The Big Question for March 13: Obama’s vetting problems

The Big Question is a feature where influential lawmakers, pundits and interest group leaders give their answers to a question that’s driving discussion in news circles around the country.

Some responses are gathered via e-mail, while others are gathered in person via tape recorder.

Today’s Big Question is:

Given the troubles of President Obama’s various nominees, is there something wrong with the vetting process?

See responses below from Anonymous, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Dean Baker, Tom McClusky, Herbert London, and Dr. Larry J. Sabato below.

Read the last Big Question here.

Anonymous, a long-time advocacy communications consultant and former House and Senate Press Secretary who worked in the Clinton Administration in two federal agencies, and who hopes to get a position in the Obama administration, said:

I cannot believe I am jumping in this even anonymously (my job hopes fading as I type) but there clearly was something wrong with the vetting process if media reports are true and a lone Senate Finance Committee staffer is catching all of the serious tax errors that slipped by the White House lawyers. It sounds like White House Counsel Gregory Craig has fixed the process to some extent but a few questions remain in my mind about accountability: Someone should have been fired for missing the Daschle problem. Did the person responsible for conducting the vetting of Senator Daschle, Secretary Tim Geithner and Former Secretary Richardson get demoted or pushed out? If not, why not? Are the people on the vetting team lawyers who encourage unethical behavior for its clients? Are they going to be leaving White House personnel once the bulk of appointees have been filled out and fighting fraud on behalf of the administration? They might not have a keen eye for it. Read the full response here.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), said:

Historically every administration has had a point at which the nomination process has slowed down either because the administration has more vetting to do or because the Senate begins to have other business to attend to. So there are no red flags to me with what has been happening. Read the full response here.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), said:

Oy vey, oh vetting.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), said:

My guess is we’ve added layer after layer after layer and it’s probably a reasonable thing to look at a streamlined way of vetting people. People have imperfections and things happen. People make mistakes that disqualify them should be disqualified and those that don’t, and certainly those that are unintentional, need to be looked at in other ways sometimes. Read the full response here.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), said:

I know there’s a problem. It appears from press accounts they made it a more strenuous process so that some of the objections that have been raised during the hearings might be discovered earlier on – or at least more information about the candidates.

Dean Baker, Co-Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:

The trouble with President Obama’s nominees reflects the lax ethical standards of the class of people who we rely on to hold high public office. It is standard practice among these people to cheat on their taxes, hire undocumented workers to get low-cost household help, and to engage in questionable business dealings. Read the full response here.

Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for FRC Action, said:

The problems lie not with the vetting process but the vetters and the vetted. Since President Obama took office at least fourteen nominees have withdrawn or stepped aside from the nominating process. Reasons include failure to obey tax laws, compatibility reasons, and ties to scandal. Read the full response here.

Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute, said:

The issue isn’t the vetting process itself but the inexperience and seeming incompetence of those doing the vetting. The fact that so many of the nominees are derelict in paying their taxes suggests that the question did not arise during the initial review. Yet from a common sensical perspective this should be one of the primary concerns of those doing the vetting. Read the full response here.

Dr. Larry Sabato, Director, Center for Politics, said:

The vetting process is simply a reflection of what our society has come to expect of presidential nominees. In President Eisenhower’s phrase, we want them to be ‘as clean as a hound’s tooth’. And therein we find the problem. There are few accomplished human beings who haven’t taken a wrong turn, accumulated some black marks, or made some serious public or private errors by the time they are in their 40s or 50s. This is not to excuse any foibles. Read the full response here.