Ramesh, you miss the point I fear (words I write extremely nervously). The president is perfectly entitled to decide who he has on this Council of his. If he didn’t want Blackburn on the Council, that was entirely within his prerogative, whatever the reason. Ron Bailey essentially makes the same point. Nevertheless, as taxpayers, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Bailey, me or anyone else to at least ask why her appointment was not renewed and to expect that, if that question is answered (it doesn’t have to be answered, of course), it is done so in a straightforward manner. We are, of course, dealing with a council supposedly dedicated to ethics. If you read (or re-read) this Ron Bailey piece from 2004, you may understand why “straightforward” is not necessarily the adjective I’d choose to use.

Now it well may be that there is another story here (and Yuval’s post makes interesting reading in that respect). We’ll have to see what emerges.

What nobody seems to be asking is whether the Council (or, for that matter, its Clinton-era predecessor) should have been set up in the first place. If you ask me, there is something a little creepy about the whole idea of politician-picked philosopher kings thinking deep thoughts on the taxpayer’s nickel.