Buffett vs. Spitzer?

I've discussed the whole Buffett vs. Spitzer thing a couple times, both here and over at BlogginWallStreet. Random Roger had a post on it today, asking basically why would the CEO know the details of a deal like this. That may be a reasonable question, but I'm puzzled by a different aspect of the whole story.

My thinking has gone like this--I believe that if anyone in publicly traded entities is ethical, it's Warren Buffett. So I'd be surprised if there's any "there" there. However, even stronger than my belief in Buffett's basic ethics, is my belief in Spitzer's ultimately political motivation. He wants to be governor of New York, and he'll do it by chasing down those EVIL rich people who, after all, only get rich off the backs of poor folk who are inclined to vote Democrat in New York. However, one thing has always bothered me when I heard that Spitzer would question Buffett---Buffett is a Democrat, and a friend of Hillary, and everyone knows it. If Spitzer wants to be the next Democrat governor of New York, why go after Buffett? Especially when, if there is any "there" there, it's likely to be some gray area technicality? If this is a political game, why play in that court?

And, then, in a flash, it came to me. This is kabuki theater. By going thru the motions of investigating a Democrat, especially when he knows there's nothing to be found, Spitzer has found the perfect innoculation against charges of partisanship. "See, I investigate them all, I go where the smell is, and investigate all charges." In the end, he finds nothing at Berkshire, Warren thanks him for showing that his operation is clean, Spitzer thanks Buffett for playing ball, and they all join hands and sing kumbaya at the inauguration. Nice.

Anybody got any more tinfoil for my hat? ;>)

Okay, back to picking stocks . . .