Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is the Obama administration the LEAST corrupt/scandalous administration of the past 40 years? (Original Post) FarLeftFist Dec 2011 OP
No. There are no countervailing checks or independent institutions anymore. leveymg Dec 2011 #1
Exactly right n2doc Dec 2011 #6
Everyone in the Exec. Branch is now immunized, past, present, and (they hope) future leveymg Dec 2011 #13
Yes. There are a class of people that are immune at the top. mmonk Dec 2011 #15
Then, there needs to be a way for the community to police them, even if the police won't. leveymg Dec 2011 #18
Is this a scandal/corruption-free administration?! FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #2
Starting to wonder. now_zad Dec 2011 #3
Yet no one has been indicted, so what's your point? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #4
you think lack of indictments means lack of corruption???? bowens43 Dec 2011 #12
You think these republicans would give the D's an inch to hide behind? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #24
You sure have all the Faux Snewz talking points doc03 Dec 2011 #7
You likely have been too influenced by Fox News karynnj Dec 2011 #17
Thank you, thank you, thank you - n/t coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #30
When are we getting the Ignore function back for dissimulators? - n/t coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #29
No. But it's an interesting take on our justice, xchrom Dec 2011 #5
I wouldn't consider "number of indictments" to be a reliable metric. gkhouston Dec 2011 #8
U.S. slips to historic low in global corruption index joshcryer Dec 2011 #9
No one is indicted for anything anymore. JoeyT Dec 2011 #10
no. bowens43 Dec 2011 #11
Care to back up that "no" with some evidence? n/t GoCubsGo Dec 2011 #14
Second Terms Are When The Scandals Flare Up... KharmaTrain Dec 2011 #16
I'd wait for convictions, since innocent until proven guilty, so indictments aren't final treestar Dec 2011 #19
Yes deaniac21 Dec 2011 #20
Sweet Mr Dixon Dec 2011 #21
sure looks that way. mopinko Dec 2011 #22
The jury is still out. hughee99 Dec 2011 #23
Yet, it happened in real time during all the other administrations. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #25
So are you wondering who got the worst scandal PR while in office hughee99 Dec 2011 #27
At least, not likely. (nt) (nr) T S Justly Dec 2011 #26
Carter was pretty clean but we have little way to know since the overall coruption levels are way TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #28

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. No. There are no countervailing checks or independent institutions anymore.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 06:36 PM
Dec 2011

You need those to get indictments. Come to think of it, nobody in any real position of authority -- even on Wall Street -- has been indicted during this Administration. That's part of the corruption and the silent scandal.

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
6. Exactly right
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 08:08 PM
Dec 2011

Sort of like when Nixon tried to get an AG who wouldn't prosecute Watergate. Except it is the whole government now.
One hand washes the other....

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
13. Everyone in the Exec. Branch is now immunized, past, present, and (they hope) future
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 07:49 AM
Dec 2011

It's not just one hand washes the other, it appears to be a complete whitewash of the institution, seemingly forever.

They justify it in there own minds that the nation is in crisis . . . well, when isn't it? The lack of accountability assures it will continue to be.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
18. Then, there needs to be a way for the community to police them, even if the police won't.
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:26 AM
Dec 2011

Any group that acts with utter impunity and unchecked power becomes corrupt, eventually destroying the rest of society. That's history's lesson about despots and oligarchies going back to antiquity.

Ancient Rome is an excellent example of how a civilization rots from the head down when there is no accountability for those at the top. This is why the democratic philosophers of the 18th Century and the Framers tried so hard to create a system with checks and balances.

Now, that system of "laws, not men" is broken. Like Imperial Rome, and other tyrannies since, we know where this is going.

 

now_zad

(44 posts)
3. Starting to wonder.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 07:22 PM
Dec 2011

Things like Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Indiana primary fraud, Executive overreach, a politicized DOJ, my health insurance going up 24% the first of the year, 5 TRILLION dollars spent in less than 4 years, etc. etc. etc.

FarLeftFist

(6,161 posts)
4. Yet no one has been indicted, so what's your point?
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 07:49 PM
Dec 2011

And please don't tell me you're blaming the Govt for your private healthcare costs going up. Please elaborate on the rest.

FarLeftFist

(6,161 posts)
24. You think these republicans would give the D's an inch to hide behind?
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:18 PM
Dec 2011

If there IS corruption within the administration it would be picked apart by now. Not saying there ISN'T corruption in DC, just not in Obama's cabinet. As of yet.

karynnj

(59,402 posts)
17. You likely have been too influenced by Fox News
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:55 AM
Dec 2011

1) Solyndra is a green energy company that received a grant and failed. Congress passed legislation that called for grants for green energy as part of the stimulus. It is not the least surprising that a company, even with a grant, could fail in what everyone knows is the toughest economy in recent times. As to top people in the company being Obama donators - I would bet they contributed to Kerry and Gore as well. It is hard to imagine that, having a passion for environmentally clean energy, they did not see that the Democrats were much more in line with their values.

