Back in 2010, Rep. Darrell Issa called Obama one of the most corrupt presidents in history, and pledged to investigate his administration. After a year's worth of hearings and investigations, Issa has come out empty-handed. Of course, when has lack of proof stopped anyone from making ridiculous accusations in politics? To wit:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Bloomberg TV that the Obama government is "proving to be" the "most corrupt in history."
Said Issa: "We are busy in Washington with a corrupt government, with a government that I said perhaps because of the money, the amount of TARP and stimulus funds, was going to be the most corrupt government history and it is proving to be just exactly that. This money going though the hands of political leaders is corrupting the process, whether it is Solyndra, GSA, or a number of other scandals."
Solyndra is a bugaboo of the right wing (that's been roundly dismissed by mainstream outlets), and the GSA scandal has little to do with the Obama administration itself. Moreover, as political scientist Brendan Nyhan has pointed out, the administration has been remarkably scandal-free in a way that hasn't been true of any administration in recent history. Even if that weren't the case-and Solyndra was a cause for concern-it pales in comparison to the criminal probes (and actual convictions) of the Bush years, and the record-breaking corruption of Ronald Reagan's tenure (Iran-Contra, to use one example).
But none of this matters; it is a presidential election year, and the Republican case against Obama will include an attack on the ethics of his administration. Romney has already railed against the "crony capitalism" of Obama's policies, and you should expect Republicans to dig in on the charge that the administration is incredibly corrupt, despite the lack of any evidence.
