KHQA retracts Blago-Obama meeting reports
posted at 7:48 am on December 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yesterday I expressed some skepticism over two reports from KHQA that put Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich in a meeting to discuss his Senate successor a day after winning the presidential election, on November 5th. I searched both major Chicago newspapers to find substantiation, and could find no mention of any meeting at all. The only reporting came in the Sun-Times, which reported that Blagojevich said on November 5th that he had not met with Obama, at a point in time when Blagojevich had no reason to lie. KHQA then followed up on the 8th with another report apparently confirming their first.
Late last night, KHQA retracted both reports and removed them from their website (via Political Machine):
KHQA TV wishes to offer clarification regarding a story that appeared last month on our website ConnectTristates.com. The story, which discussed the appointment of a replacement for President Elect Obama’in the U.S. Senate, became the subject of much discussion on talk radio and on blog sites Wednesday.
The story housed in our website archive was on the morning of November 5, 2008. It suggested that a meeting was scheduled later that day between President Elect Obama and Illinois Governor Blagojevich. KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place. Governor Blagojevich did appear at a news conference in Chicago on that date.
KHQA’s management doesn’t quite get around to apologizing for their sloppy reporting here. In the first place, they reported it twice, and they hardly “suggested” the meeting. Here’s what they wrote on November 5th:
He’s meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it.
Does that sound like a “suggestion” of a meeting? They were no less explicit on the 8th, when they reported that the meeting had taken place using themselves as their only source, in a story their retraction doesn’t bother to mention:
Obama met with Governor Rod Blagojevich earlier this week to discuss it.
KHQA blew the reporting. They had no real information on this meeting; they made it up out of whole cloth, and explicitly reported it twice with no corroboration. Under normal circumstances, no one would have ever thought to double-check these brief reports, but Blagojevich’s arrest for corruption made KHQA’s reports famous.
Now they’re embarrassed, and they’re trying to worm out of it by claiming to be misunderstood. Instead of insulting their readers by claiming that they jumped to conclusions that KHQA reporters explicitly provided them in the articles, KHQA management should apologize for their bad reporting.
In any event, other than David Axelrod’s assertion on November 23rd that Obama and Blagojevich discussed the Senate succession, no independent reporting found thus far puts the two of them on the phone together or in the same room strategizing on Obama’s replacement. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that such a meeting took place — it would make sense, politically, for Blagojevich to consult Obama on potential candidates even if Blagojevich wasn’t corrupt — but people will have to look harder for evidence.
Update: Tommy Christopher at AOL’s Political Machine tried calling KHQA to get a better explanation of their retraction. Be sure to read the post to see their response.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Well, the media made sh…tuff up when Bush was in, so at least they’re being consistent, eh?
Something to hope for! woo!
groan.
Reaps on December 11, 2008 at 7:53 AM
If they had been this fast with denying Palins smears..
the_nile on December 11, 2008 at 8:03 AM
I could be reading this wrong, but the press release on Blagojevich’s website from the 5th:
I’m probably reading it wrong. It is probably implying “and” with the two title’s not relying on one another.
Jay on December 11, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Obama was pushing for Jarrett and then dropped it suddenly and declared that it’s the governor’s job to decide.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jarrett-senate13nov13,0,787828.story
Phoenician on December 11, 2008 at 8:06 AM
What is HotAir’s policy on archived blogposts that turn out to be in error? Should they just disappear under an implied “never mind,” do they stay in place unaltered, or do they get an update pointing out the error? There is so much archive scrubbing going on, that it would be nice to see a standard declared and encouraged for the blogosphere.
Mark30339 on December 11, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Oh, and I’ve got a screenshot of the Nov 8 article they pulled.
Jay on December 11, 2008 at 8:07 AM
This is the kind of thing that really pisses me off. Obama is given a pass. No one wants to investigate. Someone said it didn’t happen…so that’s it. It didn’t happen.
God forbid they’d give anyone with an (R) by their name the same latitude.
