Michelle Malkin » What the NYT’s 8,100-word Valerie Jarrett profile didn’t tell you

What the NYT’s 8,100-word Valerie Jarrett profile didn’t tell you

By Michelle Malkin • July 27, 2009 08:27 AM

Here is a perfect example of why I wrote Culture of Corruption (officially out today — I’ll be launching on Hannity radio and TV.)

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a massive, 8,100-word profile of the Obamas’ best friend and Chicago crony, Valerie Jarrett.

The author, Robert Draper, laments that “[o]ver a four-month period of reporting, I struggled to understand Jarrett’s ineffable raison d’etre in the Obama White House.”

Four months. More than 8,000 words. Several glossy, high-fashion photos.

And he still couldn’t figure out that the “ineffable raison d’etre” of Valerie Jarrett, a Daley-trained politico and consigliere, is power.

Four months. More than 8,000 words. Several glossy photos.

But not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Michelle Obama’s patient-dumping scheme at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Jarrett sat of the board of directors.

And not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Grove Parc — the Chicago slum complex managed by Jarrett’s company, Habitat, Inc. To this day, Jarrett refuses to answer questions about the dilapidated housing development.

No worries with the NYTimes, though. Instead of showing you this:

They give you leggy Glamour Shots:

The woman the NYTimes calls “the ultimate Obama insider” represents the antithesis of “Hope and Change.” She’s a high-fashion, old-school influence peddler. One of her pet causes: Bringing the Olympics to Chicago for Mayor Daley. Here’s how the White House squared her lobbying on the issue with Obama’s no-lobbying rules:

Just a quick post to advise that we granted an authorization under Section 3 of the President’s Ethics Executive Order to Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett to lead the White House’s effort to support Chicago’s bid to secure the 2016 Olympics.

The President promised during the campaign that staff would not work on contracts or regulations directly related to their former employers. We have captured that promise in Paragraph 2 of our revolving door rules, which applies to non-lobbyists. Valerie previously served as Vice Chair of Chicago 2016, the non-profit entity responsible for the Chicago bid. Although Chicago 2016 was not her “former employer” in traditional terms, the term “former employer” in the President’s Order encompasses entities that appointees served as directors or officers, as Valerie did here. (To be clear, Valerie was not a lobbyist for Chicago 2016, and this waiver has nothing to do with lobbying.)

We decided that a waiver of Paragraph 2 was in the public interest in order to help bring the Olympics back to the United States. Valerie’s past experience with Chicago 2016 makes her ideal to work with the city and its bid committee to help win the Olympics for the U.S., with the many benefits that would bestow. In her time working with the City of Chicago on its bid, she developed knowledge about the process that will make her a powerful advocate and liaison. Although Valerie previously volunteered with Chicago 2016, she has no continuing financial relationship with them. Since the Administration already plans on vigorously supporting the United States’ sole 2016 Olympic bid, we felt that letting Valerie lead our efforts was strongly in the public interest.

It’s not about enriching her cronies, you see. It’s in the “public interest!”

Jarrett has a gift for rationalizing the increasing gap between what Obama promised and what he’s delivering. The Times magazine profile mentions her advocacy of reversing lobbying restrictions on stimulus projects — and spins it as a “civil rights” issue:

In recent weeks, senior staff members have fought among themselves over an executive memorandum relating to the Recovery Act. Section 3 of this memo severely restricts contact with White House officials by registered lobbyists to discuss specific stimulus projects. Jarrett has argued that this requirement, while virtuous in theory, means that certain disadvantaged communities — represented, for example, by civil rights organizations whose directors happen to be registered lobbyists — will not be heard. “So there are these tough meetings,” one participant says, “where there are some very strong, very male voices basically saying, ‘The president said we were going to do it this way, and we have to do it this way, come hell or high water.’ And Valerie is one of a group of folks who are saying: ‘You know what? We said we were going to try it. We said we were going to see how it’s going to go. And we need to make sure we do this in a way that’s ultimately consistent with the values we brought to Washington and making sure that we accomplish what we set out to accomplish.’ ”

As usual, Obama listened to his BFF. The Hill reported over the weekend:

In a significant change, the Obama administration will now allow lobbyists to meet and have telephonic discussions with government officials regarding economic recovery projects.

The lifting of the ban comes after K Street has cried foul for months and has challenged the White House on its restrictions…

…In March, President Obama announced that government officials would not be allowed to consider the views of lobbyists regarding specific stimulus projects unless the requests are put in writing. The materials also had to be posted on an agency’s website within three business days of receipt. Lobbyists have said that the policy was one more example of the administration’s disdain for their industry.

