by Frank James
Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary, must know something we don't.
In a column today in which he urges Sen. John McCain to unmask Sen. Barack Obama in tonight's final presidential debate, he insinuates that Obama's rise in Illinois and national politics must've come from underhanded political chicanery, call it Obamacanery.
(Cue the horror-movie music.) He writes:
Obama's first election was described recently by Martin Fletcher, a foreign correspondent for NBC News, in the British newspaper The Times (not on NBC): "Mr Obama won a seat in the state senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified." Hmm.
Obama's election to the U.S. Senate was even more curious, as described by Gerard Baker in the Irish Independent: "Two exquisitely timed divorces smoothed the way.
"In the Democratic primary, he was a long shot. But a month before the election, his main opponent, Blair Hull, a wealthy Chicago futures trader, was forced to publish divorce papers that revealed, among other charming details, his wife's claim that he had once threatened to kill her.
"In the general election, lightning struck again. His opponent, the engaging Jack Ryan, had run a campaign as a different sort of Republican. But a few months before the election, his divorce papers revealed that, while he might have been a different sort of Republican, he was from precisely the same stable of Obama political opponents. He had, it turned out, once tried to force his former wife to go with him to sex clubs in Paris."
Was Obama really the innocent beneficiary of these rare events? Anything is possible. But when a fellow deals himself two royal flushes in a row, the other players are entitled to be suspicious. Moreover, when a politician is suspected of hypocrisy, the Washington press corps usually is supercharged in its efforts to prove their suspicions. But despite the fact that these bare outlines of Obama's elections are pregnant with the implications that he has gained every office he has sought so far by underhanded and sordid means -- while posing as a Gary Cooper-like idealist in a corrupt political world -- the American media have let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.
(End the the horror-movie music.)
WHAT?
All right, let's take these each in series. First, Obama did clear the field for himself in his first state senate race in just the way Blankley describes. But how can Blankley really have a problem with that? While the Times (of London) reporter calls it "unorthodox" such challenges are as American as the Cubs swooning in the fall.
Indeed, it's exactly the same technique Republicans are using to fight what they consider voter fraud. You check to see if the names on your opponent's nomination petitions or voter registrations are valid. If they're not, you get them tossed.
That's legal. And orthodox. Is Blankley arguing that illegitimate signatures should have been allowed to be counted on the petitions of Obama's opponents? If so, he might want to talk to the rest of his party.
The Hull implosion. Hull troubles weren't created by Obama. They weren't even created by the Chicago Tribune which first reported in February 2004 that his ex-wife filed an order of protection against him, raising the specter of domestic violence. They were created by Hull who decided to run in the Democratic Senate primary that year despite knowing intimately what was in his background.
After the Tribune reported on the protection order, it was off to the races. Journalists wanted to know what exactly was in the sealed divorce file because the public had the right to know. His Democratic opponents Dan Hynes and Maria Pappas, mentioned it during a radio debate. A Chicago Tribune story about the debate doesn't mention Obama saying anything about it. Not that he didn't. But if he did it wasn't reported.
Anyway, we hounded Hull so much, resistance was futile. He and his wife agreed to unseal the divorce file in which she referred to him as "a violent man." Hull was history after that.
The Ryan implosion. What a nice guy Jack Ryan was. And he had really excellent teeth. Got to meet him a few times when he was contemplating his Senate run. He visited our Washington newsroom and sent us Christmas cards afterwards.
What Blankley doesn't mention, because it would have ruined his thesis, is that it was Ryan's Republican opponents who first raised the embarrassing divorce.
Here's an lengthy snippet from a story in the Chicago Tribune, March 4, 2004.
Seeking to capitalize on the controversy that has wounded the campaign of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Blair Hull, Republican candidates in their Senate primary battle on Wednesday called on GOP contender Jack Ryan to unseal his complete 1999 divorce file from actress Jeri Ryan.
During the first televised statewide debate of the primary season, the Republican candidates said Ryan should disclose all files regarding his divorce from his ex-wife before the March 16 primary so, if he wins, he won't hurt the Republican Party's chances of winning the seat in November."We understand his divorce is sealed, much like Blair Hull's, and we understand that is being looked at," candidate John Borling, a retired Air Force general, said during an hourlong debate carried live in Chicago on WTTW-Ch. 11. "Better to come out now than later."
