Watch Wolf Blitzer fall off his chair.
David Edwards posted the complete video here earlier today, but in case you didn’t watch it, or didn’t watch it all the way to the end, it’s worth reviewing now. If only for the last moment when Blitzer finally runs out of clues…entirely…
Here’s the transcript of those last few moments courtesy of Past Peak:
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff. Not one. Not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican, every person under investigation is a Republican, every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money, and we’ve looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that’s true.
BLITZER: [Stammering] But through various Abramoff-related organizations, and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That’s not true either. There’s no evidence for that either, there’s no evidence…
BLITZER: What about Senator, what about, what about, what about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They’re not agents of Jack Abramoff. There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They’re scared. They should be scared. They haven’t told the truth, and they have misled the American people, and now it appears they’re stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
BLITZER: [Long pause, apparently getting direction in his earpiece] [Sigh] Unfortunately, we, uh, Mr. Chairman, we’ve got to leave it right there.
Any questions?
Dorgan has worked with indian tribes for years and long before there was Jack Abramoff.
Both he and McCain never received personal money. Everyone else might have taken money from personal charities or to their campaign, but what makes it matter is whether they worked with those companies before or whether it was through Abramoff.
Doug E.
Awooooooooooo The Said The WereWOLF (blitzer) of CNN, the Clueless News Network.
As HOWARD DEAN Ripped wolf blitzer . . . A BRAND NEW ASSHOLE !!!
This Is an EXAMPLE of How Democrats HAVE TO DO BUSINESS in the FUTURE.
Doug, check the other thread on Dems like Harris Miller Diebold thread. Answered you 🙂
J.
By the way everyone should watch Harry Reid like a hawk…..
Reid’s people held funraisers in Abramoff office
Public Campaign states that if your staff or wife takes the money, that is the same as the senator taking the money
Regardless of what good causes a politican "stands" for, if they put their hand in the cookie jar too, they need to reveal it and take responsibility.
Doug E.
Okay I’m confused. Did no Hillary clinton say she was returning abramoff’s funds?
On the other hand he does appear to be right according to the FEC filings:
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp
It seems to me there is a big difference between taking money from Abramoff himself, and taking it from tribes he may have counseled to give it. There is a big difference between accepting support with the express understanding it buys action, and accepting it with the willingness to hear the donors’ concerns. It doesn’t appear that any democrats did business with Abramoff, only that the Republicans and the media wish to make it seem that way.
This shit should be slapped down by truth. I’m happy Dean slapped it down on CNN. Goofy as anyone finds Blitzer, I don’t really see any other civilized media interviewers any more challenging in terms of the efficacy of truth against sensationalistic insinuation.
The media in general and a few in particular want so bad for this scandal to be bi-partisan. It makes their job a lot easier and they don’t risk alienating their friends. It’s kinda disgusting.
There’s a truly great reduction of the claims by the republicans and democrats here:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3216
In a nutshell, democrats go no direct funds from Abramhoff but they did get about 50% as much as the republicans from Jack’s clients. The trouble is that both sides are playing a game here. The republicans want to say that on the one hand the Dems took dirty money too, and oh by the way the indirect money we took did not buy any influence and we wont give it back. The democrats are inflating the figure of monies to Republicans by folding in the Indirect contributions from Jack’s clients into the total while ignoring their own. That’s obviously tactically a bad idea.
So howard dean is the only one focusing on the real difference. Jack only gave to Republicans. Forget about those indirect monies.
When elected officials are discovered with their hand in the cookie jar, they should pull back a stump.
WELCOME TO THE CYBER-IRON-CURTAIN .
W just signed a bill which — in one of those little-noticed provisions unrelated to the main thrust of the law — makes it illegal for any anonymous or pseudonymous writer to use the internet to "annoy" someone.
That’s the wording: Annoy.
Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
sorry to OT and repeat myself but … Mickey Mouse Esq. (hope I didn’t ANNOY anybody ,2 years without soap is a long time to be sure to be sure !)
Yeah, and get all the damn facts and figures out there for everyone to see, somebody (DNC…). Obviously the "media" isn’t going to do it for us.
The REAL money isn’t in these open donations anyway — it’s in the MILLIONS funnelled through BOGUS "charities" and other front operations that laundered the Native Casino Gambling funds Abramoff got his hands on, into REPUBLICAN campaigns, PACs, and assorted pay-to-play schemes.
Wolf left his jaw totally exposed to that right hook… Lazy, distracted, or thought he’d get away with it, I guess. Shows one vital lesson in these propaganda wars: Come ARMED WITH THE TRUTH, and with FACTS. Do your homework, and you can keep knocking these press prostitutes for a loop, and INFORM the American public for free as a bonus.
