I’ve read a few pieces in recent days about the Obama administration’s reaction to the White House “gate crashers” that try to expand the issue beyond what it is.
By refusing to let White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers testify before Congress about the incident, the Obama administration is violating its own promise to have an open White House, some media reports have said. (I can’t find the piece I read this weekend at the moment.)
It’s a valid point, but after some reflection, I have to disagree. I don’t think this incident — which has already been blown way out of proportion — can be used to judge the administration’s transparency. Who really cares whether Rogers is to blame, and isn’t it more important that we know how the President arrived at his Afghanistan surge decision?
Great piece on that in the Post on Sunday, by the way. Focus, people.
David Carr writes in The New York Times that Obama’s social media campaigning and his celebrity status have perhaps cheapened the office to reality TV status.
This I also think is a bit unfair. The Salahis would probably have tried to attend this affair whether it was Obama or Bush or Clinton in office. Judging from their Facebook pages, they like to take pictures with famous people. And there were famous people aplenty at the state dinner. Famous for Washington, at least.
So to sum up: Shun media and Congressional probes, face scrutiny. Open up the White House to the people, face scrutiny. All over some rich couple that crashed a party. Security concerns are valid, but let’s just let the Secret Service clean up this mess.