Now, the just-revised rules will allow government personnel to accept meetings and calls from federally registered lobbyists on the implementation of stimulus projects. The head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, issued a new guidance late Friday regarding the administration’s communications with registered lobbyists about economic recovery funds.

Lobbyists can make their cases — and agency officials can listen to them — at “widely attended gatherings.” Government officials have to ask whether the person they are talking to at such events is a federally registered lobbyist speaking on behalf of a client.

Agency officials are required to promptly disclose on the Internet all oral and written communications with lobbyists concerning policy or projects funded under the recovery act. They also have to disclose any written communications with lobbyists regarding pending applications for competitive funding.

“Required to promptly disclose on the Internet.”

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I bet Obama and his BFFs had a chuckle over that one.

***

Fun fact: Jarrett oversees the White House Office of Urban Affairs, home of pay-for-play corruptocrat urban czar Adolfo Carrion.

Birds of a feather…

Posted in: Corruption, Valerie Jarrett

Printer Friendly

comments (108)

trackbacks (31)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On July 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

Culture of corruption:

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/07/ramsey_defends_stanleys_three-.php
#102

On July 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, sonofdy said:

Ilovemycountry said: DNC and obama corruption is aok by gop corruption is evil.
#103

On July 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, nail49 said:

I work with both liberals and conservatives and they both care.

moonshot: Isn’t that special? You now admit conservatives really do have a heart.

they don’t sit and wait to see what position he takes and then take the opposite side

I don’t have to sit and wait, I know what positions BHO takes and most of them are antithetical to my idea of how this country is supposed to run, what constitutes a ‘right’ and what the government can and can’t do according to our Constitution. When this Administration, the judiciary and the Congress start upholding their sworn duty “to support and defend the Constitution” they will get a hard look from most on this post, rather than a pass from you, lgm, et al.
#104

On July 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

What’s funny is conservatives pretending to care about a dilapidated housing development or anything of the sort.

Of course we care, we don’t want our property values to go down!

Capitalism! “We care by default!”
#105

On July 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, nail49 said:

What’s ~~funny~~ true is ~~conservatives~~ liberals pretend~~ing~~ to care about a dilapidated housing development or anything of the sort.

In the immortal words of Lili Von Shtupp (Blazing Saddles) “It’s twue! It’s twue!”
#106

On July 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, tiredofit08 said:

Michelle…kudos on the Hannity interview you just did…I’ll be purchasing the book shortly…wow…can’t wait….go get em!!!! MM is on the Hannity tv show tonight as well…
#107

On July 27th, 2009 at 5:39 pm, inspiredhome said:

Our positions are our standard–honesty, integrity, compassion. Jesus Christ told us we’d know people by their fruit. We measure Obama and his administration against the STANDARD and dutifully find him wanting. We are also told to expose the evil deeds of evil men. The darkness wants nothing to do with the light but nevertheless we are to keep on keeping on.
#108

On July 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

Remember when the Bush administration decided to push abstinence-only sex education?

“According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.”

I just want to say Thank You – you are the people who brought such stupid policy to America. I wish all of you would move to North Korea and “help” them.
#109

On July 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, Misscheryl said:

ILMC – you need to lighten up. Your frustration is becoming more and more evident. Pace yourself sweetie – we aren’t even close to being finished and you haven’t seen anything yet.

I just want to say Thank You – you are the people who brought such stupid policy to America. I wish all of you would move to North Korea and “help” them.
#111

On July 27th, 2009 at 6:29 pm, Ragspierre said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html

Ilovemycuber is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stOOOOOOOOpid.
#112

On July 27th, 2009 at 6:43 pm, American Elephant said:

Congratulations on your new book Michelle!!!! Cant wait to read it!
#113

On July 27th, 2009 at 6:57 pm, happyscrapper said:

On July 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, Misscheryl said:
ILMC – you need to lighten up. Your frustration is becoming more and more evident. Pace yourself sweetie – we aren’t even close to being finished and you haven’t seen anything yet.

ILMC is sounding a bit desperate, don’t you think? Desperate and scared. Its days are numbered and it knows that. The things it says are becoming increasingly irrational. Sad sad case. Rubber room time for ILMC.
#115

On July 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pm, Salt said:

ILMC has a hard time understanding the difference between correlation and causation.

If teenage pregnancies are up since 1991, wouldn’t President Clinton, by its faulty logic, also be accountable? Perhaps because he couldn’t keep it in his pants and between him and his wife? (See, I can make random inductive leaps to create fallacies, too.)

To take random statistics and blame a singular cause without any real evidence (abstinence education) shows it truly does not understand how to construct an argument.

