Will Solyndra be the first major Obama scandal?

Back in May, I wrote an article drawing on my research into presidential scandal (PDF) which noted that Obama had managed to avoid a major scandal for more than two years:

One of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals. Since Watergate, presidential and executive branch scandal has been an inescapable feature of the American presidency, but the current administration has not yet suffered a major scandal, which I define as a widespread elite perception of wrongdoing. What happened, and what are the odds that the administration’s streak will continue?

Obama has been extremely fortunate: My research (PDF) on presidential scandals shows that few presidents avoid scandal for as long as he has. In the 1977-2008 period, the longest that a president has gone without having a scandal featured in a front-page Washington Post article is 34 months – the period between when President Bush took office in January 2001 and the Valerie Plame scandal in October 2003. Obama has already made it almost as long despite the lack of a comparable event to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The principal reason he has escaped scandal for so long, I argued, is the congested news cycle - Obama's presidency has been consumed by major exogenous news events (Middle Eastern revolts, the shooting of Rep. Gabriel Giffords, the Deepwater Horizon disaster, etc.) as well as the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Nonetheless, I argued that "the likelihood of a presidential or executive branch scandal before the 2012 election [is] quite high." How has that prediction fared?

Well, there hasn't been a major scandal yet according to the definition I use in my research, but the controversy over the White House's role in providing loans to the failed clean energy company Solyndra shows signs that it could be the first of Obama's term. Elspeth Reeve at Atlantic Wire has written a followup report on whether the President will break George W. Bush's record for the longest scandal-free period in the contemporary era:

Mark it on your calendars: if President Obama has just 20 days to go -- October 6! -- in order to claim the record as the most scandal-free president since 1977. The prior record holder is also his predecessor: George W. Bush, who in the appraisal of Dartmouth professor Brendan Nyhan, hit the first scandal of his presidency on October 5, 2003, with the Valerie Plame affair. Nyhan's study this past May predicted that Obama was due for a scandal any day and the Solyndra loan matter may just be the issue that attaches the first S-word to Obama. Literally. 

The criteria for what amounts to a scandal according to Nyhan is whether a news story on the front page of The Washington Post uses that word "scandal" in the reporter's own voice to describe the president or his administration...

Bush made it 34 months before the controversy over the White House's outing of then-undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame hit The Post's front page on October 5, 2003...

Obama had a close call with the ATF blunder Operation Fast and Furious and other newspapers (as well as The Atlantic Wire) have already used the s-word to describe solar technology company Solyndra. Nyhan is watching The Post closely. "Solyndra definitely could break Obama's scandal-free streak," he says. "I'm keeping an eye on the story, but it hasn't crossed the threshold I use in my research yet -- the only Post print article on Solyndra with the word scandal in it so far is an editorial that says the controversy 'may mutate from an embarrassment to a scandal.'"

Comments

[Rob]

From The Daily Show last night: That Custom-Tailored Obama Scandal You Ordered Is Finally Here.

[David in Cal]

WaPo hasn't called Solyndra a "scandal", even though we now know that
-- it cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars
-- loan guarantees were made despite federal agencies' warnings that Solyndra was a bad risk
-- the loans went to a big Obama donor
-- Obama amd Biden personally touted the loans
-- the White House intervened in administrative reviews to get quick approval.
-- As the request of the Obama donor, the loans were arranged so that his losses would come only after government losses

Since WaPo doesn't see all this adding up to a "scandal", it's hard to imagine what else would have to be added to the story to make them use that word. So, I don't think Solyndra will ever meet Brendan's WaPo criterion.

WaPo has not used the word "scandal" to describe the New Black Panther intimidation case and related coverup or Gunrunner and that coverup. Solyndra looks likely to go the same route. IMHO this pattern tells us more about WaPo's political bias than about the Obama Administration's conduct.

[David in Cal]

Solyndra LLC's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a Congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters.
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFS1E78J1KE20110920

Taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination would seem to imply that these two Solyndra executives feel they may have committed criminal acts. That would have been a scandal in the old days. When I was young, organized crime figures were the ones who used the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying before Congressional committees. At the very least, the Solyndra execs' refusal to testify amounts to a cover-up.

However, I'm not convinced that it's enough to create a "scandal" in today's liberal media. The Reuters article seems to imply that they were the ones to break the story. Why are the Brits leading the news gathering on an American story?

WaPo has this story on their web site, but in their Business section, rather than the News section. Will WaPo consider this front page news or worth an editorial? I wouldn't bet on it.

At the moment, the NY Times doesn't even have this story on their web site.

[Rob]

Any lawyer with a brain would advise clients in the same position as these guys to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege. Congressmen and prosecutors are going to be looking for a scalp, and it's crazy to give them ammunition. (Forgive the mixed metaphor.) If the business were a going concern, there might be countervailing P.R. considerations, but that's not the case here.

That said, it's absolutely true that if the Bush Administration had funneled half a billion dollars to a favored company that went under and the executives of the company invoked their privilege, it would have been front page news at the Times and the Washington Post and a source of outrage among all the left-leaning pundits, and you can be sure that the stories and headlines would use the word "scandal" copiously.

[David in Cal]

I appreciate your thoughtful legal insight, Rob. Regarding the PR considerations, although Solyndra the company is gone, two individuals, Brian Harrison and W. G. Stover, will be taking the 5th Amendment. They will be looking for new positions to continue their careers.

If taking the 5th were considered scandalous, Messrs. Harrison and Stover might be deterred from that course. However, since their action will IMHO be a non-scandal, I don't think refusing to testify will interfere with their ability to get hired into new executive positions.

[Scott]

Washy Post has been covering up the "gunwalker" scandal for months - will they call it a scandal when they are active participants in the cover-up?

[David in Cal]

Here's another twist on the 5th Amendment decision. The law firms representing Brian Harrison and W. G. Stover are major contributors to Democrats and both have handsomely helped President Barack Obama’s political efforts. Makes one wonder whether their advice not to testify is for the benefit of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover or for the benefit of Mr. Obama.