The dirt's starting to stick.

[Guest 2smart4u]

First is was Rev. Wright, then Rezko, then Ayres. Now it's Blago. It seems that Blago's wife is a real estate agent who sold Obama his Chicago house (with financing by Rezko).

Now if you were born yesterday, you would believe that 1) Obama never heard Rev. Wright say one racist or hateful word in 20 years. 2) Obama only knew Bill Ayres casually even though he sat in his living room during his run for office. 3) Obama only knew Rezko in passing. 4) Obama never had a conversation with Blago (even though his own staff member said otherwise) and didn't really know him.

Now, the Washington Post is reporting Rezko is singing like a bird to the FBI, trying to earn a "get out of jail free" card.

You can be certain Blago will be singing also.

Jan. 20 is a long time away.

[Guest Guest]

First is was Rev. Wright, then Rezko, then Ayres. Now it's Blago. It seems that Blago's wife is a real estate agent who sold Obama his Chicago house (with financing by Rezko).

Now if you were born yesterday, you would believe that 1) Obama never heard Rev. Wright say one racist or hateful word in 20 years. 2) Obama only knew Bill Ayres casually even though he sat in his living room during his run for office. 3) Obama only knew Rezko in passing. 4) Obama never had a conversation with Blago (even though his own staff member said otherwise) and didn't really know him.

Now, the Washington Post is reporting Rezko is singing like a bird to the FBI, trying to earn a "get out of jail free" card.

You can be certain Blago will be singing also.

Jan. 20 is a long time away.

Dream on, moron. There's no dirt. Repeat this, because you'll be saying it a lot:

"President Obama."

[Guest Guest]

You are such a lying scum, a typical right winger. Here’s what the Washington Post article actually says:

“Obama was not implicated in the months-long trial, and he has said that Rezko sought no favors from him. At a news conference on Tuesday, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, went out of his way to dampen speculation about Obama.

"I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever," Fitzgerald said. "We make no allegations that he's aware of anything, and that's as simply as I can put it. . . .

"There's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that's all I can say."

Legal experts said it was unusual for a prosecutor to make such a blanket statement while an investigation was continuing.

"That carries a great deal of weight," said Jan Witold Baran, a Washington lawyer who represents politicians on ethical complaints and campaign finance matters. "It is really unusual for a U.S. attorney to say someone is not implicated.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1003232_pf.html

In other words, Dumbo, perhaps the finest prosecutor in the country just said there isn’t a shred of evidence that Obama did anything wrong.

And they have a month of recordings, so if anything had been going on, it would have been on the recordings. You scumbags will stop at nothing to keep someone you don’t agree with from succeeding. It’s not going to work. Obama is going to be President and he will succeed. You should be happy about that because he's going to be your President, and you should want your President to succeed, but apparently your radical views are more important to you than your country.

And you don't care that you're making up lies about an innocent man who has also been elected President.

Scumbag.

[Guest Guest]

you should want your President to succeed, but apparently your radical views are more important to you than your country.

Like you guys have pulled for Bush for the last eight years???

[Guest Guest]

First is was Rev. Wright, then Rezko, then Ayres. Now it's Blago. It seems that Blago's wife is a real estate agent who sold Obama his Chicago house (with financing by Rezko).

Now if you were born yesterday, you would believe that 1) Obama never heard Rev. Wright say one racist or hateful word in 20 years. 2) Obama only knew Bill Ayres casually even though he sat in his living room during his run for office. 3) Obama only knew Rezko in passing. 4) Obama never had a conversation with Blago (even though his own staff member said otherwise) and didn't really know him.

Now, the Washington Post is reporting Rezko is singing like a bird to the FBI, trying to earn a "get out of jail free" card.

You can be certain Blago will be singing also.

Jan. 20 is a long time away.

Dream on in Loserville. The only reason the GOP is bitching is because they wanted in on buying the seat. Repubs sure can't win one.

[Guest Guest]

you should want your President to succeed, but apparently your radical views are more important to you than your country.

Like you guys have pulled for Bush for the last eight years???

We gave Bush the benefit of every doubt. Then he gave away our money to his rich friends, lied us into a war and proved that he didn't care about the long-term welfare of the country, just his friends. If Obama acts like that, you'll have cause to turn against him. Meanwhile, give him a chance.