SuperManGreenLantern on December 11, 2008 at 8:07 AM
still waiting on a retraction of the Plame antics they accused Bush of…..
(I’ll be waiting a LONG long time)
on a lighter note, now that the Chi Trib and Al-NYT want bailed out by federal money Bambi can have a Truth Czar to exert direct editorial oversight assuming they follow this stupid auto-plan meme….
sven10077 on December 11, 2008 at 8:13 AM
BUT..BUT…BUT CHENEY SECRETLY MET WITH OIL EXECS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND WE NEVER GOT TO SEE THE LIST OF ATTENDEES!
/moobat
Cuffy Meigs on December 11, 2008 at 8:16 AM
The Obama campaign has been quick to correct any mis-representations…indeed their whole campaign has been built on attacking mis-statements, innuendos. And their attacks have been swift and decisive, their campaign from the beginning was built on the foundation that “we will not be waterboarded, and will correct any misrepresentations”.
So, here is the questions:
Why was this mis-statement not corrected, this mis-reporting and Axelrods mis-statement?
Ed, Because of the depth and breadth of Obama’s campaign to “weed out” these sort of things, and the number of researchers he has assigned to this task, I find your post of “but people will have to look harder for evidence” naive. A word not often associated with you.
This may not be the “smoking gun”, but it is a couple of spent casing’s on the floor of deception.
Rather then sweeping this under the floor, find out if the report is accurate, and the paper was remiss (was it remiss or does the union have a picture of the editor in an embarrassing situation…Chicago remember)…
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:22 AM
The press is SO in the tank for Barry that they will cross any line to shield him.
grapeknutz on December 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Hannity has a photograph of Obama and Blago shaking hands in a crowded room after the election. Obama said he “had no contact.” False. Did a meeting occur after (or before) the public handshake? Was the Senate seat discussed?
Why the hell shouldn’t it be discussed. If Obama hadn’t made his wishes known to Blago, he’d be an idiot. The question is was their any quid pro quo discussed.
Obama lied, or is a moron.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Are you being sarc?
Of course this suggests that was on the agenda…
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Who do you believe? Who do you trust?
The news media, or the source? Did the source play the media?
Or is the source playing the media now by denying the original report?
How will we ever know?
It comes down to judgment, and how can you make that judgment when the source is not named?
Just keep paying attention. This will happen again, multiple times over the next 8 years.
Skandia Recluse on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Dude –
We’re the Dissenting Opposition now; evidence is optional.
SlimyBill on December 11, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Consider that Dear Leader has risen up fast through Chicago politics and there hasn’t been really anything to stick to him. The One is slick. But it remains to be seen if He has a teflon suit.
rbj on December 11, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I don’t know that we have a Hot Air policy, but it’s my policy that any retraction will come on the post itself, and the post remains on the site. I’ve only deleted one post after publication in five years of blogging, and that was because it was technically screwed up and not for a retraction.
Ed Morrissey on December 11, 2008 at 8:26 AM
KHQA’s management woke up with horse heads in their beds.
crash72 on December 11, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Seems Ace has a pic of the Obama/Blago “meeting” (that never took place) right on his website. How convenient.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Actually, I find it odder that a meeting (or phone call) between the two didn’t take place. Even in light of Blago’s arrest, such a discussion between the two after Obama’s election wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows.
flipflop on December 11, 2008 at 8:28 AM
I’ve begun buying important books to leave to my kids. It won’t be long until everything is online only and print versions disappear. Then the powers that be will be able to disappear them. So I’m going to leave the truth to my kids in hardcopy.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Nah…Rahm Emanuel sent them dead fish.
flipflop on December 11, 2008 at 8:29 AM
I think Obama is lying, however I think Hannity using that picture is foolish.
When Obama was saying no contact, I understood (and any reasonable person would) it to mean no contact regarding any official business, particularly with regards to Blankface. that was the context of the statement, not that he never shook his hand.
