WATERS' ACCUSERS HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE

The flimsy case against Maxine Waters just got flimsier. Revelations about the poor judgment and dishonesty of Waters’ accusers reinforces the impression that the ethics investigation of the esteemed South Central L.A. Congresswoman is nothing more than a witch hunt.

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the independent panel that accused Congresswoman Waters of misconduct, has a problem with facts. The OCE has no punitive power; it merely investigates and reports its findings to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (call ‘em the House ethics committee, for short) which can then convene a trial. But, as banking columnist David Federer points out on The Huffington Post, the OCE has a record of screwing things up.

Last November, the OCE claimed that California Rep. Pete Stark improperly received a tax credit by claiming that a home he owns in Harwood, Maryland is his primary residence. But the house ethics committee cleared Stark of that charge and slammed the OCE for getting it wrong. The commitee’s report stated: “The evidence clearly establishes that Representative Stark did not receive a tax credit as a result of filing an application for the credit… Representative Stark did not seek out the Maryland property tax credit… Therefore, Representative Stark did not violate House ethics rules. Nor did he run afoul of Maryland's criminal or tax laws.”

But wait! There’s more!

Three months before the OCE issued its false report on Pete Stark, the panel accused Missouri Congressman Sam Graves of wrongdoing in a case that seems to mirror the Maxine Waters affair. The OCE alleged that Graves violated House ethics rules by inviting a representative from the Missouri Soybean Association to testify before the House Committee on Small Business. The Soybean guy, Brooks Hurst, held stock in two biofuel plants where Rep. Graves and his wife also had investments. According to the OCE, having Hurst testify to the small business committee gave the “appearance of a conflict of interest” for Graves. Not an actual conflict of interest, but simply the “appearance” of one. Once again, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ruled that the OCE was wrong. The committee concluded that Rep. Graves and his wife did not benefit from having Hurst testify and that House ethics rules do not prohibit the “appearance of a conflict of interest.”

I predict a similar ruling in the Maxine Waters case. Neither she nor her husband got anything out of the meeting Waters arranged between Treasury Department officials and leaders of the National Bankers Association – even though Waters’ husband was a stockholder and former board member of OneUnited Bank, which was a focus of discussion in that meeting. Moreover, Rep. Waters’ setting up the sit-down between Treasury and the NBA was no more improper for than was Rep. Graves inviting the Soybean Association rep to testify.

Perhaps this is why the House ethics committee has declined to set a date for Maxine Waters’ trial or to even release the specific allegations against her. Perhaps, given the OCE’s questionable record, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct suspects that the Waters matter – like the Stark and Graves cases – is built on the crumbly foundation of falsehood, misinterpretation of facts and misapplication of the rules. In other words, the OCE may have made a mountain out of a molehill…again.

Thanks for listening. I’m Cameron Turner and that’s my two cents.

Read more "Turner's Two Cents" on EURweb.com and PasadenaJournal.com. Cameron Turner’s weekly television appearances on "The Filter with Fred Roggin" at NBCLA.com.

A DIM "VIEW" OF OBAMA'S WEAKNESS by Cameron Turner

During his historic appearance on

On

ABC's "The View,"

President Obama reaffirmed his reluctance to push back against his enemies. No wonder his approval ratings are in the cellar.

August 2, 2010 -- After holding my breath for about a year, I have exhaled in discouraged resignation. Since the raucous healthcare battles of last summer – when belligerent conservatives spewed paranoid misinformation in town halls and on the air – I have clung to the steadily-crumbling hope that President Obama would stand up to his right wing attackers by vigorously defending his policies. But I abandoned that hope after watching the President on ABC’s “The View” last week. During a jokey (but not at all funny) exchange with co-host Joy Behar, Mr. Obama made it clear that he has no intention of ever putting his dukes up.

About nine minutes into the interview, Behar asked President Obama why he hasn’t done more to counter the conservative media pundits who continue to bash him despite achievements like healthcare reform, the newly-passed Wall Street regulations and appointing two women to the Supreme Court. (To Behar’s list I would add Obama’s push to extend unemployment benefits and his forcing BP to set up a $20 billion relief fund for Americans devastated by the Gulf Coast oil spill.)

“I could go on and on about your accomplishments, and yet the right wing, through Fox News and other outlets, they seem to be hijacking the narrative,” bemoaned Behar. “Where on your side is the narrative? Where is your attack dog to come out and tell the American people, ‘Listen, this is what we did!’” My fist pumped reflexively at that crucial and perfectly stated question. But my pride crashed with the President’s milquetoast response. First, he made a joke. Responding to Behar’s “where is your attack dog” query, Mr. Obama said, “Joy, that’s your job!” “I do it!” shouted the still-frustrated Behar as the audience erupted into applause and laughter.

My chin dropped as the President quieted the crowd and elaborated with a really lame answer. After conceding that “politics is a contact sport” Mr. Obama accused Republicans of not playing fair. “We shouldn’t be campaigning all the time,” the President said. “There’s a time to campaign and a there’s a time to govern. Over the last 20 months what we’ve tried to do is to govern.”

That sounds noble and, yes, the country is better off because President Obama hasn’t allowed the haters to distract him from the task of leading the government. But leading does not require you to sit by passively while your enemies mischaracterize your policies and call you everything but a child of God. Sadly, that is what President Obama has done for the most part. As a result, the public’s perception of Mr. Obama’s presidency has been shaped by Republican lawmakers, conservative TV and radio, the Tea Party movement and ambitious right wing activists like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. That’s what Joy Behar meant when she said conservatives were “hijacking the narrative.”

But this goes way beyond perception and PR. President Obama’s reluctance to make contact in the rough-and-tumble contact sport of Washington, DC politics has unsettling practical implications. It’s the reason that Shirley Sherrod got fired. It’s hard to believe that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack booted Sherrod without an OK from the Oval Office. But, even if President Obama didn’t personally approve the firing, his lack of toughness set the tone for it. When word hit that Fox News muckraker Glenn Beck was going to discuss a video excerpt (now-discredited) of Sherrod supposedly talking bad about white folks, the Obama Administration got so scared (as did the NAACP) that Sherrod was forced to resign with the quickness.

Nobody, from President Obama on down, ever stopped to say, “Wait a minute! This video is only part of a longer speech and it was posted on an Obama-hating web sit. Now it’s being picked up by Obama-hating TV. Hmmm. Maybe the President’s foes are working an agenda here? Maybe we should take a look at the entire video before we throw one of our own under the bus?” A courageous leader would have done that. But the Sherrod affair was consistent with President Obama’s pattern of not being courageous. From caving in on key provisions of his healthcare proposal, to obsequiously apologizing (over and over again) to the police sergeant who wrongfully arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, President Obama has a history of spinelessness which has emboldened his opponents and demoralized his supporters.

A weak-kneed leader can’t inspire anyone – not even people who like what the leader stands for. The consequence of President Obama’s timidity is that, despite backing initiatives which have been popular and beneficial to the American people, Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are in the cellar, he is losing to generic Republican candidates in hypothetical election polls and his party is in real danger of being voted out of power on Capitol Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of many Democrats in the throes of a tough re-election bid, expressed his frustration with President Obama when he told a Las Vegas television station, “He is a person who doesn't like confrontation. He's a peacemaker. And sometimes I think you have to be a little more forceful. And sometimes I don't think he is.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was less charitable when he admonished the President that “the way to deal with bullies is to confront them, not run away.”

Watching President Obama kowtow to bullies brings to mind a stinging line from Gore Vidal’s classic play and movie about Presidential politics, “The Best Man.” In a pivotal scene, the Truman-esque former President slams a good-hearted but non-aggressive candidate saying, “Power is not a toy that we give to nice children. It’s a weapon! And the strong man takes it and uses it.” That Machiavellian statement espouses a political reality that President Obama must embrace if he hopes to pull his presidency and his party back from the brink. He doesn’t have to play dirty, but he does have to play. Mr. Obama correctly told “The View” that politics is a contact sport. It’s long past time for him to button up his helmet and start hitting.

Thanks for listening. I’m Cameron Turner and that’s my two cents.

turnerstwocents@yahoo.com

VIDEO: KNBC'S "The Filter" pt. 1 (July 27, 2010)

VIDEO: KNBC'S "The Filter," pt. 2 (07-27-10)