[Guest Guest]

First is was Rev. Wright, then Rezko, then Ayres. Now it's Blago. It seems that Blago's wife is a real estate agent who sold Obama his Chicago house (with financing by Rezko).

Now if you were born yesterday, you would believe that 1) Obama never heard Rev. Wright say one racist or hateful word in 20 years. 2) Obama only knew Bill Ayres casually even though he sat in his living room during his run for office. 3) Obama only knew Rezko in passing. 4) Obama never had a conversation with Blago (even though his own staff member said otherwise) and didn't really know him.

Now, the Washington Post is reporting Rezko is singing like a bird to the FBI, trying to earn a "get out of jail free" card.

You can be certain Blago will be singing also.

Jan. 20 is a long time away.

Now it looks like Rahm Emanuel had conversations with Blago about the senate seat. If Emanuel had conversations then you know Obama was in on it.

[Guest Loki]

First is was Rev. Wright, then Rezko, then Ayres. Now it's Blago. It seems that Blago's wife is a real estate agent who sold Obama his Chicago house (with financing by Rezko).

Now if you were born yesterday, you would believe that 1) Obama never heard Rev. Wright say one racist or hateful word in 20 years. 2) Obama only knew Bill Ayres casually even though he sat in his living room during his run for office. 3) Obama only knew Rezko in passing. 4) Obama never had a conversation with Blago (even though his own staff member said otherwise) and didn't really know him.

Now, the Washington Post is reporting Rezko is singing like a bird to the FBI, trying to earn a "get out of jail free" card.

You can be certain Blago will be singing also.

Jan. 20 is a long time away.

Dream on in Loserville. The only reason the GOP is bitching is because they wanted in on buying the seat. Repubs sure can't win one.

This is also the reason why Dems want to fill the courts. So the activist judges can create legislation, which according to the Constitution they have no right to do, which fulfills their social agendas that they can't get past the legislative process of their respective houses.

[Bern]

This is also the reason why Dems want to fill the courts. So the activist judges can create legislation, which according to the Constitution they have no right to do, which fulfills their social agendas that they can't get past the legislative process of their respective houses.

Maybe you should stop listening to the likes of Limbaugh. Do your own research and find out who the activists are.

Remember Terri Schaivo? Where the conservatives were shopping every court in the country to find activist judges to intrude on her husbands decision and her medical care consensus to let her go?

When the conservatives couldn't find any court to support their activist position, Tom Delay wanted to investigate the Schiavo federal trial judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for refusing to overturn the Florida state courts' legal decisions over Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife's medical care.

Tom Delay, conservative movement panderer and critic of activist courts. So not only did Delay expect the court to become activist, he also threatened them when they did not.

Or what about Bush vs Gore

The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism.

One time deal for Bush?

[Guest Loki]

Maybe you should stop listening to the likes of Limbaugh. Do your own research and find out who the activists are.

Remember Terri Schaivo? Where the conservatives were shopping every court in the country to find activist judges to intrude on a husbands decision and medical consensus to let her go?

When the conservatives couldn't find any court to support their activist position, Tom Delay wanted to investigate the Schiavo federal trial judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for judicial for refusing to overturn the Florida state courts' legal decisions, and Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife's medical care.

Tom Delay, conservative movement panderer and critic of activist courts. So not only did Delay expect the court to become activist, he also threatened them when they did not.

Or what about Bush vs Gore

One time deal for Bush?

I'm not talking about "shopping" for a favorable court. I disagreed with the handling of the Schiavo case. I am referring to courts overturning laws passed in Congress to suit their "interpretations". This dates back to one of the original Supreme Court cases, Marbury v. Madison, which was nothing more than a power grab by the court. I think the court should be able to rule something unconstitutional, but there it ends. They cannot be allowed to decide what the new law "should" be; it should get kicked back to the LEGISLATORS. That is where the powers are designated within the Constitution.

[Guest Guest]

This is also the reason why Dems want to fill the courts. So the activist judges can create legislation, which according to the Constitution they have no right to do, which fulfills their social agendas that they can't get past the legislative process of their respective houses.

Give me a break! The right wing has been packing the courts for decades. They always say they have no litmus tests. They're lying. Since Reagan, Republican presidents have only appointed judges from the radical far right.

[Guest Guest]

Give me a break! The right wing has been packing the courts for decades. They always say they have no litmus tests. They're lying. Since Reagan, Republican presidents have only appointed judges from the radical far right.