2) Fast & Furious is an idiotic, immoral program, started when Bush was President in ATF. The Republicans blocked not just Obama's choice to head ATF , BUT Bush's choice to head the ATF. ( http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-atf-director-20110907 ) This because the NRA has been against everyone nominated. Though Senator Grassley says that not having a confirmed head would have not made a difference, that is speculation. Note that the acting head was also only part time. It would seem that a confirmed, full time head of the organization would have more authority to set the agenda. The problem here is that ATF is a troubled organization - and it was so in the 1990s. The NRA's actions precluded the possibility that a good, strong head could have reset the organization's goals. The real problem is that the NRA, not wanting any regulation of guns, used its power to make the organization dysfunctional.

3) Indiana primary fraud is the dumbest Fox claim I have heard - and there's a lot of competition there. The fact is that they found TWO invalid signatures in a 150 signature sample. Then they declared this meant Obama should not have been on the ballot. The fact is that there always are some invalid signatures - which is why all candidates gather more than are needed and eliminate the obvious ones. Here, using the fraud rate identified, it is well outside the 95% confidence interval that Obama had insufficient signatures. (Here is what I wrote then - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=828461&mesg_id=828499 ) Beyond that, it was incumbent on his opponents or the state to challenge the petition and none did.

4) Executive overreach - Uhmm, it is hard to out do the Bush administration on this. Not to mention, the right pushed Alito onto the Supreme Court even though he was a proponent of the unitary executive. Senator Kerry and others passionately and eloquently spoke of the danger of moving in that direction.

5) Politicized DOJ - You mean pushing federal DA's to open investigations and make indictments - that did not have merit to hurt candidates in the opposing party in the mid terms? That did happen and they were caught at it, but that was the Bush administration in 2006, not Obama. (Small side fact, it was Chris Christie's office that investigated Senator Menendez, who was running in 2006 - the case dropped as having no merit after Menendez was elected.

6) Health insurance costs have risen fast for years. The fact is your costs would not have remained constant if there were no law passed.

7) 5 Trillion spent? The President does not have the power to spend money that Congress does not legislate. Not to mention, a large part of what was spent was for the two wars that started in the Bush era, including one that was not necessary. It is entirely likely that had Bush not diverted troops and resources to Iraq, that Afghanistan would have ended in his first term. He also might not have outsourced the capture of Osama Bin Laden and his key people to warlords that weeks before were allied with the Taliban. Not to mention, the Bush tax cuts, which were rammed through the Senate under reconciliation, were unaffordable. (This also led to the passage of the Byrd rule that bills passed under reconciliation must lower the deficit. ) The United States has never fought a war while cutting taxes. Yet Bush refused to even reduce the tax cuts to pay for the war - he threatened to veto the $87 billion supplemental if Congress paid for it that way. (So, like Kerry, he also had two positions on the $87 billion. Our financial standing now would have been better if Bush and the Congress would have taken the position Kerry voted for. )

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
5. No. But it's an interesting take on our justice,
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 07:55 PM
Dec 2011

Regulatory, & over sight bodies.

I.e nothing illegal on wall street was done, bush war crimes, etc.

There must be some gray areas there alone.

gkhouston

(21,642 posts)
8. I wouldn't consider "number of indictments" to be a reliable metric.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 08:15 PM
Dec 2011

Seems to me a lot of folks from the Bush Administration who should be enjoying three hots and a cot on the Federal dime were never indicted. Also, being "least corrupt" may be like being "least pregnant".

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
10. No one is indicted for anything anymore.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:54 PM
Dec 2011

When people admit to war crimes by bragging about it on national television and everyone whistles and looks the other way, the system is irrevocably broken.

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)
16. Second Terms Are When The Scandals Flare Up...
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:11 AM
Dec 2011

From Watergate to Iran-Contra to Abramoff...the worst scandals (which happened under rushpublican regimes...surprise, surprise) came during the second terms. Some of them were based on abuses during the first term but even Watergate didn't became a major issue/story until after Nixon's second inaugural.

So far we haven't been plagued with any major scandals in this administration despite the efforts of the corporate media to create them...but it's usually the second term that bogs down administrations in scandals...real or imagined. I'm very leery about what lies ahead should President Obama be re-elected and face a rushpublican controlled House and Senate. The gridlock we're seeing now will look like "the good 'ole days"...

treestar

(82,383 posts)
19. I'd wait for convictions, since innocent until proven guilty, so indictments aren't final
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:28 AM
Dec 2011

But I do think Obama quite free from scandal, going by the best the Republicans can do being things like the birth certificate, Solyndra, Rev. Wright, going to school in Indonesia, etc.

If they had something better, they'd use it.

mopinko

(69,501 posts)
22. sure looks that way.
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:24 PM
Dec 2011

if the thugs and/or fox can't scare up anything better than solyndra, i think we have to agree with you.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
27. So are you wondering who got the worst scandal PR while in office
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:56 PM
Dec 2011

or which administration was the most corrupt? IMHO, it's likely NOT the same answer. In EITHER case, if your comparing less than 3 years of Obama to presidents who completed their full term(s) years ago and we have the benefit of after the fact whistle-blowers and insider "tell-all" books, it's still too early to tell.

Unless of course this wasn't really a question seeing anyone's opinion but just an attempt to direct people to a predetermined conclusion without any discussion... in which case your question in pointless.

TheKentuckian

(24,696 posts)
28. Carter was pretty clean but we have little way to know since the overall coruption levels are way
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:09 PM
Dec 2011

higher now.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is the Obama administrati...