Peter King’s bid for a Reality Show

On December 2nd White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers would not appear at the House Homeland Security Committee hearing about the state dinner party crashers, citing separation of powers.  At first I thought, “huh, what’s the big deal.”  But I kept seeing Peter King (R-NY), ranking Republican member on the committee, on TV demanding her subpoena along with the reality show wanna-be’s Tareq and Michaele  Salahi.

Given that we are fighting a global war on terrorism including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wondered about Rep. King’s insistence on taking center stage on an incident that has little to do with his committee.   They have much, much higher priorities these days.  The hearings would be nothing more than a media event and would accomplish absolutely nothing and be a huge distraction, which is probably why the White House said that Ms. Rogers would be a no-show.

Then it dawned on me.  Peter King wants his own reality show.



Filed under Uncategorized

27 responses to “Peter King’s bid for a Reality Show

  1. Morning peeps,

    Breaking News Alert
    The New York Times
    Fri, December 04, 2009 — 8:36 AM ET

    U.S. Jobless Rate Falls to 10% as Economy Shed 11,000 Jobs in November

    The United States economy shed 11,000 jobs in November, and
    the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, down from 10.2
    percent in October, the Labor Department said Friday.

  2. Peter King is an asshole and a bigot, 2 reasons not to give him what he wants. The truth of the matter is the only reason he wants Desiree Rogers to appear is so he can beat up on her, the White House made the right call here.

  3. dnd

    That jobs number is huge. It was expected to be greater than 10.2%. I predict that when health care reform passes unemployment will drop in a big way.

  4. dog's eye view

    I think those gatecrashers have done us a favor, in the long run:

    1) demonstrated weak security links; opportunity to strengthen White House guest procedures

    2) the couple are apparently grifters; their polo charity is under scrutiny and the IRS will likely absorb much of the Salahis’ free time in coming months. No more conning the locals and stiffing businesses.

    But the real news out of Washington today (aside from jobless figures) — oh no — we are losing our teenaged panda! And his folks are on a short leash too — they could be China bound in a few short years too.

    Tai Shan’s jetting back to China after the holidays.

  5. nannymm

    The unemployment numbers are very encouraging. So are the revised numbers re: jobs lost in the two previous months. Perhaps we have finally turned the corner.

    As to Peter King, he’s a camera seeking blowhard. All this nonsense about the Secret Service and the WH Social Secretary sharing blame is absurd. The Social office is not trained in security matters; they don’t do security checks or clearances. That is the job of trained Secret Services Agents. They failed; they alone are responsible for allowing the Salahis to enter.

  6. TempeBev

    Another repug demonstration of grandstanding to gain attention because they have nothing else to stand on.

    Congrats BC on the 100+ blog entries last night.

    Bye-Bye Tai Shan – we’ll miss you.

  7. The president was in fine form this morning, shame the press is hell bent on finding bad news in today’s jobs numbers.

  8. eprof2

    I might be walking out of step on this one but I believe the social secretary, Desiree Rogers, ought to testify. Simple reason is to show that the Obama White House is transparent and not to leave any doubt in anyone’s mind that there was some kind of conspiracy going on. Also, if you believe, as I do, in congressional oversight, I don’t want any kind of precedent in which this president or any future president can lay claim to Ms. Rogers setting a precedent. Therefore, I maintain she should testify and let the chips fall where they may; they might even embarrass Congressman King!!

  9. eprof2

    Dog, I didn’t graduate from either university although I took classes toward a Portland State degree on both campuses so it didn’t matter other than I didn’t want either of them to embarrass themselves on national tv, which they didn’t.

  10. nannymm

    eProf, you make a good point about Desiree Rogers. It certainly wouldn’t hurt for her to testify before Congress. In fact, it might set a new precedent that WH staff can and should testify in most situations. Executive privilege claims should be made sparingly and only when truly warranted.

  11. You don’t give up executive authority to an asshole like King who’s only looking to beat up the administration especially over something that is as insignificant as this entire issue is. This entire issue is a tempest in a tea pot.

  12. nannymm

    The WH has grabbed far too much power in recent years, Brian. Sending Rogers up to testify might be a recognition of that. It would also indicate a willingness on the part of the Obama administration to act in good faith in their dealings with Congress regarding Congressional hearings.
    Bush cried “executive privilege” without any justification. Obama claims to be different; here is one little chance to prove it.

  13. So Obama is supposed roll over for all of Bush’s sins every time some member of congress gets a bug up his ass? I don’t think so.

  14. nannymm

    Not roll over, Brian. Just revert to what used to be. Should Biden have retained all the power that Cheney grabbed? We’d all be screaming bloody murder if he had. No difference with Obama.

  15. If the issue was a valid one for congress to be investigating I would agree with you, but this isn’t. You’re engaging in hyperbole IMO. This party crasher issue doesn’t meet the smell test IMO to warrant a congressional investigation.

  16. eprof2

    Brian, it is a legitimate issue. The Executive branch gets its funding from the Congress; therefore, oversight into all aspects of the Executive branch are legitimate. It may be a very minor issue, WH security, but it’s still covered by oversight.

  17. “oversight into all aspects of the Executive branch are legitimate.”

    If that were so there would be no such thing as executive privilege! I don’t think your argument is legal sound.

  18. eprof2

    Executive privilege is the exception to the rule and is still controversial in the light of, oh, maybe 200 SC cases. Just because a president claims executive privilege doesn’t make it so. Remember what Nixon told David Frost, “when the president does it, it’s legal.” I vaguely remember that that came back to bite him in the ass big time: he was forced to resign or face criminal charges in spite of executive privilege.

  19. I understand that eprof, but like I said IMO this is not an issue that warrants the president giving into. You see it as a black and white issue, I see King as playing politics.

  20. dog's eye view

    Yea, eprof, I am glad you and nanny raised the executive privilege issue, because I didn’t want to be a contrarian two days in a row.

    My first thought on hearing about invoking exec privilege was “Rove and the emails”, and this is nowhere near that level. How better to show the White House is under new management than to be candid and reassuring that better procedures are in place?

    The meme about “incompetence” doesn’t fit that well; this was a beginner’s mistake.

    Further, I think the social office should have had someone at the arrivals site — this was a temporary black eye and a warning to snap to.

    Agreed that Rep King is a grandstander.

    But this was a serious, serious security lapse, and cannot happen again. Better to man up and move on to the next crisis/opportunity.

  21. dnd

    Secret Service is under HHS, so it’s entirely appropriate that the head of Secret Service appear before the House Homeland Security Committee. He did, accepted full responsibility, case closed.

    That committee has no oversight on the WH Social Secretary, so they have no business, IMHO, wanting her to testify.

    King’s remarks make me think this is a political stunt designed to embarrass the WH. Maybe get another staffer to resign. From that perspective, invoking executive privilege, while overkill, is sending a message that the WH is onto your game.

    Your point that, politically, it may have been better to send her up there, is a valid one, but one the WH apparently decided not to risk.

    In any event, I can’t believe this committee doesn’t have better priorities.

  22. AmericanInSURGEnt

    What a non-issue. The “party crashers” blended in with all the other elitists that attended the event.
    But given that most Americans are on very hard financial times right now I feel it was in bad taste to even have it. I’d prefer it if these “public” servants focused on the severity of the situation we are in at the moment instead of worrying about throwing gala events. And as far as security goes maybe the C.I.A. should have brought in Ahmed Wali Karzi .Obviously they are impressed with his security skills since the poppy exportation is at all time high and he gets paid with our tax dollars.

  23. AmericanInSURGEnt

    Oh and lets not get all giddy about unemployment,it was a 3 day week last week the offices werent open to accept claims.

  24. nannymm

    Glenn Beck’s “Christmas Sweater” Fails To Catch Fire In Major Liberal Enclaves… Surprise!
    digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost – Glenn Beck’s “Christmas Sweater” Fails To Catch Fire In Major Liberal Enclaves… Surprise!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s