Posted by
Toddy Littman on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:00:00 AM
I
found a few things interesting yesterday watching Gibbs at the press
briefing, bulldog he usually is, Gibbs cut this one short and even
showed frustration with FoxNews directly after they, along with a host
of others (which I found miraculous as tears of blood from a statue),
were questioning the new White House ethics standards and asking about
the vetting process.
Apparently in the "new age of
transparency," the vetting process is so secret it's not to be
discussed, one of the items chosen by President Obama to not be
transparent, (maybe they water board them 
), and if anything is asked about vetting one phrase is to be repeated,
"I'm not going to spend the day looking in the rear view mirror."
Analogy applicable how? I mean, are they saying a process that yielded
5 nominees with tax problems isn't to be discussed and reviewed? Maybe
it's more successful and this is proof of it....They'd know that though
wouldn't they, so, this greater than reluctance to discuss, to
basically "not confirm or deny any aspect of the vetting process but to
say there is one," is because?....*cricket chirps ad infinitum*
It
was really very interesting to see one of the reporters actually throw
back at Gibbs his familiar line to shift focus, "Let's step back and
look at it this way," using the phrase in unappreciated diffusing jest
when Gibbs appeared a bit tense, and this only added to the tension. One
of the African-American reporters was very frustrated and she spoke for
the rest of them, "we are asking about the vetting process and it is
the process we want to hear about," and Gibbs replied the same "rear
view mirror" stone wall reply, must have been 8 to 10 times or more
previous to this woman's statement of frustration.
2 weeks into the
Presidency and Gibbs is upset. It appears he suddenly learned that
insulting the press, as Obama did in impromptu meeting with them
shortly after taking office, or pushing back at them, when they almost
entirely looked with a blind eye during the campaign, will come back to
bite you like nothing else. 86% approval upon inauguration, 55%
yesterday. 30 point drop in approval during those 2 weeks. Of course
one could easily attribute that to the unrealistic expectations of
those who voted for him, and, the unrealistic promises made as well,
which easily could combine in a rather swift deflation of approval. Let
us hope, for the sake of the country, that this trend doesn't continue,
and, that it is due to the President learning his place, as a public
servant who answers to us, according to his limited powers in the
Constitution.
Another, and likely more telling moment, was by a
reporter that didn't know the commerce secretary, Judd Gregg the
Republican Senator and 3rd Republican on Obama's Cabinet, had been
named just before the White House Press Briefing. My apologies but I
didn't accurately hear the name this reporter asked so I am not going
to try to guess, it went by very fast, but the question was something
like this, "Did President Obama pick John Doe for Commerce Secretary as
recommended by Senator Daschle?"
The idea Mr. Daschle made a
recommendation wouldn't be an issue, except, it resembles lobbying for
that person. The further question arises as to if they who were
recommended by Daschle work in the Health Industry, where Mr. Daschle,
the 1998 advocate for punishment of breaking the tax laws "to the
fullest extent of the law," is known to not have reported 1 month of
earnings, some $85,000. I mean the man made 5 million dollars in the
last 2 years, and to most that's "lobbyist pay" as the job description
Daschle gave was "to consult on strategy" regarding legislation his
clients were lobbying to effect.
But of course if the new
Messiah and his Apostles such as Gibbs says it isn't lobbying, well,
they certainly wouldn't lie....again. We all know that getting away
with lying doesn't encourage it in the least. Ask any repeat offender
at any prison, they'll assure you this just can't be true, that a man's
word his his bond, and, should you not be able to find your wallet
after accidentally bumping into a man in New York who is the spitting
image of Bernie Madoff, it's pure coincidence.
2
weeks in and the press is frustrated, the white house is frustrated,
and the people are seeing business as usual, including the usual "I
have a list of people that I'll give you who assure us we have the
highest ethical standards of any President ever before....," and in
regard to waivers, "....they recognize the need for waivers to assure
we can get the most qualified person." The list, eventually stated,
consists of two names, again said quickly and only once during the
Press Briefing, but yes a whopping list of 2 people. In most circles
that is stretched with, "I have a couple of names," or "a few names,"
"couple" implies up to 3, "few" implies up to 5" and is a grouping
phrase to make the actual 2 look bigger, usually done "I have a few
names, these two come to mind right away." This is not done "I have a
list of names," which asserts at least 10 or more, and likely broken
into categories with a group of pending names that haven't signed on,
sort of like the 31,000 scientists who've signed on to the petition
stating they do not agree with the Kiyoto protocols: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Now that there is a list! But that list means nothing to Al Gore and
therefore must mean nothing to Obama....and the significance again of a
list of names claiming "the highest ethical standards of any president
before" that consists of 2 names is?
Apologies but highlights of
the press briefing, that shed light on some other reasons Dashle may
have left, a briefing where Gibb's felt the need to repeat the "highest
ethical standards" theme of the week before, along with the
unwillingness to discuss the GS-15 vetting process in character with
some mythical Army press briefing about UFOs, Roswell, and Area 51,
just left me unable to leave out the hypocrisy of presenting 2 names
and claiming those a substantial list that demonstrates this White
House has the highest ethical standards while ignoring 31,000 that
emphatically dispute the Kyoto protocols. To me, to leave this out, is
to further ignore something significant over giving significance to
something presented that is being so presented purely as diversion.
Thank you for reading,
Toddy Littman