Maybe it won't be Rezko but now the press will really start digging looking for any smoke.

As a general rule... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST

... Obama will fair better the less ugly the campaign gets. McCain can have his "straight talking maverick" reputation dented, as well he should since it's not particularly true. But Obama is much more of the shiny new toy, and the longer he can hold onto the New Car Smell, the better.

So if I understand you correctly (none / 0) (#1)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST

You're saying there should never have been a single newspaper article about Obama's ties to Rezko?

Correct (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM EST

Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:40 AM EST

that is not remotely realistic.


Certainly not now (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:51:47 AM EST

It never was (none / 0) (#20)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:55:44 AM EST

There were dozens if not hundreds of Rezko articles before this one was ever published. The reasonable response is this isn't a significant issue, not that it should have never seen the light of day.


You will see something different now (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST

But play dumb if you like.


So if Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#28)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST

or the Democratic party ran the New York Times, it would have been bad strategy to publish the story. But you can hardly blame the Times for running a story that exceeds long-established standards of news-worthiness, just because it's bad for the Dems.


Say WHAT? (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:10:36 AM EST

Exceeds long established standards of journalism?????

You mean the National Enquirer's standards?


: You drew the comparison to Rezko (none / 0) (#43)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST

And the Rezko story is newsworthy, under long-established standards of newsworthiness, as evidenced by the fact that it has been widely published. Similarly, there have been numerous stories about Obama's teenage drug use, etc. These are the standards. Whether you like them or not is a different question.

Did you type that w/a straight face? (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST

: Absolutely (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST

Just to get a clear picture here ... (none / 0) (#14)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:53:14 AM EST

...is there anything from the 3000-word Times story regarding McCain's possible corruption that should have been published?

YEs (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST

ALL OF IT except the sex.

And it should have been published in December.


Even IF (none / 0) (#29)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM EST

Even if it wasn't ready for publication? The Times has responded to McCain's criticism by saying that it doesn't publish stories until eveything is absolutely nailed down, the lawyers have signed off, etc. That, to me, is good journalism. I agree that using the (possible) sex to sell is reprehensible.


: Obviously the issue was the sex (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:08:33 AM EST

in December. Not the rest.

Thanks (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM EST

: you are thanking poster for (none / 0) (#63)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:38:35 PM EST

this article. I had to deleted the comment due to the overly long url.

The abomination of MSNBC (none / 0) (#33)
by pedagog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST

The outrage against the NY Times [IMO justified at this point]at MSNBC is hillarious. The only show I watch with frequency anymore on that network is Dan Abrams, but even he forgets to use clips from his own talking heads when he points out shameful journalism and disingenuous reporting.

It's very interesting that MSNBC is devoting all of its time to this McCain story today. I think it's because they had a plan to use Obama [therefore, all the pro-Obama coverage and love-fest over there] to destroy Hillary [who they loathe], then destroy Obama to put McCain [their real love] in the White House. Now, they are scared that McCain is being tarnished [and he is, as you say, thus far--even though I'm not a fan of his], so they have to come out with all guns blasting and try to discredit this story quickly.

After all, it's not the sex part of the story that could be devastating to McCain--it's the lobbying issue that hits him right in the gut [undercuts his Mr. Clean/McCain-Feingold image].

Now that he has denied it ... (none / 0) (#35)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM EST

...if the sex part of the story turns out to be true, it will hurt him with that group which, at the moment, has closed ranks behind him because they hate the Times more than they hate Satan himself: right-wing fundamentalist Christians.


If it is PROVEN true (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST

you mean.


Not easy to prove (none / 0) (#37)
by Prabhata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM EST

I don't see how it might be proven if both deny it. It's not like BC, with so many people going after him.


: ....and video of Bill and Monica hugging (none / 0) (#44)
by Josey on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST

But McCain DID omit the flight with "her" when listing his flights provided by corporate donors.
Hmm....

: Unless their is a Linda Tripp (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM EST

(was that her name?) in waiting.

I'm with you (none / 0) (#38)
by jcsf on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:44:37 AM EST

It was wrong on Kaus, it is wrong now.

BTD - Why have the blogs dismissed Rezko? (none / 0) (#40)
by Prabhata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST

I understand that on the story does not show any criminality. But if I were a supporter of Obama, I'd be very nervous. It seems to me that Obama has not been pressed to show that his connection with Rezko was that clean. For a candidate who is going for the highest office, it seems risky. What's your view on this?

: Obama's story on Rezko keeps changing (none / 0) (#46)
by Josey on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:05:20 PM EST

Initially, Obama barely knew the man.
Then came the 15 year relationship and thousands in donations to Obama's campaignS.
Now we learn Rezko and Obama toured the home together before Obama bought it.
Reminds me of Bush and the National Guard story. Ever changing.

I'm not sure I agree (none / 0) (#41)
by Steve M on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST

Your overall points on this McCain article are well-taken and I generally agree. But this particular argument - that the NYT article is bad for Democrats, because we won't like it when the same journalistic standard is applied to our guy - is mistaken, I think, in that the press generally seems to do what it does without regard to issues like fairness or evenhandedness.

If the NYT is going to trash Obama and run a lot of Rezko articles, it's because that's the kind of paper they are, not because they once ran a thinly sourced hit piece on McCain and feel obligated to even the score. Did they even up the score during, say, the 2000 campaign, or were they manifestly unfair towards only one side?

I don't think this article should be celebrated because it's not consistent with our values to celebrate bad journalism. But I don't believe it is bad news per se. Maybe you believe more strongly in karma than I do.

: Remember Rathergate (none / 0) (#56)
by Lora on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST

Here's my "conspiracy buff" take:
For some reason, I've been recalling the hoax that Dan Rather staked his reputation on and lost. Whatever the NYT claims to have, I would not be surprised to see it declared false. NYT ends up being discredited.
That would be bad for the Dems.

Obama Can't Win (none / 0) (#42)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM EST

Without media bias.

It's a conundrum. I'd agree with you normally, but we're in a bind.

Our best bet to win at this point is to support how the NYTimes handled this story and then HOPE that they, the MSM, never gets around to applying equal amount of slander (cause of course that's what it is) to Obama's candidacy.

One can reply: pipedream. The RWNM will surely insist they do.

Problem is if Obama loses a race marked with co-equal amounts of shoddy journalism, then I think he also loses a race with no shoddy journalism at all.

If the media is balanced -- with or without crappy slandering candidates -- Obama will be evaluated poorly in comparison to his opponent.

Obama's Rezko problem (none / 0) (#47)
by Drew on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST

I think the NYT ran this article because they have dirt on either Barack or Hillary and doing this to John McCain makes it easier to run it. I think it is dirt on Barack - Rezko or that sleezy Sinclair man.

i imagine ryan would also have liked (none / 0) (#54)
by hellothere on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM EST

for the press to stay out of his divorce also. now who pointed them in that direction? huh? what worked in the senate race won't translate in the presidential race. the repubs won't jump on mccain. take a look at who else was in the race and their histories.

Who cares if Obama's Innocent? (none / 0) (#62)
by myiq2xu on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:34:11 PM EST

The media doesn't, and they will drag his name through the mud. Think "Whitewater."

I almost hope he's guilty, at least then he'll deserve what they're gonna do to him.

Tit For Tat

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment