Features

November/ December 2011 Scandal in the Age of Obama

Why Washington feeding frenzies aren't what they used to be.

By Jonathan Alter

Nyhan says that Obama’s extremely low standing among Republicans is a “key risk factor,” but that the second variable, a slow news environment, hasn’t been present. He explains how Bush set the modern record of thirty-four months without a negative scandal story on the front page of the Washington Post—the period between his inauguration in January 2001 and the Valerie Plame scandal in October 2003—because of 9/11 and the Iraq War. Now, thanks to the financial crisis, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Arab Spring, the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the debt ceiling crisis, and the threat of a second recession, Obama has broken Bush’s record.

Writing in May, before the Solyndra affair broke, Nyhan predicted that Obama’s scandal-free streak would not last for much longer. His forecasting model showed that the chances of an Obama scandal would exceed 95 percent by early 2012. Republicans, he says, are shifting to the National Labor Relations Board’s tiff with Boeing (right-wingers charge without evidence that Obama partisans have assembled an “enemies list”), and to allegations that the ATF’s bungled Operation “Fast and Furious” (in which straw purchases to track the flow of guns into Mexico led to some weapons falling into the hands of criminals) might become, as Representative Issa claims, “Obama’s Iran-Contra.”

If Solyndra continues to heat up, it will be partly because it connects so directly to disappointment over Obama’s performance on green jobs in particular and the economy in general. In a way, it’s a story that feeds on the dominant news of the day—and the central jobs theme of the 2012 campaign.

Scandals unrelated to such major themes are unlikely to go anywhere in election years, as I learned firsthand many years ago. When Bill Clinton was running for reelection in 1996, I was a regular visitor to Dick Morris’s suite at the Jefferson Hotel. Morris was then a shadowy figure who almost never talked to the press. (When I interviewed him and his sidekick, Mark Penn, I had no idea that a few weeks later a supermarket tabloid would reveal that Morris was getting his toes sucked in the suite by a prostitute.) At the time, Morris’s client, Clinton, was the subject of daily scandal stories about secret Asian fund-raising. Morris waved off the stories, explaining that only a mammoth scandal like Watergate ever has any actual influence over voters. That’s especially true in a bad economy.

THE ETHICAL-TONE THEORY

A fish rots from the head. But it also navigates from the head. The direction a leader charts sends a message to underlings: You’d better follow. Even if the rest of the country is peeling off, the people who work for a president take their cues from him.

From the start, Obama has sent a message of intolerance not just of corruption but even of controversy within his administration. He shoots first and asks questions later when it comes to firing someone who hasn’t yet been proven to have erred.

In July, Assistant Labor Secretary Raymond Jefferson, a wounded Special Forces vet, was alleged to have steered contracts to friends. He was forced to resign, even though the inspector general of the Department of Labor never referred the matter to the Justice Department. Even less well known was the ouster of a National Endowment for the Arts communications official who reportedly tried to get artists to create pro-Obama works of art. In 2009, the White House forced the resignation of Louis Caldera, the director of the White House Military Office, after a screwup over an Air Force One publicity flight over New York. And of course there was the ousting of Van Jones, a White House adviser on green jobs, over some dubious past statements and untrue charges that he had been a “truther” (someone who believes that the U.S. knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance).

The most regrettable dismissal so far was of Shirley Sherrod over a “scandal” trumped up by Andrew Breitbart. In that case, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, not the White House, was responsible for jumping the gun. (And he acted in part because even the NAACP had believed Breitbart’s maliciously edited tape of Sherrod’s speech on race.) But the tone had been set by the man at the top.

Compare that hair-trigger willingness to toss out officials who are in any way fodder for scandal with Bush’s hesitancy to fire anybody, no matter how scandalous. His Enron-linked Army secretary, Thomas White, was the classic example. Joshua Green, who wrote the definitive piece about White and the Bush administration’s tolerance for corruption, in this magazine (“The Gate-less Community,” July/August 2002), noted that White himself was surprised at how long Bush let him stay in office.

If Obama is so adamantly focused on running a clean administration, it may be because he is familiar with the alternative. His political roots are in Chicago, but he isn’t a product of the Chicago machine, his employment of Bill Daley as his chief of staff notwithstanding. In 2005, he and his wife got the help of soon-to-be-convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko on the purchase of a piece of property adjacent to his house on Chicago’s South Side, but he otherwise steered clear of the lowlifes of Illinois politics. He was never a governor and thus never enmeshed in the “pay to play” system especially endemic to governorships, whereby campaign contributors pony up in not-so-subtle anticipation of state government contracts. (Beyond disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, the most conspicuous current example of sleazy pay to play is Texas Governor Rick Perry.) When Blagojevich went down, Obama noted that people go into politics for two reasons: to make money or to serve the public. It’s a simple and useful distinction; whatever one thinks of his presidency, Obama is clearly in the latter category.

