Is Obama lucky or protected

Worldview Item of the Day

Writing for the FoxNews Fox Forum weblog, Richard Miller suggests that Barack Obama is lucky that the Blagojevich scandal did not break before he was elected. I wonder if Obama is lucky or protected.

Frankly, even if the FBI had evidence on Blagojevich before the election, I doubt they would have broken the case before now simply because of the perceived impact such a revelation would have had on the election. Nevertheless, when one looks at the cast of characters involved, it is amazing to me that word of this investigation never leaked.

To be more precise, I am sure that it did leak and that it was not reported. We already know that the Chicago Tribune agreed not to publish a story on the ongoing probe at the request of the federal attorney. The question remains whether they agreed because of the perceived impact on the investigation or because of the perceived harm to Obama.

As I asked yesterday, when does the taint of one’s associates become one’s own? That’s a question I think the entire United States will be struggling with for the next four years.


This entry was posted in Ethics, Government, Journalism, Media, News, Politics, Society, Worldview Item of the Day and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Is Obama lucky or protected

  1. keba says:

    I vote for “protected” – I could pull out the old “if (insert conservative name here) had been involved with this, it would be all over the news”, or “what did he know and when did he know it?”, but I bet it would have been astounding the impact it would have had if leaked/reported on before the elections.

    Can we say “President Biden”? It’s going to be a long and interesting next four years any way you cut it.

  2. Keneil says:

    Politicians have been protected ever since I can remember. Even more so than today. They don’t get to high government positions by being nice guys. If you rattled any of our lawmakers closets something very smelly would fall out. None of them, regardless of party, are clean. The old “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas” holds true. During my lifetime they all have been scratching.

  3. dlhitzeman says:

    I think the thing that bothers me about all of this is that we tolerate and ignore this kind of thing as voters. We repeatedly elect scumbags into office then react in shock when they continue to be scumbags. If we stopped voting for these people, they would stop getting elected.

    American is a nation full of amazingly talented, capable, and ethical people. Too bad none of them are in elected office.

  4. Keneil says:

    Politics has always been a dirty business. An honest, ethical person doesn’t want to “lie down with the dogs” and most likely would never get elected. He/she would tell people the truth and that in itself would be political suicide. There would be no benefits therefore the money men would never support such a candidate. The public wouldn’t hear what they wanted to hear so would not vote for the person.

    Our first president was no saint in the ethical/honesty department. Today’s politics is just a rerun of an old story.

  5. dlhitzeman says:

    Why exactly does politics require dishonesty and money? Especially in this age of instant, almost free communications?

    We’re all flawed, in our own ways, but that does not mean we need our representatives to be immoral and unethical. I grant that such immorality and unethicality (I may have just made that word up) has often been a part of government, but that does not mean it always has to be.

    Further, how in the world does any of that apply to us? If we want ethical, moral people in our government, we are free to elect them. What is missing here is not moral, ethical people who could run, but people willing to be engaged enough to seek them out and vote for them.

    This may be a rerun, but it keeps playing because we keep watching.

  6. dlhitzeman says:

    Another thought: tolerance of immorality and lack of ethics is what just torpedoed the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. If the Republicans had run the country since 2000 with the integrity they first promised in 1994, Newt Gingrich would probably be president and Nancy Pelosi would be wearing (or not) a pink t-shirt protesting outside California recruiting stations.

  7. Keneil says:

    Americans give lip service to honsty and and morality in politicians but I think that many people like being able to finger point to something immoral or unethical that a politician has done. It gives them a feeling of superiority watching a powerful person bite the dust.

  8. dlhitzeman says:

    There is probably something to that idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *