Sestak Bribe – Obama’s Watergate Unlikely If Press Has Lost Courage

The brouhaha all began with allegations by Democrat Joe Sestak of a job offer by Obama administration officials if he would drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate Primary back in February 2010. This occurred during an interview with a local reporter, Larry Kane, who first asked Sestak if he was ever offered a federal job by the administration in exchange for dropping out of the race and Sestak replied in the affirmative.

According to Federal statutes, this would be a felony – yet the story appeared to stand still for several months and now, with only a handful of Republican’s asking for an investigation into the matter, the White House is set to release its version of events. In a press conference yesterday, President Obama basically told the press that it was a non-issue.

That said, the Washington Post is reporting that Sestak’s brother and Campaign Manager, had taken a call from the White House on Wednesday:

"They got ahold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House . . . about what's going to occur," said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother”
Ending the article with:
Sestak declined to say whether the alleged job offer was inappropriate and defended Obama's integrity. "I think the president's a pretty legitimate, you know, person," he said.

From the Los Angeles Times: “Obama insists no impropriety in Sestak controversy.”

From the New York Times: ”Obama Promises Response on Question of Job Offer”

In fact a total of 282 news articles (from traditional Newspaper and Network news sites) offer an article on the subject (Google News Search)

The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jamie Dupree, offers “The Sestak Story” worth the read as it notes at the end “This story isn't going away anytime soon."

What is mind-boggling is that the report about Sestak taking a White House Call on Wednesday and then deferring to Obama is not met with more than a passing note from the press, including Sestak's subsequent defense of the President. The fact that the explanation that the administration is doing its own investigation, without calls from the Press for an independent investigation, leaves one with the impression that this story will be gone by the end of the month. Unless, of course, the bloom comes off the rose, and that is unlikely.

For example: A New York Times “Live Blogging Obama’s News Conference”, with a note at 1:47 pm “Sidestepping Sestak Issues” posted 16 hours ago, (from the point of this writing) did not make it to the Times front page, rather is still relegated to the “Politics” section of the website; an article (not the live blogging) on Sestak is well below the fold, entitled Obama Promises Response on Question of Job Offer.”

It appears that the press would prefer to wait until the “official explanation from Obama” is in, prior to pronouncing that there is no wrongdoing. In which case, the press has lost the courage to investigate, rather preferring to parrot the administration, leaving those millions of American’s who may still be reading both paper and web, that now, more than before, the press is in the proverbial “tank” for the President. It is no wonder that, with each quarter, circulation reports show declines in subscribers for all papers, and viewership down for major news networks to the point where they are eclipsed by cable news.

If however, they follow due diligence and “throw Obama under the bus” in order to report the story, even going so far as printing an article or two on the front page, above the fold, they may, in the long run, save the industry. It is going to be a matter of time, before those that sit on editorial boards make the hard decision between ideology and survival. To date, with layoffs and cutbacks from all major news sources being the norm, it appears that ideology has the edge. It is, therefore, doubtful that this particular Nixon moment, will be anything more than a blip on the media radar.

Which is why, granting Freedom of the Press, was such a sticking point for the founders – read Federalist Papers #84 Hamilton:
"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than we granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shallot be retrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."