With 2011 drawing to a close, it is time to take account. As an early-and-often chronicler of Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I am amazed at the stubborn and clingy persistence of Pres. Barack Obama’s snowblowers in the media. See no scandal, hear no scandal, speak no scandal.
Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan asserted in May — while Operation Fast and Furious subpoenas were flying on Capitol Hill — that “one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals.” Conveniently, he defines scandal as a “widespread elite perception of wrongdoing.”
Advertisement
So as long as left-wing Ivy League scribes refuse to perceive something to be a scandal — never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun walked across the southern border under Attorney General Eric Holder’s watch — there is no scandal!
Self-serving much?
Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum likewise proclaimed: “Obama’s presidency has so far been almost completely free of scandal.”
This after the year kicked off in January with the departure of lying eco-radical czar Carol Browner. In backroom negotiations, she infamously bullied auto execs to “put nothing in writing, ever.” The previous fall, the White House’s own oil-spill panel had singled out Browner for misleading the public about the scientific evidence for the administration’s draconian drilling moratorium and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.”
The Interior Department inspector general and federal judges likewise blasted drilling-ban book-cooking by Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who falsely rewrote the White House drilling-ban report to doctor the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.
In February, federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He called out the administration’s culture of contempt and “determined disregard” for the law.
This spring saw rising public anger over the preferential Obamacare waiver process (which I first reported on in September 2010). Some 2,000 lucky golden-ticket winners were freed from the costly federal mandates — including a handful of fancy restaurants in Aloha Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district, the entire state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Nevada, and scores of local, state, and national Big Labor organizations, from the Service Employees International Union and Teamsters on down. Meanwhile, as The Hill reported last month, other not-so-lucky Republican-led states seeking waivers, such as Indiana and Louisiana, were rejected.
The Obama administration has a special knack for solving problems. By not calling them problems.
He ended earmarks by refusing to call the earmarks.
He ended terrorism by refusing to call it terrorism.
He ended combat operations in Iraq by refusing to call them combat operations.
He avoided Obamacare's tax increases by refusing to call them tax increases. Until, of course, it was politically convenient to call them tax increases again.
I'm sure it's a matter of time before Michelle Obama ends childhood obesity by refusing to call it childhood obesity.
Let's discount the hysterical loathing of folks who would not give an approving nod if Obama, single-handed, saved a litter of golden retriever puppies from a house fire.
When someone who is a loud and proud political enemy of Obama starts identifying "scandals" and wants to perhaps justify a previous prediction that there would be scandals a'plenty, it is wise to be skeptical.
I think that the Issa hearings about Fast and Furious are instructive. Looks like a decent attempt has been made to gather witnesses, and take testimony from the major players in the matter, including the sitting AG. It's pretty much Issa's move now and he is not moving.
Such is the case in the other matters drawn as "scandals" by MM. It is not the scribblers and paid FOX commentators who will get a scandal ball rolling, it will be the R's in power in the House. They have the power of demanding sworn testimony and the subpoena power for documents. If they do not or will not act, we can only assume that there is nothing to see. Looking to the current House, if Boehner cannot muster the will to investigate the executive branch or engineer the pressure to have a special prosecutor appointed, there just isn't going to be a scandal other than in the imagination of those like MM.
@roboturkey -- How generous of you to consider the Fast and Furious hearings "instructive". We have a dead border patrol agent, killed with a F&F weapon and that's the most you can muster? I can almost hear you blubber on about how much of a supporter of the BP you are.
For liberals, it's the seriousness of the charge that instigates the investigation - never mind the lack of evidence. To wit: recall when H. Waxman was threatening to bring companies before Congress who dared to leak to the public that they may just have to drop their employee health plans and schlepp them off to the Glorious ObamaCare Benevolence Freebee.
For liberals like yourself, anyone who is a contributor, paid or otherwise, for FOX News is an immediate disqualifying status. Never mind the facts being uncovered. Having the WH and DOJ stonewall discovery never causes a moment of pause for you folks, does it? Unless it is GWB and AG Gonzales or Ashcroft involved, that is.
Last time I looked the R's were in control of the House. If there is something that needs investigating, bring it on and get the sworn testimony and follow everything you find to its root cause. Clean house. Have at it, and scour our federal government squeaky clean, then send the guilty off to the hoosegow. Just like they hauled off the R crooks in Congress during W's years.
But if there is no "real" investigation and no push by the folks who have subpoena power to get something done, then what's the fuss? If it isn't bad enough for the house committees to act on, why should we bother to pay attention just because professional scandal spotters write a column about it?
What I remember about the R's ability to pursue a scandal is that the last time the R's had a slam-dunk case for impeachment they railroaded that through the House, but the Senate acquitted the defendant so fast that nobody missed a meal. And he served out his remaining term. So, go do that again if it makes you sleep better.
As to bias on the part of FOX and MM, res ipsa loquitor. We really don't need to beat that dead horse.
Don't be so smug. Issa is a shrewd political player and there is no reason to fan the flames this far removed from election day. It will be a hot summer for Holder and Co. and by extension the President.
Evidence, of Issa's cunning? Ask recalled Governor Gray Davis for comment.
Strictly speaking there have been no scandals - scandal meaning a disgraceful or discreditable action - an offense given. Scandal is, by definition, in the eye of the public.
The scandal is that there is no scandal. This man is defining scandal down - said with respect for a memorable and creditable liberal, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
I remember a time when most conservatives firmly believed that guns don't kill people - that people kill people. I guess Michelle is making the argument that the border patrol agent would be alive today, if he only didn't have the particular gun he used. The Mexican government has long been complaining about all the guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico - not just these. I guess if it is a scandal that a particular gun got into the hands of a Mexican murderer; we ought to be doing more to make sure guns aren't available to murderers. More gun control anybody? Or, is that just abandoning principle to drum up a convenient "scandal" for a practice that was also permitted in the previous administration?
