Soccer Dad

The surrogate hits the fan

During the campaign, the Washington Post featured a high minded editorial Surrogate Silliness. The gist of the editorial was that the candidates were spending too much time focusing on their opponents' surrogates. I didn't necessarily have a problem with general approach of the editorial, but one of the specifics bugged me. A lot.

Ditto Mr. Johnson. Like many people, he made a lot of money at Fannie Mae at a time when its accounting was messed up. As a wealthy person, he got a mortgage that may or may not have been more favorable than the mortgages available to other wealthy people. Mr. Obama handled the controversy clumsily. But, once more, this episode tells us nothing important about Mr. Obama. Mr. Johnson as Washington insider? Please. Mr. Obama sought the help of a Democrat who had experience vetting potential vice presidential running mates. If Mr. Obama needed surgery, what would it say if he picked a doctor who hadn't previously performed the operation he needed?

This might sound awfully quaint. It may be pitifully naive. But would it be too much to ask for just a little more focus on what the candidates themselves have to say--and less on the surrogate bloopers du jour?

So James Johnson took advantage of his position in a way that average Americans could not. That was a major issue. It showed that candidate Obama wasn't sensitive to appearances of impropriety (and even improprieties themselves.) Surely that was an issue worth exploring. It just wasn't one that the Post was willing to examine carefully.

Now the Post reports:

As he began his transition, Obama assembled a group of lawyers to vet his potential picks with unprecedented scrutiny of their personal, financial and professional backgrounds. He required candidates to complete a 63-item questionnaire, a detailed probe of the person's writings, relationships, finances, tax filings, legal proceedings, domestic help and personal profiles on social networking Web sites.

But that process -- hailed as one of the toughest ever at the time-- became even more burdensome after Daschle's withdrawal and the discovery of tax-related problems with other nominees, including Timothy F. Geithner, who became Treasury secretary.

So despite the burdensome vetting process, a number of privileged appointees with dubious records on tax matters had their names submitted to the Senate. In fact the choice of James Johnson was indicative of the arrogance that Barack Obama had. He figured that anyone he appointed was too good to fail and that the appearance of being privileged was a matter of no consequence.

The White House defended its progress. "We are on target to put together a team of the best and brightest in all areas of government, and less than six weeks into the presidency we have not only filled hundreds of key positions, but we have done so with the highest ethical bar in government history," Jennifer Psaki, deputy press secretary, said yesterday.

Except that ethical bar was ignored in too many cases. What if the Post had scrutinized the choice of James Johnson? Would the administration have then realized that it couldn't get away with insulting the public by appointing people who don't live by the same rules as everyone else?

Another appointee apparently doesn't get it.

"I'm not surprised," said the appointee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think that the stakes are awfully high, the responsibilities are pretty high, and we've come to a point where little flaws can take on big meaning or more meaning than you might think. Nobody wants to be a distraction."

Not paying over $100,000 in taxes is a "little flaw?" I hardly consider the issues faced by Geithner, Daschle or Richardson to be "little flaws." Or does this unnamed appointee simply mean "things that should only be of concern to the 'little people,' but not to us important appointees?"

The Post's report yesterday notes that President Obama is filling his cabinet at a faster pace than any of his two predecessors. However his failure to vet appointees adequately shows an arrogance of power. It is one that was fed by a media, which was supposed to keep the public informed and failed miserably in its duties to do so.