It Worked for Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Bill Clinton. 
Speaking Sunday 21 with my professionals in praise of Governor Blagovich's skilled performance in declaring his self-evident innocence and reaching for theatrical metaphors to
emphasize how hard he will fight the charges of "a political lynch mob."
"...Now I'm dying to answer these charges, I am dying to show you how innocent I am. And I want to assure everyone who is here and everyone who's listening that I intend to answer every allegation that comes my way. However, I intend to answer them in the appropriate forum, in a court of law, and when I do, I am absolutely certain that I will be vindicated."
Every breath of this argument is designed to demonstrate that Blago knows when to fight, where to fight and how to fight. This struggle isn't about Patrick Fitzgerald, or the tapes, or the grand jury, or the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. This struggle is about public opinion. Blago knows that the public wants a contest, like a gladiator match in the Arena.
Blago knows that the match was too one-sided for the last ten days, with Fitzgerald, Obama, Kass, Durkin, Daley, even Leno, Letterman and Stewart, all presenting Blago as a mobbed up madman. Now begins the fight back. Ed "Devil's Advocate" Genson (right) is challenging every detail of the charges, of the recorded evidence, of the impeachment hearing in Springfield, of the broadcasts that convict Blago of everything crooked in Illinois the last fifty years. Simultaneously Blago takes to the TV, reaches right past the frantic media posse, and speaks to the voters at home . This is a case before "everyone who is listening." America loves a charmer only slightly more than a scrapper, and in their day Oliver North, Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton each won their fights by charming the public as they bashed their accusers as a lynch mob. And why did it work? Because it was mostly true.
What About Rahm Emanuel?
The worst news today was for the Obama team, because when Blago "answers every allegation that comes my way," he is going to do it in a fashion that makes certain Rahm Emanuel is in
the frame. Mr. Obama has gone to the 50th State. The Obama transition report on the contacts between Blago and Rahm Emanuel (right today) is still scheduled for Monday 22. The slow motion leaking all week, first that there were 21 contacts, now that Blago and Emanuel spoke directly, is designed to soften the headlines. It will not work if we get a chance to see the vulgarity in its glory. Also, the Rahm and Blago mentions of Valerie Jarrett will not read unambiguously. This is a political story, not a criminal story. And the risk to Emanuel is also the risk to President-Elect Barack Obama (PEBO), and it will go on for months as Blago fights. The first remark is the vulnerability, when on December 9, the day after the Blago arrest, PEBO said, "I had no contact with the governor or his office so I was not aware of what was happening." There are three possibilities, according to my best Democratic source, to debate about this remark through the winter: 1. PEBO deceived the public with the usual lawyerly parsing and manipulation of "I" when he said, "I had no contact," without acknowledging that his staff was acting on his orders all the while. 2. Rahm Emanuel, who we know now did have at least 21 contacts with Blago, did not keep PEBO informed of his negotiations. 3. PEBO just spoke out on December 9 without checking with his staff. PEBO followed up on December 11 with a statement that expanded the ambiguity of the communications between Rahm Emanuel and Blago:
"I have never spoken with the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representative of mine would have any part in any deals related to this seat."
Blago's grandiose intention to make himself the victim of an overreaching prosecutor means that gradually, inevitably, we will hear all possible interpretations of "any deals related to this seat." Heaven can wait.
Quite right, John, the Blago affair will boil down to a classic public relations ploy. The governor’s image has not yet so hardened within the public mind that a week’s worth of clips showing him helping old ladies cross the road would not change the perception of what has been said about him thus far. (Unlike Bush, for instance, who could, in his waning weeks, save the auto companies; cure aids, and personally pull bin Laden out of some godforsaken hole in the wilds of Pakistan - and we would still put him on par with “resident evil”.)
To the extent that this story has the potential of affecting the rest of the country, will depend on just how much animus Blagojevich may harbor for his on-time Chicago protégée. Will he have to expose him to save his own skin and/or will his (Blago’s) reward be sufficient to keep Obama out of the loop? It would also depend on just how many (circus) rings will be in play to distract 24-hour news wire junkies at the time of the trail. I can think of two suitable candidates at the moment: the Madoff affair; and that of Casey Anthony, mother of now dead Caylee Marie. And don’t forget the likelihood of criminal proceedings revving up against Bush and company.
I'm sure, almost certain, that move-on.org, HuffPo, Carville, and all the people in the MSM who defended the Clintons and fought His impeachment will rush to the aid of Blago.
Rahm is a type A personality and will not allow himself to be pushed under the bus.
After MonicaGate, Blago, Rahm, and PEBO realize you are more effective at directing the media campaign from a position of power. You have the power to get favorable media and benefit of the doubt while in office, or transitional office. It is lost the instant you leave office; the press have no reason to protect you.
-Wisdom
With a little time, money and paperwork you can do anything!
(testing this out as a campaign slogan)
It seems to me like the incoming Democrats are already losing the war (to prove that they represent a positive change to business-as-usual politics) even if they should win the Blagojevich battle. O J Simpson walked free after his murder trial but was condemned in the heart of almost every American afterwards. Blagojevich has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion. It's Obama who's on trial now.
In short, the next time one of my self-righteous radical liberal acquaintances (all right, maybe even a friend or two) starts whining about "Dick Cheney & Valerie Plame" I can just say "Blagojevich & Madoff" and it's END of discussion. I've never seen a party lose so much political capital so quickly, but I must say I've quite enjoyed it.
Lou - Enjoy it now while you still can. There's no indication that the Dems won't get it back together with the press paving the way. Their tactics are likely to outrage even cynics like yourself. Dems don't generally fold like Republicans do. Neither will the press easily give up on its "messiah" complex.
Make no mistake, Republicans are likely to find themselves in the dog house for a long time yet to come. It's all due to all the brainwashing that has taken place over the past several years. Look at it this way: If someone were to emerge and tell the Palestinians the whys and wherefores of their own pathetic existence, they wouldn't believe it. Similarly, the denizens of Dem-run urban centers would never believe that they themselves are responsible for their plight and continue to blame Republicans despite clear evidence that Republican-run municipalities generally exhibit superior results as pertains to opportunity, services, and a better environment overall for their populations.
Well, the "urban denizens" weren't moved off of their land by the United Nations (however noble the motive may have been for doing so), so I think your analogy is a bit of a stretch. I just have to say something because I'm pretty much neutral on who's at fault in the Middle East. I just figure that any land dispute that stretches back close to two millennia probably has a fair amount of validity on both sides.
JB I repost what I asked on earlier thread.JB on your radio program prior to the election, the plan was for Blago to give JJJ/Jarrett the seat with the understanding that Obama gets Fitz out of Chicago in January and Blago off the hook.
How about Blago allowing himself to be taped to cop a lesser plea and giving Fitz the media attention and letting the public know how illinois politics works. He was already hanging because of Rezko.
Does it not seem odd that he never followed Obama's advise to resign.
Now fill in the blanks, your source has been the Chicago Sun Times not the Tribune which was part of Fitz disclosure. The 21 Rahm conversations are in Sun Times. Tribune owned by Zell who withheld LA Times tape and any mention of Rezko to Obama ties prior to election. Now either Fitz or Blago can leak to Sun Times any details they want whenever they want because each can blame the other. Blago entitled to tapes as part of discovery.
Fitz does not care if he derails government see what he did with Libby in Plame casewhere there is was no underlying crime although your friend Larry johnson from No quarters would contend otherwise.
The MSM can not carry water for Obama because they themselves Gregory, Mitchell and Russert perjured themselves. Also contempt for Cooper and Miller will cause MSM to think twice in assisting Obama in this case.
The success of a presidency or candidacy is controlling the narrative. At this point Obama has lost the narrative in this case. It would have been better for him to have no comment December 9 when Blago was arrested. He has been in damage control mode ever since and with Fitz it will not help.
Blago was crazy alright, crazy like a fox.
Lou - Neutral? You can't be serious! Right or wrong, the core of our entire Middle East policy for the past 50 some odd years has been to protect Israel. And we've paid a hefty price for it. I grant that Obama may want to change all that. But if Israel should fall, our credibility would fall to less than zero along with it. It would signal open season on "infidels" around the world.