From the beginning of his administration, Obama was determined to set a high ethical standard. Yes, when the economy was on the brink of a depression, he stood behind Treasury designate Tim Geithner even though the man almost certainly chiseled on his taxes. And he granted waivers in a few cases to officials who had been lobbyists (for example, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist and procurement expert). But the relevant part of the revolving door is what happens at the exit. And here Obama signed an executive order preventing everyone serving in his administration from lobbying their former colleagues until the president left office. His vetting process was so over the top (thanks in part to Senate Finance Committee staffers) that it prevented many good people from taking government jobs because of minor infractions. (One White House aide designate had to withdraw her nomination because of a meaningless lien on a piece of property.) But the high bar no doubt also prevented some bad people from slipping through.

It’s a trade-off: Obama got fewer swashbuckling entrepreneurs from outside of Washington who have realworld experience and perhaps a few creative ideas—but he also got fewer sleazeballs.

THE FAMILY-MAN THEORY

Jonathan Alter , a columnist for Bloomberg View, is the author of "The Promise: President Obama, Year One." He is a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly.

Comments

  • kay sieverding on October 24, 2011 11:02 AM:

    I am a registered democrat and was a big Obama supporter.

    I think it is a scandal the way that DOJ treated me. I sued DOJ in 2009 because I was held a prisoner without a criminal charge, arraignment or bail hearing for 5 months in 2005-2007. I don't have a criminal record. I actually sued DOJ under the Privacy Act meaning I sued the governments' computer systems. In order to avoid a hearing on the merits, DOJ under Obama filed affidavits that a warrant for my arrest captioned "Kay Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Association" for "failure to appear" in a civil hearing (which is not a crime recognized by Congress) was entered into the Warrant Information Network computer system. I got the manual and it shows that when a warrant is executed, i.e. someone is arrested, the system automatically generates closed caseload reports. I got the closed caseload reports for the USMS deputies that DOJ claimed were assigned the original warrant and a fugitive warrant -- Paul Sever in Western Wisconsin and Roberto Rodriquez in Colorado, and their closed caseload reports don't show my name in the time period in which I was arrested (May 2007) so therefore I think that in order to win my lawsuit, DOJ subornaed perjury. When DOJ is involved in a lawsuit, the assigned lawyer has access to the system records.

    I think I should have been able to rely on a lawyer working at DOJ after Obama was elected to tell the truth and not to submit perjury in order to win a lawsuit.

    Another "scandal" during the Obama administration is that DOJ applied the same scanned signature to affidavits under penalty of perjury to at least five documents submitted on different days under 28 USC section 1346 even though those documents are supposed to have original signatures signed on the date on the document. The signature was for William E. Bordley, USMS assistant counsel, who is blind. When they submitted the five documents purporting to have Mr. Bordley's original signature but substituting a scanned signature, none of the five documents acknowledged that Mr. Bordley is blind and can't read anything unless it is in braille. That is on DOJ's web site in an old article about FOIA staff.

  • pandera on October 24, 2011 12:45 PM:

    Ugh. Three pages in and the answer to why there seems to be very few scandals in the Obama administration is (drum roll) - because his administration hasn't done anything wrong and was very vigilant in vetting appointees. Perhaps somebody could tell me why this article was written. Six pages!? Or is this some kind of post-modern comedy piece?

  • technerd on October 24, 2011 7:31 PM:

  • Binky the Bear on October 24, 2011 8:23 PM:

    Because the media are run by the corporations just like Obama is run by the corporations. See also Church Committee reports.
    There will be a scandal in the unlikely event he actually does something besides kill foreigners and continue Bush foreign and domestic policy.

  • Sarah on October 24, 2011 9:16 PM:

    The media ignores and/or covers up the problems with Obama - and they are many. No mention of Fast and Furious? Blowing off half a billion dollars to Solyndra? Not to mention Lightsquared, the Fisker fiasco, more czars than any other president, Van Jones was the czar he brushes off who still works behind the scenes and is an avowed radical and communist...we only are shown the surface because our media is in love with Obama and takes good care of him. When he loses badly in November 2012, maybe the ugly underside of this administration will come out in better detail.They are not scandals but cash for clunkers, the mortgage program that helped very few, wasting 800 billion dollars in so-called stimulus money should also be considered scandalous. This article is a crashing bore written by a blindly enamored writer who can't give up the Obama fantasy.

