Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Thursday, May 27, 2010

Can You Feel The Excitement Building?

by digby

Looks like we got us a real, live pseudo-scandal. Yee Haw.

MSNBC Anchor: Ed, I want to end on the Sestak, the calls for an investigation, because you said this was one of the two important things that came out of this. If the president is admitting "listen nothing inappropriate happened" why not just come forward if you campaigned on transparency, why not just come forward and say listen, here are the facts,you judge and we'll move on?

Ed Shultz: Well because I think there might be some legal issues here that the White House is playing it safe right now. For the president to come out and say "I'll have a response for you," he termed it an "official response" which means "our attorney's are working on it." There's legal issues here. The Republicans are laser frocused on anything they can do to get the president out of office. This is not going to end any time soon. And advice to Joe Sestak, would you just speak up right now and tell everything you know? That would end all of this.

Yeah, sure it would. And good of the very liberal Ed Shultz to advance the idea that there are legal issues here. Even though virtually everyone in politics agrees that there aren't. (Hey, did they ever finally wrap-up that Cisneros investigation? Maybe we could tack this one on to that if it's still out there.)

Unfortunately, the president just validated the idea that this is a huge deal by making it sound like it requires an "official response" and then allowing it to fester rather than releasing this "official response" immediately. Now the press canreally get worked up. Look for Sestak to hold a press conference soon, ratcheting up the "scandal" even more. If we're really lucky maybe he can be forced out of the race over this ludicrous non-story before Toomey even has to spend any money. However, he should probably agree to don a hair shirt and walk through the streets of Philly flagellating himself with a cat-o-nine tails for having the temerity to suggest that the White House might have made a perfectly legal and commonplace offer which he declined. It's the least he can do for making the horrible mistake of bucking the party establishment when it insisted the Democrats must back Republicans they loathe.

Clearly, he was asking for this. If you don't have the "savvy" to beat back a GOP pseudo-scandal and the ensuing Village feeding frenzy, you have no business being in the Senate. That, after all, is the only qualification that matters.

Update: Jamison Foser has a must read post about the dynamics at play and concludes with this:

[M]any of them [reporters] have gotten it into their heads that there should be an investigation not because there was likely any illegality, but because the Obama administration has talked about having high ethical standards it promised, and because conservatives have suddenly decided to pretend that there's something unethical about offering someone a job.

That last part is dangerous. Dangerous. Investigations should not be taken so lightly.

Let’s flash back to January 5, 1994, shall we? Here’s the Washington Post’s editorial that day:

THE ADMINISTRATION has taken the position that there's no need to name an independent counsel in the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan case. It argues that the investigation is safely in the hands of career Justice Department attorneys, that the president and Mrs. Clinton are cooperating fully even though not directly involved and that the attorney general has no current power to appoint a fully independent counsel anyway.

We think that's wrong -- that, murky though most aspects of this case still are, it represents precisely the kind of case in which an independent counsel ought to be appointed. We say that even though -- and this should be stressed -- there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong. Nevertheless, it is in the public interest -- and in the president's as well -- to put the inquiry in independent hands.

There had been, according to the Washington Post editorial board, “no credible charge” that either Bill or Hillary Clinton had done “anything wrong.” And yet the Post demanded an independent investigation anyway. That’s how, eventually, America got saddled with Ken Starr, and how years of investigation of an innocuous real estate deal morphed into a probe of the president’s sex life.

That’s what can happen when the media insists on an investigation not because there is evidence of real wrongdoing, but in order to prove innocence. And that, no doubt, is exactly the kind of thing many conservatives are hoping for.

If reporters sincerely believe that the Sestak allegations suggest serious wrongdoing, fine: they should argue their case. (While they’re at it, they should demonstrate that they were saying the same thing three months ago, and three years ago, and three years before that -- or explain their sudden onset of outrage.) But if they’re just playing a little game, or -- like the Washington Post in 1994 -- asking for an investigation despite not believing there is any “credible charge” of illegality, they should think long and hard about what they’re doing.