The Governor Blago problem is Gov. Blago’s problem

Black and white photo of dogs in back of truck

Black and white photo of dogs in back of truck

At least the crew of CNN was honest enough to admit that the news media was driving the story on Gov. Blago of Illinois as of 11 December 2008. But the real sweetheart talking to Tony Harris one of CNN’s Newsroom anchors made the argument that Obama needed to put to rest certain questions about Gov. Blago’s corruption activities. My question is why? Gov. Blago is the dude who was trying to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat. Blago was prepared to shake down people who received gvt funding for the care of children. Blago wanted to get the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune fired. As for U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald, he made it a public statement the first day as to Obama’s personal lack of involvement. What exactly is Obama supposed to answer to?

During the campaign, there was no question that McCain/Palin wanted to make much of Obama’s past associations, how “troubled” they were by such associations, with the ultimate agenda of exploiting William Ayers, Rev. Wright and etc. to pole vault their way into the White House. But it didn’t work, did it? They lost. Now, we have a news media, even in the face of the fact that Gov. Blago is the man who did the dirty and he alone can expect to go to prison if convicted; regardless of that fact, the news media insists that President elect Obama must answer for Gov. Blago! Why? So let us ask this question, when presidents have been embarrassed it is because members of their immediate family—sons, daughters, sisters or brothers—were embarrassing them with acts of wrong doing. Clinton’s brother after all, got caught up in a DUI charge. Bush’s (41) son got caught up in the Silverado S&L scandal. Carter’s brother Billy got caught up in something sleazy. When it is a member of your family, it is reasonable to insist that you answer for their misbehavior. But when it is a Gov. Blago, who has no relation to the President elect, who most certainly acted on his own and went neck deep into behavior both corrupt and obscene, shouldn’t Gov. Blago answer for himself? I would certainly think so.

Then let us take a look at it this way, you are now President Reagan. There is a hypothetical situation going on that not only is bad news for the state of California but also very embarrassing for Reagan’s party, because the dude who replaced Reagan in the office of Governor has engaged in very creative acts of corruption, and is also a Republican. When it was Reagan, and had such an event unfolded, would the news media insist that Reagan answer for a GOP Governor, one he may or may not have prior professional working relations with? No. And no Kennedy serving in the Senate had to answer for political misdeeds in the state of Massachusetts which they represent, neither at the state or local level. Why must Obama answer for a Governor that represents the entire state of Illinois and not “Chicago style politics.” Because the news media I suppose wants to be troubled by even casual linkages between Obama and other politicians such as Blago, where they were never troubled by this before. Now isn’t that amazing?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: