Here\’s one more, the Bush administration firing 8 US Attorneys = \”Scandal\”; Bill Clinton’s brand new Attorney General Janet Reno demanding resignations from all 93 U.S. attorneys on March 24, 1993 = not news

Kevin

http://newsbusters.org/node/11396

I was being glib, certainly. I think the point holds, ther are different standards for Libs and Repubs in the media. Need a few examples…Ever hear of Scooter Libby? How about Sandy Burglar? How about the press Rep. Jefferson got compared to Tom Delay? How about the differnce between Chris Dodd’s remarks about Bobby Bird and Trent Lott’s comments about Strom Thurmond? Those are few to start.

Kevin

Nope, what I said was, “…a Democrat fails to look both ways before crossing the street they loudly proclaim it ‘The scandal of the century!’”

I suppose I should be careful where I use clearly exagerated humor to make a point.

Meanwhile you said, “Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican did this? Headlines would be talking about a “culture of corruption”, cozy relationships with K Street and industry lobbyists, they would be howling about Two Americas, one for the insiders and one for the rest of us chumps.”

Were you also being humorous? If so then ha ha. If not I’d love to hear one single example of an outcry such as you describe aimed at a Republican based on such a petty non-issue.

Just one example. Please?

The post simply says Barack has “made a series of bad decisions when it comes to ethics” and somehow you see me claiming scandal of the century. Not quite. Get a grip.

Kevin

If Democrats tried to make a big thing about something as silly as this is, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder at those petty ‘politically-motivated’ Dems, but if a Democrat fails to look both ways before crossing the street they loudly proclaim it ‘The scandal of the century!’

Ok, now to the merits. This is an interesting story, and it suggests that Obama was not as careful as he ought to have be, or could have been. But our political antennae are buzzing here; our ethical antennae are silent. If Obama has a problem, this isn’t it.
If a senior Disney Co. executive or a partner in a major institutional shareholder raises money for a candidate and the candidate’s qualified visually impaired trust invests in Disney, it wouldn’t raise any hackles. Say the candidate also supports, say, an FCC candidate who promises not to over police network television. So what? In this case, Obama donor George W. Haywood, suggested that Obama employ UBS to manage his money. Obama’s UBS-managed trust invested in, among many entities, a very small pharmaceutical company that was new to its field, and in a satellite communications “concerned” that was partly owned by one of his major contributors, the wonderfully named Jared Abbruzzese.
The difference here is not one of kind — it’s one of magnitude. The smaller the company, the more obscure the company is, the more a company’s backer has ties to the “Swift Boats,” the more suspicious one is supposed to become of the dynamics underlying the purchase. (Were the companies really obscure? Opinions differ. But if the Times pronounces them as “relatively obscure,” then maybe they are.)
But if the ethical principle is: it’s OK to invest in companies owned by your fundraisers, then journalists covering the story need to justify why the standard changes: in this telling, it’s the obscurity of a purchase and not the purchase itself that’s the issue. The Times suggests that Haywood recommended that Obama use UBS’s broker in part because he knew that UBS would invest some of Obama’s assets in the two companies partly owned by Haywood.
The ultimate consequences of the purchase provide no help, here. Obama lost money overall and divested himself as soon as the purchases were disclosed to him. The facts are on his side. If you think Obama is lying and somehow directed his broker to purchase these stocks on Haywood’s advice (and knew that Haywood was an investor in those companies), and if Obama planned to use his office to appropriate avian flu funds to the pharma company, then… say that. The circumstantial evidence does not begin to prove it.
The Times justifies the content of its story, and by implication, its page A-1 placement, by pointing to the fact that Obama “has made ethics a signature issue.” Fair point. Media critics we’re not, but we wonder if the Times editors hope this story sends a message to the candidates and the Times’ competitors that it will closely scrutinize every ink mark, iota and giblit. By the way: who’s the broker? He/she’s at the center of the storm, and we don’t know who he/she is.
http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Obama+Myths