And I remember a time when libs didn't lie everytime they opened their mouths, but that was a long time ago.
"More gun control anyone?"
Well, that was AG Holder's plan--allow the guns to be purchased illegally, moved illegally into Mexico, and then blame American gunowners for DOJ's not just refusal to enforce law, but out and out assistance in law breaking with no hope of criminal prosecutions. Let the border deteriorate to the point where sovereign American soil is de facto ruled by violent foreign nationals; abandon American citizens living near the border to the "charity" of those foreign thugs; and then further restrict the right of American citizens to possess and use the means of defending their lives and property, and doing it all as a means to a political end..
It obviously isn't a matter of "guns killing people" (which is a typical elitist lie) it is a matter of the federal government of the United States actively *arming* the people who are going to kill our own citizens and even our own law enforcement agents.
And then lying to everyone in sight about the DOJ's culpability because, after all, only a racist would object to a black AG arming Mexican narcothugs, right?
As to Woody's continued big lie of the Bush administration doing the same thing (when did that become a validation?), anyone reading Andrew McCarthy's writings describing the differences between the previous administration's policy, and the policy of the current administration, would understand not to disinter that disproved argument.
Making sure guns are sold directly to the Mexican drug cartels is enshrined in tue 2nd amendment? Does one really need to grab some crayons and draw a picture for you? 2nd amendment = American citizens have the right to arm themselves, which government cannot abridge. The 2nd amendment doesn't say "Obama administration should make sure guns are sold to Mexican drug cartels, which are then used to kill over 200 mexicans and a US border patrol agent." I realize you're a leftist, but even one such as you should be able to pick up the subtle difference between the two.
As a true conservative (versus a faux one), I agree with you. BUT - I also say to you that it's completely appropriate for the GOP et al to push this as an issue against the Dems. Yes - it's not the weapon (in most cases), it's the individual. And yes, this would've happened regardless of where the gun came from - bad guys always carry guns!
But, in this continual 24/ 7 state of bickering, the Dems did to Bush incessantly for anything that happened. Turn about - unfortunately - is fair play. Anything Obama admin. does like this is going to be teed up.
What I find the most pernicious aspect of this is when Hillary and other gun control advocates kept yelling how many of the guns the drug cartels had came from the US. This all being hyped and lathered up to create a ground swell of public support for restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights. Little did we know that it was Holder the the Obama Administration that was actually behind it. Subverting the law to set up the elements and put in play violence to win debate points? I can't think of anything more immoral and unethical. And this is our President and HIS folks - especially Hillary and Holder. Absolutely SHAMEFUL and DISGUSTING!!
-- "never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun" --
Well, heck, you GOPers sure haven't cared about all the actual suffering of the families of over 4,000 of our troops killed in Bush's lies-based Iraq War, so please don't pretend to have a conscience about this -- tax cuts over lives (unless, of course, it's the life of a wealthy CEO), goes the GOP mantra! Oh, and last year GOP leaders slashed millions from Border Patrol operations to free up more money for more unneeded tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
-- "walked across the southern border" --
Just like Al Qaeda was able to walk across the weakly-guarded Iraq border once Bush's war broke out, and was able to introduce terroristic acts in Iraq where they never happened before?
-- "under Attorney General Eric Holder’s watch" --
And under Bush's woeful watch 9/11 happened -- oh, and his lies-based Iraq-possessing-WMD war!
You "Bush lied" creeps keep popping up. If Bush was so stupid as you lefties all said, how is it that so many of your Dem buddies voted for Resolution 46, including John "I have the hat" Kerry and RIP Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy. Did they all just believe Bush and roll over? Please....
And you are OK with Holder just because you think Bush "allowed" 9/11 to happen? Double standard?
Go away.
There was no terrorism in Iraq before we invaded??? Saadam Husein murdered thousands of citizens of Iraq, gassed the Kurds, built chemical wpns but no there was no terrorism--wake up you moron.
Wow! So, when both houses of congress approve military action, with ongoing congressional oversight provided by BOTH parties, it is called a "lies-based war"? This means the leftists involved either could not decipher the intelligence reports, or they are complicit liars. Which is it? Are leftist democrats absolutely stupid, or totally and completely corrupt?
Kevin, you'll probably be disappointed to learn that most of the intelligence data used by Bush regarding Iraq's WMD program was gathered by the Clinton administration. Clinton himself made a speech in 1998 warning of the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the region and to US interests. His sentiments were echoed by Hillary, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and a host of other Dems, who later turned tail and claimed that they were "duped" by the Bush administration. One of the chief findings of the 9/11 commission was that an intelligence "wall" created by the Clinton justice department (Jamie Gurrellich) prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing information which may have allowed the agencies to uncover the terrorist plot before it happened.
A review of some history might help lower your blood pressure. That and some decaf.
Kevin Collins -- unlike Obama in Libya, Bush went before Congress and CONGRESS voted to go into Iraq. Now, we don't know whether Bush knew the intelligence was faulty or not, but surely if it was, the democrats on the intelligence committees should have said something.
I don't know what these liberals have been smoking, the Obama administration has gone from one scandal to the next. It's likely the most corrupt administration in my lifetime, even more so then the pretty corrupt Clinton years.
From his probable fraudulent "election" to today Obama and his Chicago cronies have brought new levels of fraud, corruption and waste to Washington. America is going to pay the costs of the Barry years for decades.
If you can't see that you are blind and an idiot. No other way to describe it. I just hope we can get this guy out in 2012 because we certainly cannot afford eight years of this nonsense.
The irony, the Bush administration was likely the cleanest one in recent years. Nobody notices that.
