 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
December 16, 2008
REMEMBER ROBERT LUSKIN?.... Following up on the last item, let's take another quick look at the Wall Street Journal piece, questioning Barack Obama's decision to abide by the wishes of Patrick Fitzgerald and federal investigators in the Blagojevich case.
Now, we know the reporting in the piece left much to be desired, but let's also pause to appreciate the irony of this criticism from Robert Luskin. The WSJ notes that Luskin knows Fitzgerald well. What the article neglected to mention is why they know each other -- Luskin was Karl Rove's attorney when Fitzgerald was investigating the Valerie Plame case. Remember this?
Yes, Mr. Luskin, please tell us again how awful it is when prominent political figures stoop to using a "fig leaf" to avoid answering questions. You are the expert on the subject. At the risk of stepping on Atrios' toes, I'm nominating this guy for Wanker of the Day. Update: An alert reader reminded me that Luskin knows full well that one is not supposed to talk about an ongoing investigation because Rove did exactly that, to the consternation of federal investigators. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
Comments
Ahhh.... those sternly worded letters. I'm going to miss them. NOT! It is so much worse than that. After explaining that Fitzgerald wants to see justice done--ie get the truth without it being colored by disclosures from the Obama camp- Luskin ascribes a venal purpose to Obama "going along with the request of the GOVERNMENT'S LAWYER" The idea that the newly elected president--a lawyer himself- just might adhere to the request of his country's lawyer and want to see justice done is apparantly alien to somebody who would represent Karl Rove. Go figure. Posted by: terry on December 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINKThey are using the prosecutor as a "fig leaf" Luskin Karl Rove doesn't surprise me by suggesting Obama should just say everything on day one. After all, he's all about politics. But a lawyer saying this is bizarre - especially after pointing out what the criticism would be if he did eschew Fitzgerald's request. Posted by: Danp on December 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKGood work, Mr. Benen! It seems to me that this is very poor journalism from the WSJ. To merely say that Luskin 'knows Mr. Fitzgerald well' is clearly hiding a relevant fact from readers. It's amazing that helping a prosecutor with his prosecution can be seen as covering something up. Posted by: TG Chicago on December 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKJust because it's an ironic observation, and even though the Journal was shoddy, doesn't mean that Luskin's observation still isn't true. I mean, Blago's been under some sort of investigation for two years now, and is already lawyered up. As if he's not already tailoring his story. Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKI can assure you that Luskin and Rove would have something to say about Obama if he released information over the objection of the special prosecutor. Something like, "LOOK, LOOK!!!! Obama is a close colleague of the governor and is working to undermine the special prosecutor." I hope these guys will slowly disappear and we'll get away from all spin all the time to a fact based life. Posted by: Cycledoc on December 16, 2008 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINKTo say "They could just as easily have decided that assuring the public about their actions is more important than acceding to the prosecutor's request." - "just as easily" - is a sign of complete disrespect for Mr. Fitzgerald and his office. I'd like to see Luskin accelerated rather quickly to about 0.999999 c so the "Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction" made him as thin as a pancake, and then crash him into Jupiter's red spot. (Inside physics joke, sorry, from the Prosecutor's name.) Posted by: Neil B ☺ on December 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK
They could just as easily have decided that assuring the public about their actions is more important than acceding to the prosecutor's request. -- Luskin Subtext: "And I wish they *had*; that's what we'd have done. And, boy, could I have gone to town condemning them, then... Why does Obama have to be so damned different? Why does he have to be so law-abiding??? Why does he refuse to make any missteps that I could nail him for?" Posted by: exlibra on December 16, 2008 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