Officials for Ryan, who did not attend the debate because he was at a fundraiser in the suburbs, said all of the files pertaining to the divorce, which was filed in California, are available to the public. But Ryan's campaign manager Jason Miller said files dealing with custody of the couple's son are sealed.
Illinois Sen. Steve Rauschenberger of Elgin, also a candidate, said Ryan should expect scrutiny of his private life if he wants to run for public office.
"If he wants to represent my party, I think he has to understand the kind of scrutiny Blair Hull underwent will be inflicted upon the Republican candidate that comes out of this primary process," Rauschenberger said. "Having a candidate who is not tested, who's not trusted, who's not been in public office, who's not been through the electoral process before is what puts our party at risk."
Here's another Chicago Tribune story from March 12, 2004:
Struggling to bring down the Republican U.S. Senate campaign of front-runner Jack Ryan, a rival's operative Thursday offered what he said were embarrassing details he gleaned from Ryan's closed divorce file but provided no substantiation for his claims.
Rod McCulloch, who had served as campaign manager for GOP contender John Borling, said in a statement he believed his actions were needed to force Ryan to unseal portions of the court file of his 1999 divorce from actress Jeri Ryan.Jack Ryan on Thursday continued to insist that any documents under seal were put there only to protect the couple's 9-year-old son. Campaigning in the western suburbs, Ryan said McCulloch was peddling "rumors" and he would not dignify them with a response.
With Ryan holding a commanding lead in polls just days away from Tuesday's primary, opponents have used the divorce-file issue to insinuate Ryan has something to hide that could hurt Republican efforts to keep the Senate seat, which is being vacated by one-term GOP incumbent Peter Fitzgerald.
"When you're a front-runner, people always come after you," Ryan said. "So I understand that the front-runner gets hit a lot and I'd rather be a front-runner than not."
Meanwhile, we at the Chicago Tribune are not about to allow Blankley give credit to Obama for something we did. It was the Tribune and WLS-TV that sued to get the custody documents related to the divorce unsealed because we believe the public has the right to know about the character, the trustworthiness of political candidates. Just stands to reason.
Here's another Chicago Tribune story excerpt, dated June 22, 2004:
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Peoria) said Ryan needs to quit the campaign for the good of himself, his family and his party.
Ryan said he had no plans to withdraw.
"My intention is to stay in the race," he said.
Earlier Monday, former Gov. Jim Edgar said he had talked to Ryan about the documents and was satisfied that they contained nothing "monumental" and "we ought to move on."
But after the documents were released, an aide said Edgar had not been given a full description of what was in the divorce files.
U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), who is retiring and whom Ryan is hoping to replace, remained supportive of Ryan.
"Divorce cases and child custody cases are by nature acrimonious, and allegations on all sides are often unreliable or sensationalized. The Jack Ryan that I know very well is a good and decent man," Fitzgerald said. "He has a lifetime of achievement and accomplishment and good works, and I support him and continue to support him with enthusiasm and confidence."
Democrat Barack Obama, Ryan's opponent in the U.S. Senate race, did not return calls for comment Monday night.
Jeri Lynn Ryan charged during a custody hearing that Ryan took her on surprise trips to New Orleans, New York and Paris in 1998 and that he insisted she go to sex clubs with him on each trip.
She said that after going out to dinner with Ryan in New York, he demanded that she go to a club with him.
"It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling," she said. She said Ryan asked her to perform a sexual act while others watched, and she refused.
She said they left and Ryan apologized to her and said it was out of his system. But then, she said, he took her to Paris and again took her to a sex club.
She said she cried and became physically ill at the club, and her husband got angry with her. She said she could never get over that incident.
"I did arrange romantic getaways for us, but that did not include the type of activity she described," Ryan said in the papers.
Ryan had told Republican party officials in Illinois that there was nothing that would embarrass the party in the divorce documents. He didn't tell them the truth. That by itself was telling, no?
So it's pretty clear. Blankley's insinuations are, from what was reported at the time about those Illinois races, basically groundless.
If this is representative of the level of advice McCain is getting from Washington's Republican worthies, the senator is in deepr trouble than many of us thought.