I found it stupid that he used that picture, a childish argument at best.
And you are much to bright to fall for that…you know what Obama meant.
Now was he lying about talking to Blankface regarding the appointment, I think he is, and I think his aides knew…and he has no choice but to say “I know nothing”.
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Thank you. Obama will be saying he misspoke momentarily, or he will have some grand mea culpa speech (cue columns) where he will weep and the faithful will weep.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Who wouldn’t be surprised? It just makes perfect sense to discuss the appointment considering how Chicago Politics works:
“The heart of machine politics is deal making and deal making is a political tradition in Illinois. You give nothing away. Everything is traded. Everything is a deal and that’s how this state has operated from the very beginning.” (Paul Green, director of the Institute for Politics at Chicago’s Roosevelt University) LINK
Rovin on December 11, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Yes, I agree, I would find it strange if nothing like this fiasco happened, and down the road they asked Obama and he said “No, I never talked to Blankface about the seat, it doesn’t matter to me”.
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Odd. I had the exact opposite reaction. I even said to my wife last night that if I wanted to tell someone else that I hadn’t discussed a particular topic with my wife, I certainly wouldn’t say that we had had no contact. The choice of words, particularly for a lawyer, was unusual and precise, especially given the fact that a reasonable expectation is that Obama had made his preference known to Blago, as is his right, and perhaps duty.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:33 AM
This is such a non-story.
Can we get back to discussing Palin’s questionable hairstyle now?
Bishop on December 11, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Obama would have made Colonel Klink proud.
Rovin on December 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM
“but they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F*** them.”
So yeah there ya go.
crr6 on December 11, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Yes, I think that is good. I do wonder however if Obama or anyone on his team was asked to do something in return, and whether any such request, if it occured, was reported to the FBI by Obama.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Should have added that this confirms that Obama lied.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:42 AM
“but they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F*** them.”
So yeah there ya go.
Then that kills the claim that the two camps never discussed the issue, and that leads to someone lying about it.
Good start, President elect Obarfa.
Bishop on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
why lie?
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Odd then that they were aware of all the major players. Their piece said that Jesse Jackson Jr., Emil Jones or the governor himself were the main candidates for the seat.
Also Odd, from camp Hot rod:
It’s also a little strange that Axlrod would be allowed to go on television and make up a complete lie and no one would say a word until 17 days later when that lie just happened to be the one thing that could make his boss look bad.
Has anyone on this site looked up Operation Board Games? In short the Feds, as well as the governor, are well aware of Michelle’s pay raises and appointments due to the connections of her husband.
Smoke and Fire.
Dorvillian on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Bishop
:)
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
I am sensitive to it, because it is a tact employed so often when you can take something out of context.
Do you honestly think he was stating that he was never in his physical arena…or do you think the press conference was about not having an “clue” regarding the appointment.
First, I don’t think he is that good of an attorney, second it shows when he only has moments or hours to devise a plan it is ill conceived.
And two, a quick meeting in the hall and a photo-op is not proof he had “contact”, regarding the Senate seat…that is the focus, the senate seat, not the handshake.
But all that being said…I can’t believe he hadn’t spoken to Blankface, and the quicker he throws mud on him and sullies his name, the easier to say “Blankface will say anything he is a crook, I never discussed this with him”.
Example:
If someone said to Bush: Did you ever talk to Premier Noway about the war…Bush responds: “In regards to the war we never had a discussion, nor contact. I would consider that inappropriate”…then a picture of him, in a hallway at the U.N. and he stopped and shook hands smiled for a picture, and moved on.
Bush is now a liar…context means everything, including in a court of law. You wold never get a conviction on Obama for this…context.
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 AM
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
I know, matching comments.
Bishop on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 AM
why lie?
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:43 AM
As you said, if an illegal offer was made to in effect sell a senate seat, an honest and ethical Obarfa staff should have turned Blogo in, if for no other reason than to protect Obarfy’s ass.
