Blagojevich Threatened Tribune, Too
Add to enemy of a free press to incarcerated Illinois Governor Rod Bagojevich’s sins.
On Sept. 29, a Chicago Tribune editorial ripped Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich for his “notorious pay-to-play politics” and said the legislature should investigate whether to impeach him. Five weeks later, Blagojevich told a deputy governor that they should target some of the paper’s editorial page editors by telling Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell to “get rid of those people. . . . Fire those [expletives].”
This, according to a criminal complaint unveiled yesterday, was no idle threat. According to secretly recorded phone conversations, the Democratic governor had his deputies convey a threat that Blagojevich would block the Tribune’s effort to sell the Chicago Cubs unless certain staffers were dismissed. An aide to the governor told him a Tribune financial adviser suggested that changes would be made at the editorial page. But the journalist targeted by Blagojevich, Deputy Editorial Page Editor John P. McCormick, was not fired.
As media analysts question the continuing relevance of newspapers, prosecutors are charging Blagojevich in an extraordinary scheme to silence critics at the state’s largest paper — even as they were urging editors not to undermine the investigation with premature disclosures.
As it is, Blagojevich is likely going to spend a long time in jail and the Tribune is going bankrupt.
And yet we see nods of approval from the left when Fox gets left out of Obama news conferences.
He’s not incarcerated–he posted bond yesterday afternoon and returned to his home yesterday @ 2:30pm: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1323346,CST-NWS-scene10.article
How is this in any way related? Blagojevich was clearly acting criminally if he was looking to get editors fired. Obama merely does not call on Fox News reporters at a news conference. (Actually, he has–but I know that would destroy your fantasy, Bitsy.) Once again desperately trying to find links where there aren’t any.
Moreover, wasn’t the right nodding approvingly when Helen Thomas was unceremoniously removed from her front-row spot in the WH press room and not called upon either?
My, what a short memory you have, Bitsy.
I should think this rather obvious.
But note that in both cases, news coverage the pol doesn’t like gets squashed.
Yep. And the left was breathinga sigh of relief, too. In that case, we’d not talking about news coverage, just grandstanding, as even a lot of leftists mentioned. But frankly, that you can’t tell the difference between the two situations speaks volumes to my conclusion about you from the other day.
This is a cop out. If it was so obvious, no one would’ve needed to raise the question.
OK… so how is this any different at any point in any presidential administration? In fact, your boy G-Dub has been much more selective and insular about whom he chooses to talk to and call on. People living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, Bitsy.
Once again, another unsupported assertion that leaves everyone wondering what the heck you are talking about. Oh, wait, lemme guess: it’s “obvious,” right?
Actually, I’m the one who’s making the distinction between the two here. You are the one trying to conflate Blogojevich’s behavior trying to get editors fired and Obama not calling on Faux News at news conferences, then trying to weasel out of it by saying, well, “it’s obvious.”
Aww, I’m crushed. Eheu! Eheu! (Eric beats his breasts, gnashes his teeth.)
The question is an attempt to duck the obvious.
I suppose you ahve some specific examples? Try to keep to the real ones.
Let’s examine this.
Who on the left complained when she got pushed aside? Was it nearly as loudly as some of the other windmills the left tilts at? No?
Sorry, but the facts don’t mesh with your charge.
Careful Eric, Itsy Bitsy will declare that he has achieved a crushing victory over you if you are not careful…
So let me see if I get your “logic” straight. You make an unsupported, opaque assertion about some topic as “obvious.” Person X asks you to be a bit more clear, as it isn’t “obvious” what you mean. You reply that Person X’s question asking for clarification is itself an attempt avoid having the question clarified, so you refuse to clarify your own statement?
Look, you’re the one who implied that there was some sort of similarity between Blagojevich’s criminal attempt at getting editors from the Trib fired and Obama not calling on Fox News reporters at press conferences. I merely asked you come out and state what that similarity was instead of hiding behind innuendo–but I’m suddenly the bad guy? I’m the one preventing you from actually owning your own statements? Please. Just own your words for once and come out and state the obvious. Or is that beneath you?
How old are you, Eric?
Or is the question, how mature?