Still… I’m not even convinced ILMC is a liberal. The only comments it ever makes are meant to antagonize, not to provide a different viewpoint. This is a sockpuppet even liberal commenters here would rather be gone. It’s rarely on-topic.
#116

On July 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pm, SpeakEasy said:

Moonbeam,
The poorest, worst run cities have been run by Dems for a majority of years, some forever, and have never gotten any better. What does that tell you? Probably nothing.

Kudos are in order for your work with abused children. You are personally making a difference- can you teach some of the other libs that slogans are not enough?
#118

On July 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm, Truesoldier said:

Once again we have another “Czar” being added to a department that already haas a Secretary in place.

The question I would love to see ask (but wont hold my breath) is that if Obama needs the Czar then does that mean he has no confidence in the Secretary he nominated and if he does have confidence then why the need for the Czar?
#119

On July 27th, 2009 at 9:53 pm, infidel4life said:

On July 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm, Truesoldier said:

Once again we have another “Czar” being added to a department that already haas a Secretary in place.

The question I would love to see ask (but wont hold my breath) is that if Obama needs the Czar then does that mean he has no confidence in the Secretary he nominated and if he does have confidence then why the need for the Czar?

Michelle explains in this piece:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/26/culture-of-corruption-czars-of-the-obama-underworld/

Cabinet posts have to pass the scrutiny (such as it is these days) of the Senate confirmation process. Czars do not.
#120

On July 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pm, infidel4life said:

Slightly OT, but I’ll be glad when Michelle take this piece off of the front page, that evil-eye pic of Jarret is creeping me out.
#121

On July 27th, 2009 at 10:32 pm, yohannbiimu said:

I haven’t read through all of the posts here…has anyone alleged “RACISM” yet in all of this?
#122

On July 27th, 2009 at 10:35 pm, jangar said:

Cabinet posts have to pass the scrutiny (such as it is these days) of the Senate confirmation process. Czars do not.

Carzs are used to inform/teach/coerse the cabinet post. Hint: think Axelrod & Obama…without Axelrod, Obama would barely have an original thought, let alone produce a tangible syllable.
#123

On July 28th, 2009 at 12:59 am, OneMonkeysUncle said:

Spanked?! When, and by whom, misscheryl?

Unlike you, I actually read and think about what people post here, even when I disagree with them. You’ve done nothing in these forums but prove yourself to be a barely literate stewpot of inane religious blathering and backwoods hokum. There are plenty of conservative commentators here who are worth debating – intelligent, respectful men and women, who happen to subscribe to a different view point than I, and whose opinions I consider and allow to inform my own. YOU are most certainly NOT one of those people. THAT’S why I don’t bother dragging myself down into the hog slops with the likes of you.
#124

On July 28th, 2009 at 6:47 am, American Elephant said:

Oh look! She had Michelle’s dress turned back into a couch! Its a before and after shot.
#125

On July 28th, 2009 at 8:55 am, Misscheryl said:

Monkey Boy – you really need to do something about that anger you have toward Christianity, you’ll be a much happier person.
#126

On July 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am, Misscheryl said:

Oh and PS Monkey Boy – This isn’t a popularity contest. We aren’t in high school any longer and I couldn’t care less if you thought every other conservative in the world deserved your attention in which you would engage a debate. You are an angry, hateful liberal. Translation: you are a typical liberal who hates us Bible Thumping Christians. So What?!
#127

On July 28th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, Misscheryl said:

Monkey Boy, I did a little search on you. I’ll say this, you’re an equal opportunity hater. Regardless of blog, were are hateful. Maybe you should think seriously about some counseling. I doubt you are that ugly to people face to face, just when you’re hiding behind a keyboard. I may be a redneck hillbilly clinging to my Bible. But I’m a happy one, you, on the other hand have some serious issues. Here’s a hint, when someone always is hateful, no one takes their vitriol opinions too seriously. Think about it.

This statement

There are plenty of conservative commentators here who are worth debating – intelligent, respectful men and women, who happen to subscribe to a different view point than I, and whose opinions I consider and allow to inform my own

Is a lie. You use blogs as a vehicle to spew hatred, you don’t think anyone is worth debating – you’re just mean.
#131

On July 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm, purealchemy said:

Hey, all you pikers!
We’re doing a marathon on the thread for “Don’t Taze Me Bro’” on previous entry page.
Trying to hit 3,000 messages in a thread.
You have nothing better to do, right? LOL
#137

On August 18th, 2009 at 12:38 am, Elm Creek Smith said:

On July 28th, 2009 at 12:59 am, OneMonkeysUncle said:

I’m a bigot.

ECS