I suspect they didn’t, being the obfuscating, finger-pointing people that they are; there was an angle being played and all options were left on the table.
Bishop on December 11, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Personally, I’m studying up on Chicago-Illinois politics. My trust levels have fallen to a record low. Money gets thrown around and the reporting gets tainted. Best to do my own research and come to my own conclusions.
The circle (movers and shakers) all seem to revolve around Mayor Daley. The circle includes Rezko,Ayers, Obama, Durbin, Blagojevich, and many other prominent names that the MSM refused to report on during this election season.
I’m of the belief that the entire Democrat Party is a reflection of Blagojevich, and some from the Republican Party fit the mold of corruption. It’s like having the mafia in charge of our country. Above the law? Where in the hell has the FBI been? Who can we trust? Who (in leadership roles) hasn’t been compromised?
In California, the people vote and if the vote goes down the way the Unions-Democrats want, all is well. However, if the vote goes against the Unions-Democrats, they simply take it to the Liberal Judges and reverse the will of the voter by declaring the vote unconstitutional (or something of that nature). Is this the future of all states? Is this governing from the bench?
All of us had better become Americans rather than a Pub or a Lib and open our eyes to the game that is being played by a set of rules that might not be the rules we read in our playbook. Government control of our auto industry? Government control of our financial industry? Does anybody want Chicago politics running our lives?
Here comes Obama!
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Attempting to distract this scandal Chrissy Matthews actually ran the clip of Palin’s “turkey execution” yesterday—-possibly not even knowing the proportional correlation to other heads that may be destined for political decapitation.
Rovin on December 11, 2008 at 8:52 AM
As far as I know, Obama didn’t preface his comment by referring merely the issue at hand. My take is that he was claiming that not only was there no discussion on this topic, but there was no discussion on any topic.
(Maybe i’m not as bright as you think.:)
I do think that in a court of law, these comments won’t stick to Obama. But to me, so far, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I think it is telling when Obama brags about being able to maneuver around the “Chicago style” politics.
As John Fund reports:
Yet he never stepped forward to correct these “problems”…he rode them to several victories.
Apparently they are useful to him at times…
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Actually, it’s what I suspect as well. I wonder if this will be the Obama team’s Scooter Libby moment.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 8:58 AM
I agree, I just thing it was over the top for Hannity to keep showing this.
One time would have been enough, now why the missing news reports, mixed with Axelrod’s, and combine that with Obama’s campaign mission of “We won’t be waterboarded”…and it stinks worse then Rosie’s crotch…
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM
For a fella from Montana, you sure know a lot about California’s “political machine”…..:)
When do I get to come out and do some huntin’ and fishn’???
Rovin on December 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Just like the phony Global Warming crisis, expect the MSM to invent a new national crisis (world crisis) of some kind to hit us very soon, thus taking the focus off Chicago and their treasured Obama.
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Did you guys see this?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
jcheney on December 11, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Puh-leeze. The Mafia Don doesn’t put himself in direct contact with the crime. Others do it for him.
Does any right minded person think for one minute that Obama and his team DIDN’T know what kind of activity was going to go on around this Senate pick?
In the end, Obama is once again teflon on this. But maybe… juuuust maybe, a few clueless, intentionally blind worshippers may come to realize the political animal and Chicago crook they’ve made President.
Sugar Land on December 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Hunt-n season just ended here Rovin, but you would be welcome in my home for the upcoming 2009 season come November. That is of coarse, if we still have the right to bear arms by then. Great trout fishing starts around July 1st when the rivers clear up from the snow melt. Pretty sure we will be allowed to keep our fly rods for now.
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM
I think that was the point behind yesterday’s Ambinder piece which was also in the HA headlines. HA called it “Good news: Obama transition team members whispering about economic calamity.”
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM
I’ll take Obama Lied for $200, Alex.
But yeah, why? Knee-jerk reflex? Just like Blago assuming that Obama would be open to “dealing” on the Valerie Jarrett appointment and being p-o’ed when the response came back negative?
