Now That He’s Elected They Will Cover Scandals
Dec 14, 2008 Political
All during the campaign, from the primaries to the general election, Barack Obama was plagued with one scandal after another. The issues were legitimate and they were worthy of mention but they were dismissed by the left and its media wing as nothing. The idiots at the Daily Kos and assorted other Democratic mouthpieces, the very same groups who see scandal every time George Bush passes gas, remained silent or attributed the revelations to a right wing smear job. Of course, most of the “smear” came from Democrats during their primary.
Now that the media have ensured that Obama was elected they are now free to investigate scandals and they are, to their own amazement, finding that Obama had questionable associations. Imagine that? The governor of Illinois has been arrested in a scandal that might have long reaching arms and involve Jesse Jackson Jr as well as various members of Obama’s dream team and the media are suddenly interested in particulars (but not too many).
Rahm Emanuel is one such member and things are looking bleak for him. The so called heavy weight with the foul mouth and the mean temper has been reduced to hiding in his home and sneaking out to work because he is likely smack dab in the middle of the corruption.
When the story about Governor Blagojevich broke Barack Obama expressed his surprise and disappointment and indicated that this was the first that he had heard of the pay for play scheme. He assured us that none of his people were involved in the “sale” of his Senate seat. Looks like Obama might have been a bit premature in his assessment because it is now reported that Emanuel was recorded discussing the Senate seat.
As of now there is no indication that he was involved in any of the illegal activities. The recording of him has not been released so we don’t know what was discussed but we do know that the fact he was discussing the matter is contrary to what Obama said about the issue. Obama’s statement that he had not spoken or met with the governor has also been shown to be false because there are pictures of the two together.
Obama and his team are in the middle of a scandal and they have circled the wagons. They are not discussing much, if anything at all, with the media. The man who would bring transparency to government has closed ranks and is anything but transparent. Obama has also shown that he is not above politics as usual and that his rhetoric about reforming DC was nothing more than campaign promises he never intended to keep. How could he bring a new brand of politics when he is a Chicago politician and, as seen in the Blagojevich scandal, there is nothing new or clean bout that?
Perhaps Obama should have made Hillary Clinton his Chief of Staff. She has many years experience covering up scandals. Obama is a babe in the woods when compared to the Clintons.
Then again, it was the Clinton kind of politics that Obama promised to get rid of.
What a difference an election makes
Prior to the election Obama could murder babies in Times Square and the media would ignore it. They would rationalize his acts and the Daily Kos would attribute it to a Right Wing Conspiracy and blame it on Bush.
Well moonbats, Bush had nothing to do with this. All the scandal, all the attention, and all the dirt is on your guy. George Bush had nothing to do with it though I bet he is getting a bit of a chuckle out of seeing the anointed One get the third degree.
Bush probably finds some humor in the fact that when the Plame issue was being investigated the left was in full attack mode and convicting people before they ever had a trial. Despite his insistence that he was not aware of what had taken place and who “leaked” Plame’s so called secret identity, he was branded a liar. The left was calling for investigations day after day and Bush’s people were the object of ridicule.
Now, one of Obama’s people (at least) is right in the thick of an investigation and the left is not calling for him to be frog marched out in chains. They are not calling Obama a liar because he denied knowledge and they are defending him. Why, he is a victim here. Someone did something to make him look bad or bring discredit upon him. He is getting consideration that George Bush never got.
Did Obama know anything? Who knows? However, he came from the crooked politics of Illinois and he has used questionable tactics and had questionable associations in the past so it is not beyond reason that he is involved.
However, given Obama’s past, it is likely that he sent surrogates to do the dirty work so he could stay “clean” should the deification hit the cooling device.
How long will it be before Rahm Emanuel joins the many others located under the bus?
Regardless of what happens, this scandal will no doubt haunt and hinder Obama for some time to come.
Maybe if it gets bad enough he will show that Birth Certificate so that he does not have to take office…
Others:
ABC
Chicago Tribune
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: chicago, corruption, crime, denial, dirty politics, illinois, Obama, pay to play, rahm emanuel, scandal
Hillary Lies Again
Jan 4, 2008 Political
Hillary Clinton, fresh off a tail whipping at the expense of B. Hussein Obama and John Edwards, is not trying another make over that she hopes will resonate with the voters. Personally, I think she would have run if she never campaigned. People were in awe of her and she was the front runner when she entered. Then people got to meet her, listen to her and see her perform at the debates. That turned a lot of people off. Hillary is now retooling and it is a sure bet she will go real negative and that she will be in attack mode in the debate. Hillary is also out there lying again (still):
“Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated, and — my goodness — the most innocent, it turns out,†she told a cheering crowd in an airport hangar. The politico
Hillary Clinton is surely the most investigated of the people running for president. This is a new twist because she use to say the most investigated person and then it was shown to be untrue. That aside, the whopper comes when she says that she was the most innocent, as “it turns out”. First of all, since she was talking only about those running for president, how can she be the most innocent when none of them have been found guilty of anything? If this were true, she would be as innocent as the others.
However, Hillary has not been found the “most innocent.” There is a big difference between being innocent (which means you did not do it) and not being found guilty or not having charges pressed. Hillary has been caught in several lies during those many investigations but charges were never brought. She is guilty of campaign finance violations and there is video taped evidence of it. A judge appointed by her husband decided that the case could be dropped. She was guilty of holding secret meetings on health care reform and had to stop but no sanctions were ever imposed. Hillary deliberately hid documents to keep them out of the courts. They miraculously surfaced after the statute of limitations on her potential crimes had expired.
Not being sanctioned for wrong doing is a hell of a lot different than being completely free of sin, legal guilt or fault. She has done a great number of unethical and illegal things but they have either not been investigated or she was protected by the media and friends in high places. The book Whitewash has an in depth look at these issues and many more.
However, given Hillary’s position on this I must ask how she feels about one thing. President Bush has been investigated time and again and he has not been found guilty of anything. Is it fair, under Hillary’s definition, to assume he is INNOCENT? This will be tough for the moonbats who support her because if they answer yes then Bush is INNOCENT and it puts an end to their vicious attacks on him. If they answer no then they are saying Hillary is not innocent.
Being found not guilty or not being charged is not the same as being innocent. Perhaps if Hillary had actually used her law degree to practice the profession (instead of being employed as an over-billing, paper pushing lawyer as a favor to her hubby) she might know that.
Tags: credibility, dirty politics, Hillary, innocence, lies