Look at it like the Super Bowl. Everybody is watching. The score is tied; we're in the last quarter and the outcome will determine whether or not we'll be wearing green shorts to work Monday morning.
Don't get me wrong, I too think it's a stupid game. But, for better or worse, we're in it (to win it) up to our bleedin' necks already. Now, pick a side!
John do not compare justice Thomas to any of the other characters. This was the democrats pulling a Bork which they did to John Bolton also. Anita Hill and Bolton's accusaer had about as much credibility as the Duke rape accuser and the Democrats are all Nifong, Spitzer and Earls.
What does he have to lose?
"Right or wrong, the core of our entire Middle East policy for the past 50 some odd years has been to protect Israel. And we've paid a hefty price for it."
And so has Israel, paradoxically. Our military and financial backing has made it possible for them to ignore the need to make peace.
Anybody who has ever given money to a drunk or an addict knows the dynamic.
Kenneth - Surely you jest; surely you don't compare the State of Israel to a drunk? From how I read it, Israel would give its left boob for peace with the Palestinians - and the right one as well, if peace were only possible. The Palestinians are simply not interested; they want them dead and gone. Nothing short of that will satisfy them. The rest is all window dressing. ...and that's God's honest truth.
Peter, I am intrepid with my opinions on this blog, but I ain't stupid. Nice try.
I'll repeat what I said before: They been dukin' it out since the days of Constantine the Great. The smart money is on them continuing to duke it out for another 1,800 years. The fact that your reason tells you that it couldn't possibly last that long, is just wishful thinking on your part.
I don't want another penny of my hard-earned tax dollars going into that sinkhole.
"The Palestinians are simply not interested; they want them dead and gone. Nothing short of that will satisfy them."
Did Palestinian hatred of Israel just come out of nowhere, a modern version of Aristotelian spontaneous generation? Or are the Palestinians genetically evil? Or was it something somebody said? What caused it?
Kenneth, Lou - Good questions, Kenneth. Lot's of us don't understand what's happening over there. But it is entirely understandable if we would just take off the blinders that cater to our unreasoned prejudice. This problem must be approached by what's happening today - not by what happened 1,800 years ago, or what can be projected to happen 1,800 years into the future. It is happening now! It's a problem that has been kicked down the road, no doubt. But it's now landed in our laps. Will we kick it down the road once more for our kids and grandkids to handle?
No, Kenneth, Palestinian hatred of Israel does not come out of nowhere. It has been assiduously crafted and carefully maintained; much like (enough) German's hatred for the Jews was constructed and maintained for essentially political reasons. Hitler needed a straw man to rally the troops. Even we are not immune. Look at us! Today, we are more than willing to string up Bush (and Republicans in general), all based on a false premise tirelessly advanced by the Democrats and the media.
No, Palestinians are not genetically evil. They react like you and I to situations. Why does an animal fight? Answer: To eat; to survive. Palestinians have been told from birth that Jews threaten their very existence. Palestinians too want to live in peace and harmony and raise their families and celebrate their milestones. They've been told that they can't do these things because Israel is hell-bent on their eternal humiliation and ultimate destruction. They look at their own impoverished neighborhoods; then they look across the border and see gleaming prosperity. They are told that these are the things that have been taken from them. And, in this sense, this fight resembles a class struggle (and is actively encouraged by nations in which the idea of “class struggle” looms large in their protocol). Palestinians are not allowed to question. They are not allowed contact with anyone but their own. What did you do when your mother told you not to play with the neighbor’s dog?
The people orchestrating these propaganda campaigns are the evil ones. Some claim to follow the path of some religiously-inspired apocalypse involving the 12th imam. They are not evil, only crazy - and they have guns. The rest are mercenary. They keep the pots boiling for their own profit and power. They too have guns. Palestinians are caught in the middle. The guns have it.