  • Fr0sty on October 24, 2011 9:30 PM:

    No scandals during the Obama administration? Hogwash. There have been plenty, and the only reason they haven't blown up is because Alter and his "journolist" friends are tireless water carriers for the administration. Alter adores Obama, as do more than 90% of the other mainstream media shills. They would sacrifice any remaining journalistic principles they have before they would compromise their dear leader with accurate reporting. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

  • JDReign on October 24, 2011 9:54 PM:

    Its funny the right wingers on here didn't bother to even read the article where the author clearly debunks each of these commenters dumb talking points. They just say the tired cliche' the media is protecting him!!!

  • George on October 25, 2011 12:47 AM:

    Yeah, it might be helpful to read the article before yammering about all the "scandals" that the media has "ignored." But then again, reading comprehension is not a right-wing value - just outrage and anger directed outward.

    You could argue this in more ideological/political terms. The reason Obama hasn't had any scandals is simply because he and by extension, his government, are essentially earnest technocrats who believe in "good government," which can also be a pocket description of the Democratic Party at this point in time.

    By contrast, the Republican Party appears to have only two core beliefs - a hostility to government of any sort, and a overwhelming burning desire to gain power and wield it, both to retain said power and reward its friends. In other words, the Party's aims are almost inherently corrupt, and therefore lead to all sorts of moral compromises that have little to do with governing, and which inevitably lead to scandal. Witness the AUSA firings orchestrated by Gonzo/Rove, the hiring of and subsequent incompetence and firing of FEMA head Michael Brown, the Valerie Plame affair, the entire run-up to the Iraq War, the tracing of torture policy all the way to the VP's desk, etc. Almost all of this can be traced to the overriding policy of thinking about how to disenfranchise political enemies and reward friends/donors. And as an inherently corrupt enterprise, its bound to yield scandals, albeit often complex and difficult to capture the imagination of laymen.

    So no, Obama's lack of scandal isn't shocking. In fact, its par for the course.

  • TT on October 25, 2011 8:35 AM:

    Thanks George.
    You summarized the core difference between this government and Bush's perfectly.

  • Warren Getchell on October 25, 2011 10:24 AM:

    "Time To Think About Torture"

    I loved that column Jonathan. How about serving it up again for those that missed it the first time.

  • Frank St. Clair on October 26, 2011 9:46 AM:

    Of course. And Obama has run the most transparent administration ever! And Eric Holder is upholding the law on every front! Rainbows and lollipops for everyone. No companies have been funneled billions of dollars under the guise of being green (except a few) the debt hasn't tripled in three years, and everyone is fully employed. Scandal isn't the issue. Incompetent, corrupt illegal acts are. Can't find any? Then you haven't looked.

  • plebis on October 26, 2011 9:54 AM:

    The author in his pathetic whitewash attempt cherry picks his "proof". From Gunrunner to Obama"care", this little statist socialist has benefited from lies from surrogates, white liberal guilt, and willing suspension of disbelief by much of the media. Chicago style corruption oozes from Obama and his goons.

  • frank marshall davis on October 26, 2011 10:16 AM:

    Thank you Jonathan for elucidating and exposing the opaque transparency,Truth and fulfilled promises of this community organizing executive odorer, blindingly enlightening, like passing the bill b4 knowing whats written in it, ... now lets return to defeat smog luvin republicans drinking their muddy swampwaters and the child killing programs of the violent-mean-dirty-stupid-fanatical tparty clingers.. you do Michelle proud.
    It takes a Village journalist, you really are the W&B deepthroat truther, ,rap on brother rap on...

  • gommygoomy on October 26, 2011 11:31 AM:

    It's always nice to hear from the Grandson of The Communist Party USA Founder, and someone who likens HUSSEIN, to GOD.
    How is it that so many health Care WAIVERS are going to so many Groups who were on the Front Lines of getting this DISASTER passed? Hmmmmmmm?
    And, where in the 14th Amendment, does it say that Laws will be enforced EQUALLY, unless you're one of the President's MAJOR DONORS?
    And, what's up with FAST and FURIOUS, Johnnie? All those DEAD Brown People, in Mexico. MURDERED by Obama and Holder, and their Great Idea of SUPPLYING the Mexican Drug Cartels with High Powered Weapons, for the PURPOSE of having as many Mexican Men, Women, and CHILDREN be MURDERED, so that Obama could use their DEAD BODIES, to advance his GUN CONTROL dreams.
    That's Premeditated MURDER, where I come from, Johnnie.

