Calling this the “Obama miracle,” Jonathan Alter marvels at this “a White House Free of Scandal“:
Even so, the president’s Teflon is intriguing. How did we end up in such a scandal-less state? After investigating the question for a recent Washington Monthly article, I’ve been developing some theories.
For starters, the tone is always set at the top. Obama puts a premium on personal integrity, and with a few exceptions (Tim Geithner’s tax problems in 2009) his administration tends to fire first and ask questions later.
Sorry, Jonathan, just checked, Eric Holder still has his job. The administration hasn’t yet fired him. (Maybe that’s why they’re not asking about the numerous questionable actions taken by the Justice Department since he’s been in charge.) Let’s see dismissing the Black Panther case, using ideology as criteria for hiring career employees, authorizing (and apparently covering up) the Fast and Furious probe.
Although Alter tries to brush the Solyndra scandal under the table, we keep hearing of Obama cronies and “bundlers” benefiting from similar federal “green-tech” subsidies.
Alter cites as his source a “metric” created by a progressive blogger and perennial Bush critic, “Brendan Nyhan” who contend “Obama set a record earlier this month for most days without a scandal of any president since 1977.” This got me scratching my head to try to remember all the scandals of the Bush years, especially at this point in his term.
The Obama scandals, by contrast, just keep coming.Just today, Glenn Reynolds linked a story reminding us of Obama’s “lobbyist-connected fundraising” (despite telling us that he’s not taking campaign cash from such folk).
Here, to paraphrase the president is a “little homework assignment” for Mr. Alter. And we haven’t even touched on the administration’s absence of transparency.
NB: Tweaked title.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Obi-Wandreas offers a theory on why Alter may not be aware of these scandals,
The answer is simple: it’s only a scandal if it’s reported.
It reminds me of how the school district in which I teach used to crow about the decrease in suspensions; not a decrease in suspendible offenses, mind you – just a decrease in suspensions.
UPDATE: And let’s not forget the revolving door between industry and the Obama administration (David Axelrod’s contentions notwithstanding).
UP-UPDATE: Having read (and laughed at the same column, NiceDeb provides a list of some of the scandals she’s identified:
Dealergate, DOJ Black Panther whitewash, the Obamafication of NEA art, the Sestak affair, the politically expedient IG Gerald Walpin firing, misspent Porkulous funds, theDOJ’s secret astroturf propaganda unit, the Shorebank scandal, oilgate, Blagojevich Rezko Obama corruption, his unaccountable Communist czars, Fast and Furious, The Gibson Guitar Raid, and now Solyndra and LightSquared.
Now a few of these stories may not have panned out, but you can bet they all would have received more media scrutiny had they taken place during a Republican administration. She also reminds us that Michelle Malkin has often written about the administration’s “culture of corruption.” Maybe we should start up a collection to send Alter a copy of Michelle’s book.
UP–UP-UPDATE: Commenting on the Alter piece, Jazz Shaw quips, “Instead of marveling at the Obama miracle, maybe Alter ought to do a little reporting himself.”
The answer is simple: it’s only a scandal if it’s reported.
It reminds me of how the school district in which I teach used to crow about the decrease in suspensions; not a decrease in suspendible offenses, mind you – just a decrease in suspensions.
A few weeks ago, I listened Mark Simone interview Jonathan Alter on WABC. Alter insisted that Simone was crazy to call the USA “bankrupt.” When Simone pressed Alter on the point, Alter insisted that as long as the United States can print money and borrow money, it is not bankrupt.
That immediately reminded me of Harry Reid insisting that Social Security has no financial problems because it is holding all those government bonds.
Liberals and socialists in particular can spin on the head of a pin. Naturally Alter finds Obama squeaky clean. Obama is merely a means to the end which is a spot on the front porch of Utopia.
How long will it be before the Lefties try to “Clarence Thomas” Herman Cain? I’m afraid it’s coming, and soon.
Somebody will slither out of the woodwork to claim harassment or something of that sort. I hate to say it, but it’s only a scandal when it’s on the Right. Even if the Left has to manufacture it.
Funny, that’s just what Madoff was saying about his Ponzi scheme (maybe to God or his wife), before it collapsed.
If you have to borrow ever more money (or counterfeit it) just to cover your basic debt servicing costs and stave off bankruptcy another day… you are a Ponzi scheme.
The people who lend you the money (under such circumstances) are called “suckers”.
Funny you should say that, Lori…
And in light of this morning’s “Herman Cain offended some women 20 years ago” media feeding frenzy, one might also recall documented allegations that the Obama White House was a “hostile work environment” for women.
The Cain thing worries me, a little. It looks like the National Restaurant Association paid out 5-figure settlements to two women. For the times, those weren’t very strong settlements; but they were also not insignificant. I once saw a phony sexual harassment lawsuit play out with no settlement, so the existence of any settlement alarms me slightly. Cain could still be innocent, or relatively so; the women could have gotten lucky (so to speak). We just don’t know, one way or the other. What disturbs me – my real point here – is that Cain didn’t see this one coming. According to Politico (via Ed Morrissey):
C’mon, Herman. If you are innocent (or relatively so), that is wonderful, but get your act together. “Of course, it happens all the time to prominent executives; their prominence makes them targets” would have been a better answer.
Aargh sorry, here’s the link I meant: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/31/cain-denies-sexual-harassment-claims/
Color me skeptical. This kind of thing, falsely accusing someone of sexual harassment, was all the rage in the 90’s. First, was it five figs each, or five figs between the two? And, if it’s $100,000 each, in the grand scheme of things, that’s not really that much. Remember the Michael Jackson accusations? Everyone thought he was guilty, because, well, he was creepy. Yet here we are, a good year after his death, and not another accusation has come forward. Someone could make some $$$ if there was proof, but there are no posthumous tell-all books… at least not yet. And then there is the recent Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. The guy is a slime, but so was the “victim”.
What I’m getting at is that it is very easy to accuse and position yourself for a decent settlement than it is to be on the defending side of such accusations. Conversely, it’s easier and generally less expensive to settle and be done with it, even if it’s a false accusation, then it is to simply settle the case.
I’m not declaring Cain innocent, but have my doubts about the validity of the original claims.
The worst I have heard as that Cain is accused of having used language and/or made gestures that offended some women.
Bill Clinton is plausibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. No Big Deal.
Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed his secretary. No big deal.
Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd sexually assaulted a DC waitress. No Big Deal.
The Obama White House is documented by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of being a hostile work environment for women. No Big Deal.
John Edwards knocks up a “campaign aide” and the media cover it up for almost two years.
Al Gore sexually harasses a massage therapist. Once again, no big deal.
I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.
Exactly, V.
But Cain’s lame initial response doesn’t help; it puts that touch of blood in the water.
If the women are bound by the settlement not to talk, so are Cain and the restaurant association.
Cain is obviously biting his tongue. The settlement was bought on the cheap and Cain is not going to open it up to another round.
Look at this way: insurance companies know when to pay a settlement and move on, because they know the cost of litigating. If Cain was the target of a scam, it may very well have been cheaper to pay the women off and get their silence than to drag it all out in court.
We are purely in the innuendo world here. What I know for sure is that Cain and his people are busy working out statements with due caution paid to not reopening the whole settlement.
BTW sf: I assume (and will assume, from now on) that your comments which are addressed to me never require my response, since (under your ‘special’ games) even comments which you have begun by quoting me directly, are still somehow not to be taken as addressed to me. (ILC rolls eyes, for the benefit of the more honest people here)
“Funny you should say that, Lori…”
Yes, Dave P. That’ll show me to stay away from the news cycle for an entire evening. It was the last night before I started a new job (yay!), so I spent it out of the loop watching Alfred Hitchcock videos.