Howard Dean is one reason that I left the Democrats. Not because of him. I think he’s great (my band sent him a CD and we got a signed thank you from him) and I supported his campaign from the first time I saw him in the South Carolina debate in April ’03 (in which the only other candidates of the field of nine that interested me at all were Kucinich and Sharpton). I left the Democrats because of the hatchet job the DNC did on him. He was a candidate who spoke candidly, truthfully and he rocked a boat that desperately needed rocking. The Democrats’ unwillingness to get behind the shakeup train that Dean would have brought implicated the entire party in their desire to maintain the status quo. It was politics at its worst. Dean’s best quality is his ability to "gaffe" – what is a gaffe, anyway? It’s an uncomfortable truth which needs to be told. Although he has disappointed me in some things since he got the DNC chairship, it is great to see him take on the media establishment. It seems pretty obvious from the transcript excerpt that the media wants to shut him up (and also that they are entirely willing to forward lies for their corporate Republican masters.) Liberal media, my ass.
This just shows how silly the concept of "fair and balanced" is in modern TV journalism. With Fox, it’s just a damn lie. With CNN, they at least try to be fair, but when their "both sides do it, so let’s play devil’s advocate and demonstrate that" approach fails, they have nowhere else to turn.
Way to go, Howard.
# 10 (to be annoying is now illegal)
#12 (an HD gaffe is an uncomfortable truth)
Sounds like Howard Dean may be in jeopardy if he wants to blog as some might find his uncomfortable truths annoying.
According to an online dictionary, to annoy someone is a lesser affront than to irritate them. Link to definition It is now a CRIME to write something in a blog that "tries one’s patience?" As a former prosecutor, I can’t imagine taking a case under this law. Even if the blogger was outrageous, I think the underlying law won’t withstand challenge.
I would hope the ACLU steps in immediately to seek a declaratory ruling as to the constitutionality of this law. It clearly impinges upon free speech. It is vague. "Annoyance" is a subjective, not an objective standard, i.e. it is in the eye of the beholder. It would be difficult to claim a societal standard of annoyance, although I believe progressives can tolerate a lot more annoyance than can conservatives… and you know what that will lead to!
Dean seems to be one of the few Dems who is willing to challenge the establishment at least somewhat. And I guess that’s what makes him an anomaly in politics today. Most politicians, it seems, are nothing if not tied in with and dedicated to the furtherance of the establishment. I guess Clinton and Blair taught their respective "opposition" parties that their best route to power was by grabbing on to the Corporatist coatails.
I saw a pundit comment the other day that when economic times are good, the middle class identifies with the upper class. When they are bad, the middle class identifies with the lower class, which is good for opposition politics.
Today, the economy has worked a miracle. It is bad and good at the same time. That is, the rich are having a party, while the poor and lower middle class continue to struggle harder for traction. Really, what we see today is just what has been going on in the economy since Reagan.
But I think it’s a little more clear now. Fat times for the rich, bad times for the poor. Because the economic picture is ambiguous, the middle class is split in its identification, with just enough apparently identifying with the Republicans to keep them in power, despite endless disasters, election cheating, out of control corruption, etc., etc..
Abramoff alive and kicking
"…. disgraced Abramoff from continuing to work with Norquist and Rove to smear Dorgan and other Democratic senators, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In fact, Abramoff may be violating his plea agreement by continuing to work behind the scenes with GOP operatives like Norquist and Rove to distort the record on Abramoff’s lobbying and illegal funding activities for Republican congressional office holders."
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
According to the blog above Blitzer said it was ‘unfortunate’ he had to leave the discussion at that point. I don’t know why he said it was unfortunate. It seems to me that Gov. Dean ended it rather neatly and fortunately just where it should be ended. That is, unless you want to say it’s ended more perfectly at the point when all the Republicans are in jail and their appeals have all been dismissed.
BLITZER: [Long pause, apparently getting direction in his earpiece…apparently flustered that his biased questioning had no results] [Sigh] Unfortunately, we, uh, Mr. Chairman, we’ve got to leave it right there. You’re not falling for my trying to trap you, like I only do to Democrats.
THE BIG LIE…
"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we’ve looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that’s true." —DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Normally, we’d suggest that Dr. Dean think before he speaks, but that would spoil all the fun. His statement certainly rings true if one doesn’t count the 40 Democrat senators who have in fact taken money from Jack Abramoff. Among the Abramoff beneficiaries are Demos Joseph Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Byron Dorgan (at least $79,000), John Kerry (at least $98,000), Pat Leahy, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer, who already has what may well be the largest campaign war chest in Washington.
True to form, many Democrat beneficiaries, like Minority Leader Harry Reid, have no intention of returning the money they received from Abramoff because they maintain that the contributions were perfectly legal. Apparently, the only dirty money is that which Abramoff gave to Republicans.
—-The Patriot