  • jrobinson on October 26, 2011 11:39 AM:

    I cannot believe the whitewash going on here. First, claiming that there were no scandals is simply flat out a lie. Between the Holder and the Black Panthers, to Solyndra... there have been DOZENS of scandals so far. Some of them impeachment worthy. (War powers in libya, anyone?) Then Alter lists "his ideas" of what a scandal is... and he goes after conspiracy theories - all while conveniently forgetting the 8 years of conspiracy theories from the Left during Bush.

    Then, there's the libs on this page that keep suggesting that Alter "debunked" all the scandals. Debunked? Really? Alter mentions the "policy czar scandal" as something "every administration does". Really? I didn't realize it was common for administrations to create almost A HUNDRED czars to sidestep his whole cabinet.

    The real scandal here isn't even anything Obama did - its the way all of you on the Left and in the Leftwing media cover for him. This article is a complete lying piece of propaganda from top to bottom. You should all be ashamed. Try spelling Obama, B-U-S-H and see if that gets your panties in a bunch.

  • oldentyme on October 27, 2011 7:11 PM:

    Jonathan,
    How refreshing that "American Idealism" is still alive and well! I refer to the Republican voters responses you received about the minor (number?) of scandals during the present administration's attempt at governing.
    I write some of the "stuff" in an (unnamed) political arena filled with well-meaning, but wrong directed,"rightwings" who cannot name the three branches of government. They mean well, maybe, but (according to the clamor) they represent the average-cum-middle-class-er who won't, or cannot read.
    These are the occasional conservative letter writers and T-Party attendees who attempt to say substantive things to help us all get to work, not lose our houses, and educate our children in an education system staffed by underpaid teachers. They constantly quote the conservative talk-dumbs who call the President an African, and procurer of phony birth certificates.
    The beauty of it all is their attempts to do what they (the citizens, not the show-hosts) think is right... at least that's what they argue with me about. I intend nothing facetious... wrong-headedness is an American tradition. So, Mr. President: continue to attempt resolution to the difficulties; just be careful
    that some of my readers (and Jonathan's) don't think that you've changed your Party.

  • Gerry FitzGerald on October 28, 2011 12:52 PM:

    In Jonathan Alter's otherwise insightful article on Washington scandals, he ignores the illegal and unconstitutional Contra part of the Iran-Contra scandal and brushes the entire scandal off (pg 39)as run by a lower-level staff member, Oliver North, "from the White House basement without the president's knowlege". Yet investigations showed that nearly all members of President Reagan's cabinet and staff who dealt with foreign affairs were aware of both aspects of the scandal. And Independent Counsel Walsh, in his final report, concluded that President Reagan himself "directed that the contras be supported, despite a ban on contra aid imposed on him by Congress" (The Boland Amendment).

  • j e madsen on October 29, 2011 9:35 PM:

    Sir - read your "no scandal" column-
    You must be either a White House staffer-
    or your last job was in a "kool-aid" factory
    that gave excessive samples to the hired help.

    Get real, grow up and quit doing propaganda

    jem

  • Azdak on October 30, 2011 3:59 PM:

    I'm only surprised it took 6 comments before the batsh**t crazies came out in force.

    I guess it takes a few more minutes to type with two fingers in a dark room.

  • oliv on November 01, 2011 1:50 AM:

    Every story has an ending. But in life, every ending is a new beginning.your story maybe star from here agelessmeet.§³¨°M.- a
    nice club for y'ounger women and- old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men, to- int'eract with each other. It's worthy a try.

  • Marie Burns on November 14, 2011 1:00 AM:

    Here's a scandal for ya that will appear excerpted in this week's Newsweek from a book by Peter Schweizer titled "Throw Them All Out":

    "A large proportion of the winners [of DOE alternative energy grants] were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama�s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold.... According to the Department of Energy�s own numbers..., [in one of the programs,] $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.... The department�s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants.... These programs might be the greatest � and most expensive � example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom�surprise!�are now raising money for Obama again."

    I'm a long-time Democrat & worked for Obama in 2008. This business-as-usual, even if it is "green graft," is not acceptable. Occupy Washington!

    The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

  • Campesino on December 09, 2011 4:11 PM:

    "no scandals" in Obama administration = liberal press decides not to cover them


    Saved you several hundred words of worthless reading

  • Gwen Killerby on December 24, 2011 4:59 PM:

    Solyndra maybe is a scandal, but, as it turns out, Republican'ts started Solyndra, voted for Solyndra and invested monies in Solyndra. So....

    And wow, the batshit crazies aren't gonna mention the birther and the death panel """"""scandals""""""""???
    Some progress, at least.