The Chicago Way in action. So glad our honorable news media is here to
ferret outscrub the truth.Gilda on December 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM
It would be easier to stomach you getting on your high-horse about this bad reporting if you didn’t blog baseless speculation all the time, yesterday’s story on the motives of the Tribune sitting on the Blago story being a prime example.
If you’re so concerned about sloppy reporting, maybe you should look at your own work first and tidy it up first.
I know you’re not a reporter, but a blogger, but that still doesn’t give you the right to insinuate things without any concrete evidence to back it up.
In the end, blogging and reporting should be about getting to the truth. At least KHQA retracted their story. Meanwhile, your insinuation that the Tribune didn’t publish the story Blago story because they were angling for state money has no evidence to back it up, yet you just let it float out there. And people on this blog read that baseless speculation and figure it’s true because it’s what they WANT to hear. This kind of thing snowballs until the “truth” or reality is a distant spec on the horizon.
Mistakes happen in reporting. When they do, their obvious because reporting is based on FACTS. Your blogging style is often based on insinuation and speculation. It’s rare you’ll ever be strikingly wrong. But, many times you are wrong, but there’s no correction needed because you’re just speculating. Give the news media credit for sticking to facts and correcting them when wrong, at least. Don’t vilify them for having the fortitude for doing what you won’t or can’t do.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Hot Rod’s quote on discussions about Senate seat in the Tribune Here.
Dorvillian on December 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Ed — You forgot to search Gov Blagojovich’s official website where the Nov 5 meeting with Obama was prominently billed as hosting the President elect and discussing the Senate seat appointment.
tarpon on December 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Insinuation (putting doubts into a trusting mind) isn’t evil. And an insinuation certainly isn’t always factually wrong. You do understand that most of the people here do not trust the motives of the Dems and the media.
Yes, it’s a process of discovery. Ed’s insinuation leads me on that path.
Not sure it’s baseless. To many Republicans and Conservatives, there are ample examples of the media being in the tank for the dems. Their motives are clear to many. Put simply, they’re not trusted to tell the truth, even if they knew it.
I don’t like purposeful lies perpetuated (WTC was an inside job). They snowball until reality is a distant spec on the horizon.
Two rights don’ make a wrong you’re thinking? We’ll have to wait and see how this story plays out.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Tommy boy, The whole point of Eds post was that a critical association/converstation reported by KHQA was false and pathetically retracted. Hope you get back on the meds soon.
Rovin on December 11, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Insinuation (putting doubts into a trusting mind) isn’t evil.
It really is. Either make a clear cut charge backed with evidence, shut up or — lacking any evidence but an inkling that there’s a story there — investigate.
Insinuation is lazy. It’s dishonest. It indirectly makes a charge without backing it up with evidence.
Yes, it’s a process of discovery. Ed’s insinuation leads me on that path.
It’s only a process of discovery when the insinuation turns out to be true and someone else does the leg work to find evidence of that “truth.” Take the post from yesterday about the Tribune’s motives. Upon closer inspection, that post was just complete BS. Could it be true? It’s possible. But looking at the facts, it’s really not likely at all. But say it was true, and AP broke a story on Sam Zell telling the Tribune not to run the story so that they could make sure Blago was out of the way. I’m sure Ed would post about that AP story.
But, much more likely, nothing more will come of that post. Ed won’t investigate, he won’t follow unless some news org breaks a story confirming his suspicions. So, there will most likely be no “journey of discovery.”
This is a problem, because people on HA read that post and think — oh, that evil news media. They only do the right thing when it’s financially beneficial to them! It’s more snow for the snowball. Yet, there’s no evidence to back this claim up.
Thus, Ed’s post misleads. It’s dishonest.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM
This just in from Chicago… President-Elect Barack Obama announced today that KHQA staff reporter Carol Sowers will be given the Monte Carlo Ambassadorship
Caper29 on December 11, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I don’t know the truth about the Tribune’s motives, or behind this new scandal involving Blago and the Chicago machine. So I’m drawing no firm conclusions yet, although I have suspicions.
