Why the Looming Obama-Donor Scandal Will Not Matter

At this writing, there is still breaking a story about alleged campaign-donor fraud on the part of the Obama re-election campaign. From what I’ve read, the essence of the scandal is that an independently run website called simply Obama.com is soliciting donations from foreign sources, which donations the owner of the website then passes along to the official Obama campaign. Foreign donations, of course, break federal-election laws.

It would seem, even without the surely more scandalous details, to be a given that such a violation of law would take down the candidacy of any other presidential candidate, or even lead to impeachment proceedings for whatever president was found violating those laws.

But this is the age of apathy, the age in which the more independent-minded view all politicians as corrupt and so shrug off any scandals as just the way things are.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: POLL: 72% Accuse Media of ‘Dividing Americans, Spreading Hate’

This is also the age of moral degeneracy and a degeneracy of standards, the age in which a sex-symbol Democratic president caught in a sex scandal is not just celebrated, but celebrated specifically for his sexual promiscuity, and nicknamed, because of that promiscuity, “the first black president.” Were this President (Clinton, obviously) a Republican, it would be a different story altogether, such as we heard when there were rumors that Republican presidential nominee John McCain had had an affair with an aid and when Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of marital infidelity and sexual harassment, Bill Clinton’s cause célèbre.

And finally, this is the age of journalistic degeneracy, an age in which the members of the media would sooner destroy their careers as a sacrificial offering if it meant protecting Obama and the crooks in his administration.

Rush Limbaugh mentioned on his radio program that the Watergate scandal would not be categorized as a scandal if it had involved a Democratic president. He’s right.

When people hear “political scandal,” they immediately think of Watergate, despite the majority of them being unable to accurately detail what that scandal was. The media has ensured that over the last forty years, Watergate was to be the apex of political corruption, the scandal against which all other scandals are measured. They have lowered the standard of what constitutes a scandal by raising the standard in that one specific incident (an incident, by the way, in which no one was killed and no one put in harm’s way).

Whatever is revealed in the full details of this campaign-donor-law violation, we can be almost certain that nothing will be done about it. There will be no investigation by Congress, no punishment by the courts, and perhaps most alarmingly, there will be no great upset among the voters. If Obama’s Fast and Furious scandal, which killed hundreds of people, and if the Benghazi attacks in Libya and the subsequent coverup of the administration’s negligence do not immediately, upon learning of them, turn moderate, undecided voters to vote against President Obama, why would the comparatively trivial violations of donor law be met with anything more than a shrug?

Previous Obama Administration Tries to Kill Foreign Donations Scandal
Next CBS Reporter Says Obama Lying — Jihadists Stronger than Ever


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.