Kool-Aid alert.

[Guest Paul]

I'm not talking about "shopping" for a favorable court. I disagreed with the handling of the Schiavo case. I am referring to courts overturning laws passed in Congress to suit their "interpretations". This dates back to one of the original Supreme Court cases, Marbury v. Madison, which was nothing more than a power grab by the court. I think the court should be able to rule something unconstitutional, but there it ends. They cannot be allowed to decide what the new law "should" be; it should get kicked back to the LEGISLATORS. That is where the powers are designated within the Constitution.

I think what really upsets people about the Warren Court and its predecessor (the liberal courts of the 1940s-60s) is that for the first time in our history the Supreme Court took the Constitution seriously, notably in civil and First Amendment rights (basic liberties). That meant we really had to do what we claim to stand for; many people don't want to do that, they would rather be hypocrites, so the Court fell into disfavor. It's not a popular thing to say, but it's true. So, for example, Griswold v. Connecticut holds that the Constitution contains a right of privacy. This holding still has "conservatives" in a complete tizzy perhaps because it has to do with sex. The case holds that married couples may use condoms in the privacy of their own bedrooms and marital relationships, and that the State of Connecticut, which had a law banning contraceptives, could not interfere. I don't think that's judicial activism. Those Courts also came down hard on criminal procedure, too much in my opinion. I also agree that the particular standard in Roe v. Wade is not defensible, but the legal rule that a woman has a right to control her own body is. Under any defensible legal theory, a woman's right not to be prohibited from terminating a pregnancy would still be protected to a significant extent.

Since Reagan, Republican presidents have uniformly applied a litmus test to judicial nominees. They deny it, but their actions speak louder than their words. All of their nominees are from the radical right. Before Reagan, presidents did not do that. It's another of the many things Reagan did to damage this country, perhaps permanently. He did not respect or understand the law, so he used the power of the presidency to undermine it. The American people, many of whom looked at perceived injustices in particular cases instead of at the integrity of the system as a whole (how well will it work overall) supported this undoing of the judiciary, which they didn't and don't understand.

As a result, the Supreme Court has become far more radical on the right that were the Courts of the 1940s-60s on the left. They invented a rule about punitive damages completely on their own. They have consistently sided with employers and against employees; against people bringing civil rights claims; the list goes on and on.

Just because Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians are feeding you their spin on the American judiciary doesn't mean their spin is true.

[Guest Paul]

Now it looks like Rahm Emanuel had conversations with Blago about the senate seat. If Emanuel had conversations then you know Obama was in on it.

There's nothing wrong with the President-elect's Chief of Staff discussing the P-E's replacement with the Governor, especially when the Chief of Staff is himself a former Congressman from the same state. You've made it painfully clear that you would like desperately for Obama to be tainted, and that you will stop at nothing to oppose him, but there is no evidence tainting him yet. In fact, Blagojevich complained that Obama wasn't willing to give him anything. That's proof of a negative, which is a rare thing for a person being smeared by dishonest people to have in his defense. But that's OK, you keep posting your talking points so that I and others can debunk them.

[Guest 2smart4u]

There's nothing wrong with the President-elect's Chief of Staff discussing the P-E's replacement with the Governor, especially when the Chief of Staff is himself a former Congressman from the same state. You've made it painfully clear that you would like desperately for Obama to be tainted, and that you will stop at nothing to oppose him, but there is no evidence tainting him yet. In fact, Blagojevich complained that Obama wasn't willing to give him anything. That's proof of a negative, which is a rare thing for a person being smeared by dishonest people to have in his defense. But that's OK, you keep posting your talking points so that I and others can debunk them.

"nothing wrong with Emanuel discussing Obama's replacement" ?? You can't be that naive to think there was no influence being exerted by Rahm. Take the blinders off, before this is over, Rezko and Blago will bring down Obama.

[Guest Paul]

"nothing wrong with Emanuel discussing Obama's replacement" ?? You can't be that naive to think there was no influence being exerted by Rahm. Take the blinders off, before this is over, Rezko and Blago will bring down Obama.

Just like Giuliani was going to be president, and just like Obama was finished months ago. We've heard it all from you before.

That's right, there's nothing wrong with Emanuel making a suggestion on behalf of the White House. I could easily show you plenty of examples of Republican presidents doing the same thing. The President is the country's most successful politician and its most trusted leader, so it makes sense to seek his advice, and listen to it.