I have firmly concluded,however, that I cannot trust the MSM’s reporting. I don’t trust that a meeting occurred because they say so, and I don’t trust their retraction. This lack of trust was developed over years, and is a value judgment, which I proudly make.
Absent clear facts, which is often the case, we go in the direction our instincts take us, honed by life experience. You want people here to give the Dems and the Obama camp and the media the benefit of the doubt. I can’t do that. I discriminate.
I will leave it to the legal system, should it come to it, to give the Chicago team their constitutional presumption of innocence. Asking ordinary people not to have pre-formed opinions is madness. You may only rightfully demand that people drop their pre-formed opinions in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Tom_Shipley,
Would a /speculation tag suit your oh-so-delicate sensibilities?
Do you suggest that only news stories should be posted here and no conversation, speculation or interpretation should be allowed? If so, what would be the incentive for anyone to come here?
I believe you are being deliberately obtuse. You damn well know that Ed does not purposefully disguise speculation as fact. Try again, troll.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 9:54 AM
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I can rightfully demand that when someone makes a charge against someone or some entity, that they back it up with evidence.
Pre-formed opinions blind people from the truth. The less opinions you have, the more likely you are to see reality.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM
You damn well know that Ed does not purposefully disguise speculation as fact.
I’m not saying he does. I’m just saying he insinuates, which is bad enough.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Tom Shipley might be tranny. Might.
/evilinsinuation
Cuffy Meigs on December 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Tom, if you are so distressed at Ed’s presentations of facts and opinions, why do you keep coming here and clicking on them?
Most of your posts are criticisms of Ed and his reporting and commentary. It is an unhealthy obsession with you, it seems.
Maybe you should consider a hobby?
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Heh.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I think one of the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged said almost exactly the same thing.
(You do know which ones were the bad guys?)
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM
like Cuffy :)
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Do you suggest that only news stories should be posted here and no conversation, speculation or interpretation should be allowed?
Nope, I think those are all wonderful things. But when you speculate and interpret and you come to an opinion, back it up. If you make a charge against someone, back it up. No insinuation is my point.
It is an unhealthy obsession with you, it seems.
Yeah, maybe, but what are you going to do?
Maybe you should consider a hobby?
Oh, I keep plenty busy, don’t you worry about me.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Most of your posts are criticisms of Ed and his reporting
Ed doesn’t report. The closest thing he does to reporting is his radio show.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Obama Knew
SlimyBill on December 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I think one of the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged said almost exactly the same thing.
Well, it’s kind of true… and I haven’t read that book, so can’t really speak to it. And I’m one of the more opinionated people that I know.
But, having a pre-formed opinion about someone or something make it’s harder to judge it subjectively. And I do believe you can have an opinion about something, but still keep an open mind about it.
But what gets me is this whole, the MSM is biased and the enemy. Most people on here think that. So when Ed throws out that the decision to sit on the story was motivated by money, not just a willingness to cooperate with police without any evidence, people believe it. But in reality, there’s extremely little if any evidence to back that up. And that happens a lot on here. That’s how reality gets lost. This narrative that the media is biased is build upon many similar posts (and yes, some facts).
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 10:21 AM
We have Axelrod on record saying they met together and now three separate news accounts saying Obama and Blagojevich met.
Then when it’s inconvenient to point this out, Axelrod says he misspoke and two of the three news stories go down the memory hole.
If the two KHQA accounts were incorrect, why were they not sent down the memory hole a month ago, rather than yesterday when they proved Obama to be lying through his teeth?
No, nothing fishy here.