Comments
In other words, in the words of an avid McCain woman supporter, "ok, how do we beat the b (rhymes with itch)?" That was asked of McCain at one of his primary rallies when it was expected that Hillary would be the Dem nominee. Good ole, honest, decent, meek, humble John chuckled a little bit and later said he respected Hillary. The first thing out of a snakes mouth is "I deeply respect and admire so and so, but...." So who will do the unmasking tonight? Will Obama meekly and mildly ask McCain how it felt to pal around with G Gordon Libby, a convicted felon? How much he lost gambling? How much he won gambling? Did he ever consider treatment like Bill Bennett got for his gambling addiction? How he was able to finish almost last in his Navy academy class and get into pilot training (did it help to have an Admiral dad?) Those question are important, just like Obama's shooting billiards with Bill Ayers on their yacht in Lake Michigan after Bears games. It's all relevant to getting the country inspired to move forward, and ending the war. So let's hope good ole humble John does a lot of unmasking. But so help me if he mentions the word surge, I'll puke.
Posted by: Geep | October 15, 2008 10:47 AM
I'm afraid Tony has the wrong Martin Fletcher. The Guardian writer is not the NBC foreign correspondent, a friend of mine who's based in Tel Aviv, and has never written about US domestic politics.
Posted by: tom ackerman | October 15, 2008 10:58 AM
tony blankley doesn't get picked on enough. That said this is interesting:
"First, Obama did clear the field for himself in his first state senate race in just the way Blankley describes. But how can Blankley really have a problem with that? While the Times (of London) reporter calls it "unorthodox" such challenges are as American as the Cubs swooning in the fall."
So you are saying Chicago politics as usual? obama's clearing the field involved lots money and lawyer time. obama was able to out spend his primary opponents. Not out campaign them, not win the primary, simply out spend and out lawyer them and force them out of the primary.
First question is where did the money come from that allowed obama to out lawyer his primary opponents and get them removed from the ballots? First answer: rezko, ayers, wright.
Change you can hope in.
Posted by: hadenough | October 15, 2008 11:05 AM
T.B.;
Another Rovian slime bag destined for the trash bin of history.
Posted by: C.Hussein.Morris | October 15, 2008 11:07 AM
Of COURSE Obama wasn't innocent. After all, Obama is a Muslim terrorist, born outside the United States and programmed from birth to destroy us all! He launched a brilliantly evil (that's pronounced "EEEEE-ville") plan to inundate Alice Palmer's petitions with false signatures, then challenge them and force her off the ticket. He surreptitiously laced Blair Hull's morning coffee with mind-controlling drugs that caused him -- ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY AGAINST HULL'S WILL, you understand -- to threaten his wife, knowing full well that Mrs. Hull would selfishly put her own interests of survival before those of her poor husband's political future (BAD Mrs. Hull! Bad, Bad!!). Likewise, Obama financed a trip to Paris for Jack Ryan and (like he did with Blair Hull) slipped drugs into poor innocent Ryan, getting him all hopped up on that Viagura stuff, so that he was not in control of his sexual impulses! He had already foreseen enough to pack directions and information regarding the sex club into Ryan's luggage, to LURE him there! Yes! It was ALL OBAMA's Master Plan (note the caps -- we're talking SERIOUS Master Planning here!) to eliminate his rivals. Machiavelli would be so proud!
Posted by: Op109 | October 15, 2008 11:13 AM
I also heard Obama caused 9/11 which was foreshadowed by Ayers. He also caused instability in Iraq thus requiring the surge, by working with Odinga of Kenya in secret to train insurgents. Also, he was directly involved in the WTC bombings in the 90s. In addition, he secretly negotiated higher priced oil with OPEC thus causing the rising cost of gasoline, negotiated by Rezko and Chalabi. And lest we forget, he hired ACORN to get bad mortgages for poor people from banks. All of this so he could have a chance at the presidency. And don't even get me started on his sabotaging of the DOW by sending fake correspondence appearing to come from Bernanke to stock brokers about how the economy is bad and they should all start behaving erratically.
