On Wow, I Can’t Tell Whether This New York Times Article on Obama is Just Bias or Absurd
The New York Times, which my family stopped subscribing to years ago for obvious reasons, never ceases to amaze me.
This article on Barack Obama’s “role” in the downfall of Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich just may be the most far-fetched article I have read from the Times in a while–and that’s quite a statement.
The thesis of the article is the following:
- Barack Obama may have risen through power in the most corrupt city in the most corrupt state, but not only did he manage to keep himself clean, he fought corruption as evidenced by the most recent scandal.
- Illinois Senate was considering a passage of tougher ethics bill which was teetering on the edge of a negative vote.
- Obama, already a U.S. Senator, used his connection from the Illinois state senate days to urge the passage of the bill.
- The ethics bill became law.
- The ethics bill, which would have gone into effect on January 1 of next year, pressured Blagojevich to become more unethical more quickly.
It’s one thing to write an article urging Obama managed to stay clean while being a state senator from Chicago. I simply don’t see how that’s politically possible, but since there is little to no evidence to the contrary, I have never accused Obama of being dirty.
But this is the New York Times, so it can’t stop with “Yes, Blagojevich is dirty, Ryan (his predecessor) is in jail, four out of the last eight governors were corrupt, and the Daley (another one) continues to run Chicago, but Obama rose to the presidency unscathed.” No, it must give credit to Obama where credit can be fathomed from thin air.
Really, the premise of the article is absurd. Obama should (presumably) be commended, apparently solely premised on grounds he made a phone call to a friend, even though:
- Obama had no vote in the Illinois Senate
- Blagojevich was corrupt long before the ethics bill passed.
- The ethics bill not only failed to stop Blagojevich, it made him act more recklessly.
When the Obama hysteria reaches this level, the problem is no longer losing objectivity. This is worshipping someone so much, you feel compelled to write a glowing personal piece on the man whenever major news breaks out even if he had little, if any, connection to the story.
I’m no longer convinced the media’s head will clear a few months into Obama’s presidency. They may give him a honeymoon which lasts eight years.
Oh I agree that the odds of Obama’s involvement on the Blago scandal is remote. Even if he were corrupt, no one’s that stupid. As I said, there’s not a shred of evidence of Obama being corrupt, so he’s clean as far as I’m concerned.
I also agree if the economy improves Obama’s likely to remain popular, but not at this level. It’s simply not possible. His approval rating is incompatible with governance in a democracy.
But the media is certainly helping his cause. This NY Times article is simply ridiculous. It gives credit to Obama for… what exactly? I still haven’t the slightest idea, but clearly whatever he did made the writer worship him even more.
The media, other than talk radio and fox news, will be this guy’s friend for a long time, unless Patrick Fitzgerald just blows the roof off of this thing.
I personally doubt that Obama was involved in the Blago thing, just given my reading of the complaint and the fact that I think he’s intelligent enough to know that this type of risk isn’t worth the benefit. However, if Fitzy comes out with some solid evidence to the contrary, even the mainstream media, with their love for Obama, can’t ignore that.
I really think Rezko is the bigger potential problem for Obama, though.
But you know what? If the economy recovers in ’09, and the Rezko thing blows up at the same time, America will let him slide. It’s still the economy, stupid.