JammieWearingFool on December 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
The MSM sent hundreds of staff members into Alaska immediately following the announcement of Sarah Palin as the running mate to McCain. The MSM went as far as to put out a trash set of stories about the Palin’s baby. The MSM tried relentlessly to create a scandal involving Sarah Palin (troopergate). The MSM purposely failed to vet Obama, which we are now viewing first hand. The MSM provided cover for Michelle Obama, Rev Wright, Rezko, Ayers, and all other prominent ties to Obama. The MSM was so obviously in the tank for Obama, that even some of their own came out and stated how far down the Liberal sewer journalism has gone.
You Shipley can not be taken seriously.
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Well, I sympathize( inclination to think or feel alike) but from the opposite political perspective.
My belief is that absent some far greater external threat, under which people like you and people like me could unite, we’re headed for divorce.
With all due respect, and I mean that, I don’t really want to live together anymore. You and yours take up too much of my energies. (I certainly understand that the reverse is true as well.) Short of political dissolution, I’d be in favor of a great increase in states’ rights, and a concomitant reduction in the power of the central gov’t. In that way, we could move to places where our preferred way of life is predominant, without the constant cultural and political clashes that we now endure. Can we work out a land for peace deal?
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Ha! TRC gets one right. A broken clock is right twice a day.
The Race Card on December 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I believe it is not that this was retracted sloppily. It is the diligence that EVERYTHING negative about Obama is scrubbed–not just from the ‘net but from the archives as well. Go ahead, try to find Axelrod saying Obama had spoken to Blagojevich on the TV clip. It’s been scrubbed. Yesterday, the story this thread is talking about was taken down within hours of it coming to light. There is no argument then because there is no conflicting evidence. They take everything that conflicts with their stories down, and when they can’t, they shut the blog down. Google simply says a complaint has been lodged, and down it goes.
This is not a singular one time “oops.” This is an ongoing, SERIOUS attempt at propaganda by commission and ommision. This is censorship, and it is being done purposely and rapidly.
That’s why many sites have taken to screen capturing any piece of evidence they find. I found a few “interesting pieces” of info on the land deal last night, and on another blog, they were INTENSE about not telling anyone else until they got it all on screen shot because they know if the story gets out, it will be gone.
And further, these are PUMAs. Apparently, this is NOT a new phenomenon with O and his supporters. It’s been going on since the primaries with Hilary.
UnderstandingisPower on December 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Come on! Of course Obama met with Blagojevich. It doesn’t mean they discussed selling the seat, but to think they never discussed it is laughable. Man up to it, Barry!
Obama is so much like Slick Willie. His first instinct is to lie, lie, lie.
Obama is just not a man. He can’t own up to anything.
He is such a coward in every way; voting present, throwing everyone under the bus, lying his arse off like a little kid, walking away from press conferences when he gets hard questions…
This is not a good time to elect a Coward-in-Chief.
reaganaut on December 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Why not? That’s standard operating procedure for the Lightworker. What’s good for the goose…
Y-not on December 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
My clock isn’t broken. It just runs backwards.
The Race Card on December 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM
How long before Obama’s minions start using the race card on Blagogate?
roux on December 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Do you have a calendar handy?
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I’d be in favor of a great increase in states’ rights, and a concomitant reduction in the power of the central gov’t. In that way, we could move to places where our preferred way of life is predominant, without the constant cultural and political clashes that we now endure. Can we work out a land for peace deal?
That doesn’t sound like a bad idea. I’m guessing you won’t be choosing California?
Though, that would probably just lead to another civil war.
Tom_Shipley on December 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM
A few interesting facts for you Shipley…
: Some Election Stats
Quite an eye opener. . . . ..
Some unreported stats about the 2008 election:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
- Number of States won by Parties: Democrats – 20; Republicans – 30
- Square miles of land won by Parties: Democrats – 580,000; Republicans – 2,427,000
- Population of the counties won by Parties: Democrats – 127 million; Republicans – 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Parties: Democrats – 13.2; Republicans – 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I’ve lived in 3 different places in California when I was younger. Most of my family is there. My dream was to retire there, in the hills north of San Diego. I will never do that, and I only very rarely travel there now, except when absolutely necessary. You can pick the states you want to keep. I’ll take whatever you deem garbage.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Huh?