Posted by: Joe | October 15, 2008 11:15 AM
Nice revisionism there, Swampsters. Fact is, the Tribune and the rest of the Chicago media were absolutely, completely in the tank for Obama in his Senate run. They knew that pushing hard for Hull to release files from a contentious divorce would only benefit Obama in that primary - no matter who was pushing the story (and Obama's camp was pushing the Hull story hard - Ryan never stood a chance in the general). The other shocking omission from this lame blog is that neither the Tribune nor any Illinois media source referenced Obama's incredibly poor judgment in choosing a spiritual mentor (Wright) or a political patron (Rezko). Would any of this have mattered in 2004 to Illinois voters? Hard to say, because the media did not do its job and report on it. But what the media has done quite effectively is to have a majority of American questioning their objectivity because of their absolutely fawning, biased coverage in favor of Obama. Add a healthy dollup of vicious personal attacks on any who would criticize him and we have the recipe for a tragically divided electorate. Not the kind of change I was hoping for. That's why I'm another Democrat for McCain/Palin. Oh, and to the haters from camp Obama, yes, I am a true Democrat - you hijacked my Party and I won't support its Thug-in-Chief.
Posted by: Bemused | October 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Hopefully tonight McSame will speak only of the issues relating to winning the Presidency...Not the hate, finger pointing, racist remarks and subliminal suggestions he and his little moose lady have been spewing...The polls show it has not helped and their numbers have gone down...Palin is in now way qualified and McSame does not have his Father around to pull the strings so I suggest he for once try to win on his own..
Posted by: Randollph | October 15, 2008 11:20 AM
What's so rewarding to see, and hilarious to watch, is Republicans whine about Obama's political skills.
The bottom line is that he's so much smarter and more organized than his opponents and they can't do anything about it. Anyone who thinks that Republicans wouldn't use any and all tactics to win an election are too dense to even bother with.
Sorry Republicans, but you are going to lose, and lose badly. You have nothing to offer except lame attacks based on false associations, rumor, and innuendo. McCain and Palin are just not up to the task, and the American people know it.
Posted by: Ed | October 15, 2008 11:35 AM
I would hardly compare Obama's unusual ousting of his competition because of names on a petition not complete (address etc) TO Acorn's fraudulent registering which have accounted for fraudulent voting>
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm
You miss the point of the (WAIT>START THE SCARY MUSIC) article from outside this country. They are pointing out that MSM is in the bag for Obama. Gosh, you take that more serious than all the outcries from AMERICANS SAYING THE SAME THING IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS (Rasmussen 5 to 1 media for Obama, 10 10 1 Media out to do Palin in).
DAMN, if I knew the foreign writers had that much influence over you guys, I would have written them and asked them to criticize MSM for not going after OBAMA WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF VIGOR that you did on getting this man to open up his divorce papers of all the things TO DO SOME QUESTIONING OF HIM ON Ayers, and BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY, and his wife and Ayers wife working at same law firm together, and sueing a bank under the CRA to force them to give unqualified a loan, best of all ...for enacting a BILL WITH DURBIN that has an added treat for Acorn-releasing them of any legal backlash for giving loans to those who they knew weren't qualified. GOSH, I COULD GO ON, but we aren't allowed to post letters as long as YOUR ARTICLE HERE ha.
Posted by: PRETEND I'M A FORIEGN PAPER | October 15, 2008 11:37 AM
Don't forget that when Obama was district superintent for all the madrassas in Madagascar, he, Ayers, Wright, Rezko, and Jesse Jackson conspired to cause the tsunami. Reductio ad absurdum, the best friend that logic ever produced.
Posted by: Geep | October 15, 2008 11:40 AM
Oh, and to the haters from camp Obama, yes, I am a true Democrat - you hijacked my Party and I won't support its Thug-in-Chief.
Posted by: Bemused | October 15, 2008 11:16 AM
You come on here multiple times a day to post strictly negative comments against Obama. You never say why McCain is a better option, you never talk about McCain's policies, it's always attacks on Obama.
You are the hater. You are consumed by your passionate hate for Obama. It's the only subject you ever mention.
When some day you wake up and see how you have let your raw emotions twist your reason, we will happily welcome you back to the Democratic Party. In the mean time enjoy your new friends in the hard right McCain base. Have a nice day! Peace and Love!
Posted by: Liz | October 15, 2008 12:01 PM
Bottom line: If Republicans though Jack Ryan was better than Obama they could have and would have voted for him. But the Right Wing Weirdos don't like divorce and sexcapades.