If some evidence is ever uncovered that Obama or Emanuel did something wrong, then they'll have to answer for it. The prosecutors have a month of recordings, so if there's anything there it should surface. I'll bet you dinner at the Thistle that there's nothing there, a bet you won't take because if you won you would have to come forward and reveal your identity. And I'll bet you another dinner on that one.

Meanwhile, the media see a story so they will cover it anyway, for the same reasons they cover Britney Spears. There's no real news, just sensationalism. And of course, you hate Democrats, so you have no credibility. You don't even try to be objective.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Just like Giuliani was going to be president, and just like Obama was finished months ago. We've heard it all from you before.

That's right, there's nothing wrong with Emanuel making a suggestion on behalf of the White House. I could easily show you plenty of examples of Republican presidents doing the same thing. The President is the country's most successful politician and its most trusted leader, so it makes sense to seek his advice, and listen to it.

If some evidence is ever uncovered that Obama or Emanuel did something wrong, then they'll have to answer for it. The prosecutors have a month of recordings, so if there's anything there it should surface. I'll bet you dinner at the Thistle that there's nothing there, a bet you won't take because if you won you would have to come forward and reveal your identity. And I'll bet you another dinner on that one.

Meanwhile, the media see a story so they will cover it anyway, for the same reasons they cover Britney Spears. There's no real news, just sensationalism. And of course, you hate Democrats, so you have no credibility. You don't even try to be objective.

"Nothing wrong with Emanuel making a "suggestion" on behalf of the White House" ?? Paul, you are the "King of Spin", you could make Hitler sound like a misunderstood pacifist.

[WilliamK]

"nothing wrong with Emanuel discussing Obama's replacement" ?? You can't be that naive to think there was no influence being exerted by Rahm.

"Talking to" does not equal "involved in shady deals". Blagojevich said of the Obama people "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation.". Not exactly a smoking gun.

Outside of the imaginations of right-wingers, there's nothing here that implicates Obama or Emanuel. You believe Obama is involved only because you wish that to be true, not because there's any evidence of it.

Take the blinders off, before this is over, Rezko and Blago will bring down Obama.

Yeah, yeah. Just like Rudy Giuliani was going to win the Republican primary, Hillary Clinton was going to win the Democratic primary, the Democratic party was going to "implode" with infighting at the convention, the FBI was going to turn up a "smoking gun" tying Obama to the misdeeds of some ACORN workers, the disgruntled Hillary supporters were going to switch over to McCain in droves, the "Bradley effect" was going to give McCain an election day boost, and the selection of Sarah Palin was the "home run" that would put John McCain in the White House. A magic 8 ball is more accurate than you. But you think we're all wearing blinders or "loony" for not agreeing with your defective reasoning or your idiotic predictions.

[WilliamK]

Just like Giuliani was going to be president, and just like Obama was finished months ago. We've heard it all from you before.

Dang. You beat me to it.

[Guest Guest]

"Nothing wrong with Emanuel making a "suggestion" on behalf of the White House" ?? Paul, you are the "King of Spin", you could make Hitler sound like a misunderstood pacifist.

You know, I think you're actually stupid enough that you don't realize who is doing the spinning.

[Guest Guest]

"Nothing wrong with Emanuel making a "suggestion" on behalf of the White House" ?? Paul, you are the "King of Spin", you could make Hitler sound like a misunderstood pacifist.

So what do you claim Emanuel said?

You don't know.

And since you don't have any facts to back you up, you pull out the favorite wingnut all-purpose dodge: Hitler.

I repeat: What do you claim Emanuel said?

[Guest 2smart4u]

So what do you claim Emanuel said?

You don't know.

And since you don't have any facts to back you up, you pull out the favorite wingnut all-purpose dodge: Hitler.

I repeat: What do you claim Emanuel said?

Another minion comes to Paul's defense.

[Guest Paul]

Another minion comes to Paul's defense.

OK, so I'll say it. What do you claim Emanuel said?

[Guest Keith]

Another minion comes to Paul's defense.

Just answer the question, asshole!

[Guest Guest]

Just answer the question, asshole!

He doesn't answer questions. He just smears and attacks. He learned it from a long line of Republican political operatives from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove. It's how they do politics. That's why he thinks he's so smart. He never has to answer a question. It's also why KOTW didn't pull the last word of your post. They know it's true.