The question then becomes not "what caused it?" but what causes it to continue? Follow the money. What external force supports it? Iran, and to some extent Russia, China among others, all those who have an ideological stake in bringing us down a peg or two. I am convinced that if the Palestinian (so-called) “freedom fighters” ever found out the true identity of the 72 virgins they so willingly seek to engage, they would be as horrified as we if we were to stumble upon a nest of corrupt backroom brawlers in our quest for political redemption. But, then again... maybe not.
Too much tends to be blamed on misinformation. You hear it implied quite often these days that if somebody disagrees with you it's because they were duped or misled. I am convinced that responsible people, completely informed, intelligent and with eyes wide open, can reach diametrically opposed conclusions on a given topic. It's possible that both sides are right. Having a right to do something is merely a euphemism for having the muscle to do it- let's not kid ourselves. Not to say that there aren't shades of gray in these conflicts - do the Israelis tend to be more upstanding and reliable than the Palestinians? Yes, I suppose so. Does that make them any more right? I don't think so. After all, if being upstanding, reliable and ethical were a pre-requisite for continued occupation of one's homeland, most of the Democrats in the U.S. would have to emigrate.
Lou - Good points! None of them arguable. But you're doing that Clinton thing: "triangulation". To tell you the God's honest truth, I wouldn't give a rat's you know what for either one of them. But I do care about America. It's just that (I believe that) our country's got so much invested in this thing going a certain way, it'd be devastating for us to have to watch it all go down the drain. For one thing, no nation on earth would ever listen to anything we'd have to say - ever again.
"It's just that (I believe that) our country's got so much invested in this thing going a certain way, it'd be devastating for us to have to watch it all go down the drain."
The pro-war crowd said much the same thing about Vietnam. Defeat, they averred, would topple all the dominoes between Peking and Tokyo. And topple they did, but in a direction exactly opposite of what the hawks expected.
As a result, the shirt I wear as I write these words was made in Vietnam. I'm told it looks rather good on me, too.
Kenneth - True. Our defeat in Vietnam was painful and still reverberates throughout the political landscape. But as you yourself admit, Vietnam is still there. If we were to lose Israel, however, it would cease to be a viable political entity - not to mention the very real possibility of an ensuing genocide. Could we continue to live with that on our conscience?
Protecting Israel has been the only line in the sand we've ever drawn that every American administration has consistently supported. The whole world is watching to see whether or not this line can be breached. If indeed it can, American credibility won't be worth spit and all the nations on the planet will scramble to realign their allegiances.
"If we were to lose Israel, however, it would cease to be a viable political entity - not to mention the very real possibility of an ensuing genocide."
The notion that a country that possesses two hundred nuclear weapons might be exterminated by a bunch of Kalashnikov-toting Palestinians makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose that Iran might cobble together a crude atom bomb or two, but were they somehow to drop one on Tel Aviv, then Persian would become a dead language. The Mullahs--most of whom have Swiss bank accounts, which in turn implies a degree of attachment to the things of this world--know this very well.
The real threat to Israel is demographic, as is the case with America and especially Europe. All the arms shipments and foreign aid in the world can't help solve that problem.
Make babies, not war.
I think you're forgetting the Cuban embargo, which is coming up on its 50th anniversary if my math is correct.
So, we've helped to starve two entire generations of Cubans and ensure the poverty of the next two, and involved ourselves in at least 3 unwinnable conflicts in the middle east. Where's Monroe when you need him?
By the way, if I had to choose, I'd keep the policy in Israel and lift the Cuban embargo. Palestinians don't make Montecristos.
I guess I should have written "Farsi" in paragraph three, not "Persian."
Given that our current President had to have the difference between Sunnis and Shiites explained to him by an exasperatd military officer prior to the invasion of Iraq, it seems only fair to cut me some slack.
Merry Christmas, all.
"O J Simpson walked free after his murder trial but was condemned in the heart of almost every American afterwards."
Correct that statement to read: condemned in the heart of almost every WHITE American. If you had been in a Black neighborhood, barbershop or store, at Black Universities (like Howard U), or anywhere a group of Blacks had congregated...you would have been able to hear the cheering by African Americans everywhere when the "Not guilty" verdict was announced.