Thursday, March 10, 2011
Buckeye Bull
Sorry, I don't buy Tressel's "Father Flanagan" act. Occam's Razor applies here: The simplest explanation is the most likely. Tressel didn't like the idea that he'd lose several of his best players -- so he tried to cover it up. And now OSU is complicit in trying to get him off the hook. Here's hoping the NCAA -- not that the organization's archaic rules didn't help create the circumstances in the first place -- doesn't fall for this.
Labels: college football, Jim Tressel, Ohio State University, scandal
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
No Sparing The Rod
Unfortunately, if the political-journalistic nexus worked in that logical manner, we wouldn't see half the political stories we see today (maybe that would be a good thing).
Just look at the Day Two headlines of the Blagojevich story:
GOP pressures Obama on Blagojevich
Big risks for Obama in Blago scandal
Will Obama confront scandals head on?
Obama's Answer on Blagojevich -- and the Questions It Raise
Union Official Allegedly Liaison Between Governor, Obama Team
Corruption Hangover Follows Election Night High
C'MON, BAM: GET MAD, NOT 'SAD' AT YOUR SLEAZY PAL
The implications in these headlines show the danger that this story has for Obama -- even if he's not a target of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation(s). When a political scandal starts spreading, even the completely innocent get tainted. And, unfortunately, politics is a profession where even the "completely innocent" -- aren't. "Completely," that is.
Because everyone in politics has something they want "keep close to their vests," an unwillingness to be -- in the parlance -- "completely forthcoming" makes even above-board people look suspicious. And so, Obama will undoubtedly have to put one of his trusted aides on "Blago response/damage control" just to deal with all the hordes of questions that are coming down from reporters wanting to know the history of the relationship. Republicans, of course, won't be able to refrain. It is in the nature of the opposition party to take advantage when the other party is facing a scandal, if nothing else but to undermine confidence that the public might have vested in a just-victorious new president and administration. Again, all of the above is true, working under the assumption that Obama has done nothing wrong with respect to his relationship with Blagojevich.
But, what if there is more? And, what if Blagojevich -- in a spiteful mood -- decides he wants to "smear" Obama? One reader brings up an interesting question: Did Blago -- or chief-of-staff John Harris or an unindicted flunky text Obama's Blackberry on Senate seat? The probe is still ongoing. Would Fitzgerald ever get to a point where he might consider subpoenaing either Obama or Emanuel's Blackberry? Oh, and Tony Rezko hasn't been sentenced yet? Is it because he's still cooperating on the Blagojevich take-down -- or is there more going on?
The point is that scandals take on lives of their own. Sometimes they ultimately amount to nothing, but a politician -- even those exonerated -- rarely ends up in a better place before scandal machinery starts getting revved up. For Obama in particular, this comes at a problematic point because he has taken on this pseudo-president/head cheerleader role, carefully rolling out new members of the Cabinet, using his political capital and moral authority wisely to project confidence for the public during the holiday season. The best he has to offer is the promise of something better, come January 20th. If his press conference start getting bogged down by questions on his Blagojevich relationship or, again, Rezko's relationship to Blago and the whole real-estate deal, the glow off the new administration will literally be turned off before the Obama has turned the lights on in the White House for the first time.
Barack Obama wants his administration to be a breath of fresh air in Washington. Instead the Blago scandal (still NOT the "Obama scandal" -- yet) looks like a movie we've all seen before. And it's a skunk that makes everyone end up smelling bad.
Labels: Barack Obama, corruption, Rod Blagojevich, scandal
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Chocolate Prophecy
Last week's segment seems strangely clairvoyant in light of today's Blagojevich indictment:
Like Grier said, Obama is at the top of his popularity right now -- or was last week. This week, he will inevitably face "What did he know and when did he know it?" questions related to the Blago scandal. Worse, much of the national press corps is already in Chicago covering transition stuff. It's so easy for them all now to switch over right away into Scandal Mode. Even though Blagojevich is the indicted one, it's much easier for lazy journalists to use the phrase "Obama seat" to describe the scandal.
Oh well, the Era of Good Feeling was great while it lasted.
Honeymoon is now officially over -- even before the presidency has begun!
