Faux Outrage at the Hearings

It is one of the privileges of working from a home office that I can have a TV going in the background.  Obviously I choose to turn it down when I'm on a conference call, well, at least some of the time.  Say, if I'm speaking.

This week we were privileged to have been able to follow the hearings on the nominees of the president-elect, Donald Trump, to Cabinet secretary positions.  It's a bit of fun to get to know these individuals who will be leading the administrative arms of the Federal government, after all, as they answer (or deflect) the tough, insightful questions of the Senators on the relevant committee.

Unfortunately for some of them, we also get to know the Senators, and it is not always a pretty sight, particular when their hypocrisy is on display for all to see.  Even before the hypocrisy part, we get to see that some of them, such as Al Franken (D-MN), are simply horse's rectums.  It is amazing for a guy who spent his career as a comedy writer not to know how he comes off when he is simply being rude.

It is also odd when a guy like that voices his concern in pompous, outrageous tones, as to whether someone like Betsy DeVos, the nominee to be Secretary of Education, had ever been a teacher, or attended a public school, or been a principal or superintendent.

Let's set aside the fact that part of the reason that our children are educated so poorly in so many of our nation's public schools is because of at least some of the teachers, because of the administrators, because of the teachers' unions.  Mrs. DeVos has spent her life helping to develop alternatives to public schools, alternatives that actually work.  Al Franken's qualifications to be a United States Senator consisted of a career as a comedy writer!  But no, he is there questioning someone else's job bona fides.  Sure.

But my favorite was the faux outrage and random passion generated by good old Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the junior senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, a state -- excuse me, commonwealth -- in which I went to college.  Mrs. Warren was part of the Senate committee that also did the hearings for Tom Price (R-GA), the House member nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Mrs. Warren decided to get all excited about a situation where Price's stockbroker had made an investment -- without instruction from Price -- in a medical instrumentation company with business before the House.  Oh, she was passionate all right.  She had a great deal of trouble stopping herself when Rep. Price was three words into an answer, and in at least a couple cases, couldn't wait and answered for him.

You see, though, here is the thing.  As the picture below reminds us, Mrs. Warren was not nearly as excited about a situation where another person appeared to profit from a position in government.  That would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former Secretary of State, who sold influence while in office, sold a quarter of USA uranium to Russia, gave contracts for rebuilding Haiti to cronies who built where nothing was needed, took hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for Bill's speeches, while she was in office.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) showing selective outrage as she passionately embraces Hillary Clinton, who sold access to foreign governments and foreign interests, gave away a quarter of USA uranium to Russia, and whose family pocketed millions in speech fees as a result of her government "service".

I couldn't help thinking of all that as I watched Mrs. Warren make a donkey of herself in the committee hearing session.  Oh, she was upset all right.  She was so agitated I thought she might make herself physically ill, which would have not looked good on live TV.

But I watched the hearings and wished, oh I so, so wished, that Rep. Price had been unleashed to the point of having been able to have answered, as he surely would like to have answered.  Something like this:

"Madam Senator, I am certainly offended by the accusation that I would have made legislative decisions based on personal gain.  And I am sure that you are not alone, in that we all are sensitive to the perception of people in government reaping personal reward for corrupt actions that benefit themselves at the expense of the taxpayers of the USA.

"But I wish to answer you accurately and carefully.  Accordingly, I need to understand your personal standard of ethics and morality.  For example, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her husband received a $750,000 fee for a single speech from the Ericsson Communications firm of Sweden, after which their products were removed  from a list of items banned from sales to Iran.

"I've never seen $750,000 in my entire life.  But I notice that you not only voted for Mrs. Clinton for the highest office in the land, you embraced her in public and passionately endorsed her.  I, and the nation, would infer that financial dealings are not as bad when they're done by someone you endorse.

"President Clinton received speech fees from places like Rwanda and Kazakhstan, places run by murderous dictators, while his wife was Secretary of State.  But you embraced Mrs. Clinton and endorsed her candidacy.  And here, today, you are agitated because of actions my broker took of his own volition and fiduciary duty, in accordance with congressional guidance on handling of personal finance.

"Would you mind clarifying, please, the moral compass you have for what appears to be selective outrage?  I'm sure we would all benefit by knowing that.  It would certainly help my answers"

It's never going to happen, but it makes my wandering mind happy.

Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.