I don’t use words like “phony” and “fraudulent” liberally.  To do so would be hypocritical and in effect would be contradictory to the very essence of what I was saying; these words imply certainty and are intended to expose the intentional inaccuracy of a claim or idea.  So when I hear President Obama as well as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney parroting back talking points that call recent scandals “phony”, I become not only suspicious of this language, but disturbed by it.

President Obama mentioned on Wednesday the 24th in a speech at Knox College that Republicans in Congress are “distracting” from the economy and other issues with “phony scandals”.  Essentially, he claims that almost five years of economic turmoil, the disaster that has been the delay of Obamacare, and the number of Americans on food stamps reaching 47.5 million is caused by Republicans’ inability to function effectively as they focus on trivial, unimportant issues.

The irony of this is just stunning.  Democrats plan to spend 700 million dollars advertising Obamacare to the masses, advocating the effectiveness of the very legislation that is being delayed for its negative impact on businesses.  Somehow, this is conveniently forgotten when the Obama administration omits this information and claims that Republican Congressmen are hurting the economy by focusing on issues like Benghazi, the scandal involving the Department of Justice, and the IRS targeting conservative groups.

While Jay Carney may claim that the White House is not involved in the IRS scandal and that it remains the sole focus of Republicans, I remain skeptical.  Why?  Because the very fact that virtually identical talking points exist for President Obama and Jay Carney indicates that some at some level the issue was discussed and it was decided that a shift to a focus on the economy was more beneficial.  If there was indeed no scandal involving the White House, why hasn’t this been cleared up with hard evidence?  Why are talking points necessary?  And who uses the word phony anymore?  I sense some collusion here.

But Democrats, who like angling the scandals as false, have done their fair share of obfuscation as well.  The White House claimed that the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS was limited to the Cincinnati branch, and it was later revealed that this (no matter what the source) was untrue.  Furthermore, Eric Holder misled many regarding the seizing of information when he claimed he was not involved in the DOJ scandal and it was later revealed that he had in fact signed the very search warrant that was so controversial.

So why is the left contradicting itself?  Why are they claiming to care deeply about internal scandals, and yet ignore them and attempt to address other issues?  The key lies in the term “phony” used by the Obama Administration; it doesn’t discredit the claim that the White House was involved, but that rather than addressing any of the issues, the scandals are labeled as intentionally false.  By now the President should know that simply repeating something over and over does not make it true.

As Obama and the Economy Tour continue around the country ripping Republicans for calling for “indiscriminate cuts” and vaguely referencing their acceptance of the dominating and ominous “one percent”, the Presidents approval ratings  continue to drop, and questions remain about the White House’s involvement in recent scandals.

Even if the President and others are not involved, it is in the best interest of the American people to uncover exactly what circumstances surrounded the scandals with the DOJ, Benghazi, and the IRS.  We pay these people to run our country, and it should be disturbing that such behavior is being disregarded.  As Thomas Paine said “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody”.


Conner Dwinell | Hillsdale College | @ConnerDwinell