Waldo Jaquith

Absolutely–how dare you imply that Cuccinelli was making up a quote:

“We gladly welcome President Obama to the 5th District as he campaigns on behalf of his favorite Congressman, Tom Perriello. His visit will further solidify the idea in the minds of voters that Congressman Perriello has been nothing more than a lap dog for the job killing Obama-Pelosi agenda.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/perriello-obama-virginia-campaign-visit.html

Oh, wait. That was Hurt he was quoting. Same difference, no?

Though seriously, the Washington Post did say this yesterday: “Perriello, a freshman Democrat with a reputation as a progressive, is a favorite of the Obama White House. This will be the first time Obama has held a rally for a solo House member, and Democratic officials hope it will boost Perriello’s effort to turn out the first-time voters who backed him when Obama was at the top of the ticket in 2008.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102603578.html

A favorite? Probably one of many, at least in the eyes of WaPo. The favorite? A major stretch, and maybe Obama said it, but I doubt it.

Posted by Kaveh on 27 October 2010 @ 7pm

Yeah, that’s a pretty huge leap, going from the Post asserting that he’s a favorite of the White House to claiming that the president himself says that Perriello is the congressman that he likes the most. But as a origin story, it seems plausible!

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 27 October 2010 @ 8pm

The Cucoo bird is so used to having Fox News as a Republican mouth-piece that he assumes that mainstream media like the Post is a Democratic mouth-piece and cannot distinguish between two separate entities… he’s wrong, but that is simply par for the course. How is his mistake different than his whole tenure in office?

Posted by Scott Nolan on 28 October 2010 @ 7am

Maybe not his favorite, but now Jon Stewart knows about Perriello. I’d be surprised that the President would ever point to one Congressman as his favorite, but his actions sure do show a great appreciation for Perriello’s efforts.

Posted by tomr on 28 October 2010 @ 8am

Mr. Obama certainly has a busy weekend. First he’ll try to save his favorite congressman, then he’s off to Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Illinois, before his final stop in Ohio to try to save the governor there.

I hope he’ll have time to watch C-Span, and see some of Jon Stewart’s “OMFG, how do we get the HOPE and CHANGE train back on the rails” rally.

Whether Obama ever called Perriello his favorite or not, 5th District voters will get a heavy dose of a brand new Hurt ad on Sunday and Monday, showing Obama and his boy Tom arm in arm.

Posted by I.Publius on 28 October 2010 @ 9am

Wow, so Cuccinelli just totally made this up. An apparent whole-cloth fabrication.

Lame.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 October 2010 @ 9pm

Talk about an echo chamber. You guys are hilarious! How many House members got last-minute visits from the President solely to boost their individual campaigns? One–Perriello. You would be so lucky as to have anything said on this site have as much validity as Cuccinelli’s observation.

Posted by HMB on 3 November 2010 @ 5pm

The question isn’t whether the president is fond of Tom Perriello. The question is whether the president said, in fact, that Perriello is his favorite congressman, as Cuccinelli said. Cuccinelli didn’t make an “observation”—he quoted the president saying something that he never said. That’s not astute—that’s a lie.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 3 November 2010 @ 9pm

Those are rather strong words. How do you know it is a lie? Neither you nor any of the others commenting here present any evidence in support of such a charge (not to mention how silly it is for someone to get so bent out of shape over such a relatively benign statement in campaign literature). On the other hand, as I have pointed out, the President’s visit suggests that Perriello may indeed be Obama’s favorite member of the House. The other Presidential visits referenced in another comment were for Senate and gubernatorial races with far greater strategic importance for 2012.

Posted by HMB on 3 November 2010 @ 10pm

Those are rather strong words. How do you know it is a lie?

Either the president said it or he didn’t. There is nothing on the record to show that he did, and the AG has provided no evidence to support it. At best Cuccinelli was misled, at worst he made it up.

On the other hand, as I have pointed out, the President’s visit suggests that Perriello may indeed be Obama’s favorite member of the House.

That’s irrelevant to the question at hand.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 4 November 2010 @ 8am

I understand your point, and had I written the letter, I would not have made the claim in the absence of evidence to support it. But the fact remains that we don’t know if the letter writer (Cuccinelli or a GOP staff member) had evidence regarding whether the President made the statement. If the statement is a lie, as you assert, the remedy would be for Mr. Perriello to sue for libel. If he did sue, he would have the burden of proving that Mr. Cuccinelli acted with reckless or actual conscious disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. Based on the forecast of evidence appearing on this blog, the suit would not see the inside of a courtroom. The relevant point is that the person making the claim that the statemet is false must prove it to be so.

Let me ask you this: What if the letter had made a more typical assertion such as “Tom Perriello supports higher taxes.” Would you be as upset about that? Would you consider that “a lie” or just the kind of distortion commonly found in campaign literature?

Posted by HMB on 4 November 2010 @ 3pm

Based on the forecast of evidence appearing on this blog, the suit would not see the inside of a courtroom. The relevant point is that the person making the claim that the statemet is false must prove it to be so.

This is a blog, not a court of law—the standards of a court are irrelevant. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is, of course, upon the speaker.

Let me ask you this: What if the letter had made a more typical assertion such as “Tom Perriello supports higher taxes.” Would you be as upset about that? Would you consider that “a lie” or just the kind of distortion commonly found in campaign literature?

I wouldn’t care in the least. Our attorney general said the the president stated something that there is zero evidence that he ever stated. That’s a pretty galling act.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 4 November 2010 @ 4pm