Before you accuse me of being a gloom n’ doom, “the war is lost” liberal, I’m curious: how long did it take you to figure out that we needed more men in Iraq? Because I was writing it within a month of the invasion. And I kept at it despite loudmouth right-wing yahoos telling me I was “gloom n’ dooming’ the war.

I was also right 2 years ago when I said we’d essentially lost the war in Afghanistan. 70% of the country is in enemy hands, we’re rushing troops in, and we have no strategy for winning.

And I was right that the GOP’s attacks on Obama during the election would fail to gain traction. I’m right a fair bit of the time, Retire, because I don’t twist reality to fit ideology.

Now, I’m telling you this stuff won’t fly. The GOP new needs ideas and a new approach. You can’t win by announcing the death of Hope and Change, because until you figure out where you’re actually going it puts you in the position of representing Despair and Stasis. You can’t drive the country into a ditch and then sit on the side of the road criticizing the folks who come along and try to pull it back out. It will make your party even more despised than it already is.

If Obama didn’t know what Emanuel was up to, then he’s a lousy administrator if he’d allow his underlings to cause his first choice, Jarrett, to be lost because of their incompetence.

Either way, Obama is a poor judge of character - as millions of people already know.

I had the displeasure of meeting Emanuel once, years ago, and it took me about two minutes to figure out that he was pond scum. Apparently Obama not only doesn’t mind associating with such people, he chooses them for his staff.

http://www.colony14.net

It is certainly starting to seem clear that Rahm spoke to Blogo (no even going to try and spell it out), if for no other reason than for Blogo to be swearing up a storm because the Administration-to-be won’t play ball I assume he made an offer to somebody and was told to go to hell (unless he really is completly out of his mind), and Rahm seems to be clamming up in most peculiar way.

Even if that’s the case, I’m still having trouble being outraged at the Obama crew. Either Rahm told Blogo flat-out they wouldn’t play ball, or worse case he told Obama and Obama told him to tell Blogo they wouldn’t play ball. Well, I suppose that the true worst-case is that they were willing to play ball, but Blogo wanted too high a price and they decided to walk rather than make the deal.

The more I think about it, it seems pretty clear that Rahm must have told Obama. I can’t see him making that call for Obama without the big man’s signoff, and Obama did want that lady to get the seat (I forget her name), then apparently changed his mind and appointed her to an Administration position, coincidentially right after when Rahm would have spoken to Blogo. Under the circumstances, that seems like he had somebody (Rahm fits the when-and-wheres) ask Blogo to consider appointing her, Blogo named his price, and Rahm would probably have brought it back to Obama who rejected it and appointed her to the Fed position instead.

So I’m back to the Administration (specifically Rahm and I’ll include Obama too) having spoken to a shady character and refusing to do shady things with him. As long as they didn’t actually try to buy the seat I’m not upset about it. Seems like the sort of thing that you would kind of have to lie about if asked point-blank, sort of a “how often do you masturbate” type of question-with-no-acceptable-answer.

Heck, if this is the worst type of lie I get told by this administration I’ll be pretty happy with that.

Now, if they WERE trying to buy the seat, then I’m pissed. It would have to be “bribe” instead of “horse trading” though. Like Fitzgerald said, interests for interests is how politics work, and its not ideal but its also far from condmenable.

More of the same from the media.