Why the assumption the TV station goofed on Nov 5? What they reported makes perfect sense. And it’s butressed by the Idiot’s denial. Everything the man says is a lie, so the assumption should be that he is lying about Nov 5 and the meeting took place either in person or on the telephone or by one of his surrogates instead of the Idiot.
The TV station is lying now, not then.
notagool on December 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM
That’s a reasonable question to ask an honest person. But in Obama’s case it is sort of like asking a buzzard “Why fly to the next carcass when you could easier walk?” But for the buzzard it is actually easier to fly because that’s what comes naturally… especially when you have the MSM acting as the “wind beneath your wings”!
drunyan8315 on December 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM
You, in the past 8 years?
TRC, one, you are funny. Two, the fat lady hasn’t sung, by far.
Entelechy on December 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Wow. That comment is going right to my hard drive. Seems like we’d be better served by moving closer together.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Well there was at least one meeting as Ace points out. Then again maybe he was just channeling John Wayne.
petertheslow on December 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM
All I can tell you my friend, is I spent most of my adult life in So. Cal. (Palos Verdes), but had to leave for the sake of my boys. I have now been in Montana for the past 3 years and we love it. I might add this though, making a living here is a challenge. I own a small plumbing company, and my wife owns a small architectural firm. Between the two of us, we make enough to get by, but the earnings here are about 1/3 of what we made in Cal… The quality of life is far more important to us at this point in our careers than making the big bucks. The quality of life here is fabulous.
I agree with you that Liberalism is dividing this country up with no solution in sight. These people will use every means possible (Judges) to force Liberalism on our way of life. I’ve had it! I have completely run out of patience and tolerance for these people. It’s so bad, it has split up my extended family, as many members of my family have been union workers (in Cal) their entire lives and are brainwashed beyond any ability to have a discussion.
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I never thought of doing screen shots of news articles. That is a great idea though. I saw a few articles after The One won. He did talk to Blago. He is lying through his teeth. I do recall Axelrod stating that also. Hannity is a child at times. On his radio show, I don’t listen to it that long. He is actually a wimp. He means well, but gets a tad carried away. He is not always right. If you over do which he does, then it tends to get questionable. When a person keeps going on and on. It gets to be bothersome. Hannity has great qualities, but he needs to slow a tad though. He kept showing the picture over and over again. Right2bright, had a good point on that. The One tries to cover up a lot of issues. He did meet with Blago. I do think that other people will start singing like birds and soon. I am sure The One promised many that he would scratch their backs if they do his dirty laundry, and Acorn had their hands in it also. Funny how Acorn hasn’t been mentioned since then. The One has a lot of fur balls stuck in his throat. Sooner or later he will have to cough them up!
sheebe on December 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
ditto. They believe I need therapy. I know two other conservatives, and one is a public figure, so through him, and the connection here, I live vicariously.
I remembered your personal situation. I am totally glad you found your nice piece of heaven.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” was so quaint.
Now it is
“To cover up for the President(-elect) is the highest form of patriotism.”
Sir Napsalot on December 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
The lies continue. Obama could pick any trusted idiot to advise him in the White House. But getting your friend a Senate seat is priceless. Rahm is not going to tell Obama to tell this chick to withdraw without first having to tell him why. That ‘why’ being that Rham knew and then told Obama that Blago was putting the seat up for sale. How did Rham know? Because someone close to him on the transition team in DC was in on the call. Fitz knows this and the media knows this. It is just a matter of whether the MSM will bother laying it out for the unwashed masses to understand. Of course, they won’t because they don’t want the unwashed masses to start asking how The Black Caesar rose to the top of the heap when it came time to run for his Senate seat.
grdred944 on December 11, 2008 at 11:43 AM
The need to print the retraction at this point in time is the important part of the story.
Done That on December 11, 2008 at 11:45 AM
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Thanks…
Keemo on December 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »