The Wrong Reaction

Upon discovery of a problem in conduct, a transparent administration should move to fix the problem. This does not have to be public; some issues are sensitive and should be fixed quietly.

The Obama administration takes a different approach. Upon discovery of a problem, they say nothing. If an investigation starts (such as of the just-revealed State Department escapades) it is stalled, misdirected, or stopped if possible. Those involved in the investigation are threatened.

When the revelations happen, as some ultimately do, the pattern of threats and obstruction against those pointing to the problems is consistent. Even those whose job is to investigate and report such problems, or provide material information to the investigation. Re-election, at all costs, was evidently the goal.

But now, a few are slipping past the guards, and even those guards in the complicit media are starting to take notice — now they they are in the cross-hairs themselves.

Each time, the administration’s reaction is the same. There will be a public moment of faux outrage, coupled with a denial of any culpability or even knowledge by President Obama. His spokespeople will say “we want to debate the issue” while, in the same speech, refusing to discuss it or even mention the challenger’s name.

Look at Candidate Obama’s smooth, polished attack on Bush for his use of the NSA … and compare it to President Obama’s stammering, stuttering cluelessness that this is even the same issue that he had so eloquently read from the Teleprompter on five years previously.

As an aside, it is odd (considering his reputation) that President Obama does not have President Bush’s oratorical skills. Bush would also occasionally tangle a word or phrase (in incidents made famous), but he never stared into the audience like a deer facing oncoming headlights of disaster. His performance suggests to me that if Obama does not have a prepared script, Obama is simply not prepared.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle