Some more interesting questions on Blago-gate. (h/t Glenn Reynolds)
Lynn Sweet notes that the Obama team doesn’t want to field questions on Blago-gate from Chicago press, who might be the most informed and savviest on the subject. It seems the Chicago media, never quite given their due by the national MSM, has a chance to lap them on Blago-gate.
An assistant U.S. attorney explains how these things work — and how Fitzgerald’s net pulls tighter and tighter around all involved. Even before getting their White House pass, some Obama advisors are hiring lawyers. It’s a wonder anyone goes into government these days.
Who may be the most imperiled member of the incoming Obama administration, even though his pay-to-play investigation has nothing to do with Blago-gate? Bill Richardson. “There’s only a few months between the donations and the award of the contract, which is generally exactly what your campaign finance lawyers and ethics lawyers will tell you to avoid.”
Larry Kudlow: “I don’t disagree with Biden that the economy is in recession. But every time he speaks about it, he seems to leave a lasting impression of doom and gloom. I just don’t see how that’s helpful.” Not to put too fine a point on it (but I will): virtually nothing Biden says is helpful, either to the President-elect or the country as a whole.
James Taranto contends that you don’t get much out of atheists arguing about religious belief. (Who knew there was an entire website devoted to this exercise?) “One wonders if either [Christopher] Hitchens or [Heather] Mac Donald has ever met an actual Christian. We know quite a few who are neither bigoted, as Hitchens insists they are, nor insincere or confused, as Mac Donald speculates they must be. Could it be that the problem lies not with religious belief itself but with Hitchens’s and Mac Donald’s own poverty of imagination in understanding it?”
Robert Reich tries to talk sense to Andy Stern on card check. Good luck with that! I have a better argument for Stern: his union has become a political embarrassment and while it is front and center in Blago-gate, the worst political corruption scandal to hit the Democratic party in decades, it would be untenable for the Democratic President to support a gigantic sop to Big Labor. Oh, and it would shut down Congress, making bipartisan cooperation on any other matter difficult if not impossible. I think Stern would understand, if not agree, with a pure political arguments rather than idealistic appeals to democracy and the sanctity of the ballot.
Norm Coleman loses unanimously before the Minnesota Supreme Court on his double-counted ballot theory. He’s headed to other courts. The rejected absentee ballots are still to be considered. This isn’t ending graciously or soon, I sense.
What happens when the chasing dog catches the bus? The Hill has an interesting piece which includes this: “‘Because the Democratic caucus is itself diverse, reflecting many different points of view, it will be a challenge for the leadership to keep that coalition of interests together on the priorities established,’ said former Democratic Sen. Richard Bryan (Nev.). ‘That will be a big challenge.’ ‘To the extent our majorities have increased it’s a more difficult challenge,’ he added. ‘But I’m not saying it can’t be done’. . . Some Democrats might find themselves wishing Bush and Cheney were still on the public scene to serve as unifying bogeymen. ‘It was a sad moment for Democrats when Newt Gingrich retired from the House,’ said former Sen. Bryan, referring to the former Republican speaker from Georgia, who was a lightning rod for Democrats in an earlier era.” Still, winning is better than losing; the majority is better than the minority.