Labels: Barack Obama, corruption, satire, scandal
Friday, November 30, 2007
Ray of Light
"I don't recall anybody, any statements about delay," Kelly told reporters.Meanwhile, Team Rudy has decided the best way to handle this story -- is to stop responding to questions:
He said all bills for the police details for Dinkins and now for Mayor Mike Bloomberg are handled directly "through the police department."
In South Carolina today, Giuliani declined to offer any further explanation, saying, "We've already explained it."Geez, talk about taking a page from the Clinton book of scandal damage-control.
Giuliani's staff made "a concerted effort" to keep reporters from coming near to the candidate, according to ABC News reporter Jan Simmonds.
"At least three Giuliani press staffers loudly instructed the press to stay within their cordoned-off area and were warned not to approach the candidate," Simmonds reports.
ABC's Blotter also revealed this week that Giuliani's security contract with the Gulf state of Qatar was overseen by the government minister who once harbored Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind behind 9/11. With those connections, you'd wonder why Qatar would feel it would even need security "advice" from the former mayor.
Well, this might just turn out to be one of those less-than-six-degrees-of-separation issues. However, it sure does make one wonder what other Giuliani clients might cause embarrassment if their names are revealed. Guess that's why Giuliani is trying to keep that info on the hush-hush.
UPDATE: Dick Polman effectively summarizes why some people -- including this and other Republicans -- believe that the driving-to-Miss-Judy story is important as a spotlight into Rudy Giuliani's character. I will only disagree with part of this statement: "On the other hand, if the guy has been spending the taxpayer's money and squirreling it away in obscure public agencies in order to lead that checkered private life...well, that makes it the public's business."
This is half-right: Polman is wrong to imply that the transgression here is that the mayor was "spending the taxpayer's money" with his trips to Long Island. Giuliani is correct when he says that as mayor, he had 24/7 security. Where he goes, his security goes. It's going to be paid for by the taxpayers regardless.
The issue is the hiding of the money trail. There's a reason why the phrase "follow the money" came out of Watergate: When public figures try to keep the source or destination of a certain amount of money hidden, it is for some specific reason -- either to influence someone or something or to keep under wraps the reason for the expenditue. That's what was going on here. If that wasn't the reason, what was?
Polman is absolutely right in noting that Rudy's five "explanations/ alibis/excuses" in 48 hours speaks volumes as to heart of this matter. And yes, that does make it the public's business.
Labels: Rudy Giuliani, scandal
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Devils In the Detailed Billings?
The Politico bombshell of Rudy Giuliani's disguised security costs will undoubtedly be an interesting topic -- particularly in New York -- for a while.
However, one thing jumped out that may be nothing. It could also be just an odd coincidence -- or evidence that someone has a deliciously evil sense of humor.
Consider what is at the heart of this story -- the suggestion that the costs of Giuliani's security detail were buried in the budgets of various city agencies to hide the fact that the mayor was visiting his mistress in the Hamptons. So, of all the possible city agencies where these billings could be hidden, which ones were selected?
The billing practices, however, drew formal attention on Jan. 24, 2002, when Thompson, the city comptroller, wrote the newly elected mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a confidential letter.
One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.
Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People With Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.
The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.
One security billing is hidden in the budget of "The Loft Board...that regulates certain apartments" (like -- a hideaway apartment?)
Another security billing is buried in the budget of "the Procurement Policy Board." Now, the word "procurement" has a specific meaning in the context of government -- related to purchasing and contracting. However, there is also another earthier meaning -- as in procurer is another word for pimp.
And another billing is charged to the budget of "the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office." That is pretty straightforward. Though "assigned" isn't too far from the word "assignation" -- meaning a surreptious romantic liaison.
Now, I candidly admit that I can have a dirty mind -- and all readers of this blog know of my love for puns and word play. But this doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. (And, yeah, the disabilities office doesn't quite fit the theory.)
Of course, it will be interesting to see where the other billings were buried. It will also be interesting to learn exactly who was responsible for deciding which account a given billing would be charged to -- and what the criteria was. Was it random -- or was someone sending a subtle message with some "creative" accounting?
Labels: Rudy Giuliani, scandal
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Thank Goodness
Thank you, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, thank you!!
A grateful nation salutes you!
Labels: Deborah Palfrey, hookers, prostitution, scandal