Posted by: Susan W | October 15, 2008 12:29 PM
Spin it away. Sure. But nothing Mr. Blankeley said was far-fetched in the least. He's not just making it up or grasping at straws to prove anything here. It's your explanation I find to be incredulous here, Mr. James. Somehow, all of Obama's competitors fall away, leaving him unscathed with a clear path to the office he seeks, and it has nothing to do with him? Please, spare us. I agree with a previous poster who said that Obama has demonstrated awesome political skills. But yet, again we run into the contradiction: Obama is a keen, sharp, clever politician, well-schooled in Chicago-style political hardball. But yet we're supposed to believe that he is a hopey, changey kind of guy, who wouldn't hurt a fly, and will bring real change for the better to the American political system, because he's a saint who emerged unsoiled by the very system that he has mastered. Blankley's point is that people like you, Mr. James, have allowed him to wear that mask by perpetuating the lunacy that allows supporters to claim both sides of the paradox. And yet you continue, even with the elephant in the room, to argue that nothing is there. Amazing.
Posted by: JB | October 15, 2008 12:34 PM
"Obama sank the Titanic too, right?"
No, actually I think it was Al Gore who tried to take credit for that, along with inventing the internet and saving the planet.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | October 15, 2008 12:44 PM
Liz and Ed, great comments.
All the republicans can run on is hate and fear. Kinda sad. The truth will win out in the end. I hope.
Posted by: MR FACE | October 15, 2008 12:46 PM
"Obama sank the Titanic too, right?"
No, actually I think it was Al Gore who tried to take credit for that, along with inventing the internet and saving the planet.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | October 15, 2008 12:44 PM
If only McCain had invented the Blackberry earlier so that they could have warned the Captain.....
Posted by: RIM | October 15, 2008 1:01 PM
Michelle Obama- just recently found something to be proud of in this country... despite her enjoying all of the well deserved benefitsof her hard work and ability to get herself educated by some of the best universities in the world...ironically enough, benefits and hard work that the rest of "us" cannot aspire to.
Rev Wright - Racist preacher, "member of (Obama) family" for 20 years until it was politically expediant for Obama to push him under a similiar bus he had pushed his grandmother under..
Tony Rezko- Corrupt political fundraiser... who, out of the goodnes of his heart, gave the Obama's the real estate deal of a lifetime... with no strings attached(??) - imagine the luck!!
Wm Ayers- Domestic Terrorist...Owns the home where Obama launched his political career, served on two boards with Obama over 8 years. One of the boards, spent 10s of millions of dollars to had NO value to the pathetic Chicago Public school system...
So the question is this- when the Obamabots vote for the messiah-and overlook all of the above.. what exactly are you voting FOR?
Would you hire an accountant to do your taxes, that had the same background as this guy?
Posted by: heartburn | October 15, 2008 1:21 PM
Well, the Chicago LIBune did help pave the way for Barack Obama when it screamed in the biggest font ever used in this "newspaper's" history that Jack Ryan had a divorce bombshell! It began with the LIBune in Obama's hip pocket and continues with just about every media outlet in his his pocket since he entered the presidential race. Sheesh, even the Clinton campaign said the media was biased.
Posted by: John D | October 15, 2008 1:57 PM
Seems to me that if, in the Illinois State Senate race, the challenge to nominating signatures was successful, there was something "underhanded and sordid" about the collection of those signatures by his opponents. As for the implication that Obama may have engineered divorces for two of his U.S. Senate opponents - in the same race -
well, if he did it, this is one smart dude! Anybody with this kind of cunning is definitely ready to deal in Washington and with world leaders.
Posted by: JimBob | October 15, 2008 4:16 PM
"Sheesh, even the Clinton campaign said the media was biased.
Posted by: John D | October 15, 2008 1:57 PM"
True. The "Liberal" media had a decided right-wing bias against the President at the time of his impeachment. It was a feeding frenzy with reporters jumping on board to grab a piece of Bill. Not sure, however, that it was entirely undeserved, given that Clinton HAD engaged in behavior that was not terribly bright.
Posted by: Op109 | October 15, 2008 5:14 PM
Of course Obama didn't sink the Titanic, but there is no doubt that he'll sink the US with his socialist ideology and agenda if he ever gets elected.
Posted by: Ryan | October 15, 2008 7:49 PM