So it turns out that there is a "culture of ethical failure" in the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service. The Inspector General's reports "portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration's watch." It's all there: sex, drugs, cash--just the sort of thing that makes a good scandal. Wow--just the sort of thing that would have called for vigorous Senate oversight during this time. If, say, the chair of one of the committees with jurisdiction over all this didn't uncover it, then you might say that such a person would be unfit for national office. You certainly wouldn't call him a candidate for change. If he was also getting millions from energy companies, you might suspect that any claim to be a change candidate might stink like fish in a newspaper--or even look like lipstick on a pig. And who was the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee during most of this time, which has jurisdiction over (among other things) pipelines, interstate commerce, and coastal zone management? You peeked, didn't you? PS Commerce obviously isn't the only committee with jurisdiction, but the MMS sells oil and gas on the open market. That's an interstate commerce issue if there ever was one. And last I checked, oil goes through pipelines.
If you're in office for long enough, it is a mathematical certainty that some scandal will occur in an institution that you are at least partially responsible for. I frankly cannot believe that the people pushing these sorts of stories care about them, or that they would experience the slightest worry about them had Barack Obama been chairing Commerce. Conversely, if McCain had referred to Hillary's health care plan as attempting to put lipstick on a pig, I doubt any Republicans would feel a twinge of outrage. The hysterical flinging of everything to hand in the hope that it will stick is, to be sure, a staple of politics. But I don't need to be the conduit for it.
Right, everyone is equally wrong, so let's just let the mud and lies fly with no comment or concern.
I bet if we follow this trail far enough, we'll find that these individuals have been in the Department of the Interior more than 8 years.......just a little guess here.......
Well, Megan, a quick question: Are YOU outraged by this Interior story?
Well, maybe you can work labor unions into it. I'm sure they're at fault. :)
There is a Senate committee with oversight responsibility, but it isn't Commerce. It's Energy and Natural Resources.
I frankly cannot believe that the people pushing these sorts of stories care about them, or that they would experience the slightest worry about them had Barack Obama been chairing Commerce.
Not true. To a liberal, this is basically a story about why most functions of government shouldn't be run like businesses. The part where the senior official wrote up an RFP for consulting firms to do a job that exactly matched the description of his own job, quit, started a consulting firm, and got himself hired to do his old job at a much higher private-sector salary, was a classic encapsulation of the kinds of things that can go wrong when you farm out government functions to subcontractors. There are some government functions that can be run better as private businesses, but for the most part you end up with Blackwater, Fannie Mae, etc.
It happens that this was McCain's committee, and McCain supports the precise ideology that leads to this kind of scummy business-government incestuousness. But if it were Obama's committee, liberals would do what they did when Clinton eliminated welfare: they'd be angry at him for having adopted conservative ideology and having screwed things up as a result.
Mostly agree with you except on one point. Is an administration which is pro-business and anti-regulation more likely to spawn employees who will be too cozy with private interests? Proving such a theory would be difficult, so it is a question that probably wont be answered.
Steve
Ummm... Are you referring to the fact that McCain did indeed refer to Hillary's health care plan as lipstick on a pig?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid271557392/bctid1784628752
"Ummm... Are you referring to the fact that McCain did indeed refer to Hillary's health care plan as lipstick on a pig?"
Irrelevant. Both McCain and Obama have used the line before. It's the line in conjunction with Palin's pit bull joke that creates the issue.
@MikeR
Except the only way they are in conjunction with each other . . . is if you put them there.
It is blatantly obvious that his reference was to the policies of the McCain ticket, not to Palin herself.
On the original topic - quite frankly, I don't particularly care whether McCain was Commerce chair at the time.
My problem is that we are beginning to see a pattern of corruption - Jack Abramoff, politicization of the Justice Department, corruption at the Interior - that shows just how bad this administration has been.
Not because they have directly caused these things (although, in the case of the Justice department, it is pretty obvious that they influenced that), but more as a result of a general attitude toward governance.
The Bush Administration has a great disdain for the business of government, and that attitude has permeated through to the departments themselves. You lead by example, and Bush's example is that corruption is permissible.
I would not be surprised if additional scandals in other departments continue to emerge.
First, the adventures of Steven Griles and now this. I had no idea public lands law was so stimulating.
It's the line in conjunction with Palin's pit bull joke that creates the issue.
Oh, I totally get it now... dogwhistle! You slay me. I will now refrain from making jokes about John McCain, Easily Offended Maverick.
In actual scandal news, this is pretty stomach-turning.
Remember that "confirmation bias" thing you were talking about before? Cause here you are, again, defending McCain.
I know, I know, you made fun of his speech at the RNC, which was really brave and all, but seriously, if this were Obama you'd be all like "sigh, see, he's not really about change" and you know it.
When was the last time you called BS on something substantive about Obama (Other than the patently ridiculous Muslim thing etc?).
Please, just start calling yourself a Republican. I swear, if you do, I'll go away forever.
What Steve said above.
If your governing philosophy is that government is a joke, then it's not surprising this is the type of employees you attract. If you believe your department's purpose is to be as cozy with big business as possible, then why not go all the way and actually fornicate with 'em. It's a microcosm of the who-gives-a-damn, frat-house environment the Bush administration has fostered.
I'm not sure which part of this story - or Megan's post - I find more depressing and irritating; that the Bush Administration is running the Interior Department like a whore house, or that commentators like Megs consider this a "tempest in a teapot'.
What strikes me is that the Republicans have done everything they can to prove they're not fit to continue running this country. After all, this collection of village idiots "lost" fifteen billion dollars in Iraq and they handled the entire war so disastrously that that little nugget of news was pretty much ignored. Republicans can get elected and engender sympathy and complete forgiveness for crimes that would put a Democrat in jail, but come on guys; four more years of this crap? What Bush has proven in eight years and what the media has proven in eight years of covering Bush is that an Ivy League education is no more proof of someone's intelligence, integrity or character than having a tattoo just north of one's ass-crack.
It's the line in conjunction with Palin's pit bull joke that creates the issue.
So, Palin used the word "lipstick" two weeks ago, so any mention of that word for some period of time is automagically sexist.
Got it. Can you give me some idea of how long that period of time lasts? What's the statute of limitations, there, in case my wife needs to send me to Target?
Wow, you are amazing, Megan. You gleefully jump on "scandals" that you think support your favorite hobbyhorses (such as the evils of regulation). Now you high-handedly declare that the laws of mathematics prove that "scandals" are actually just unfortunate, meaningless accidents that eventually happen to everybody.
Then why did you allow yourself to be a conduit for it?
I like the puppy-training philosophy: ignore bad behavior, reward good.
Wait, wait, hold up. I agree that the scandal is not a particularly important one in terms of, relevance to the election. Fine, don't cover that angle.
But it's a truly fascinating and amusing scandal and surely worth blogging about for its own self. I'm not saying you necessarily have to, but surely you want to?
Am I outraged by Obama calling Palin the lipstick on a pig? No.
To I think it's an excellent excuse to mock Obama?
Hell yes.
I've you're going to claim to be the "Party of the Women," you should pay when you engage in sexist behavior.
When you're running on your "judgment", you should pay when you display bad judgment.
When you sell yourself as a bright person who's an excellent public speaker who can and will bring people together, you should pay when you say something stupid and divisive in public.
No?
I agree that blaming McCain for the wrong doings in the interior department is another tempest in a teapot, but like several other commentors, I also agree that you are ignoring the elephant in the room.
The scandals at the interior department are a direct result of the Republican philosophy of government.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin