What "Throwing Someone Under the Bus" Actually Means.

Via Mike Crowley, I see that gossip columnist Lloyd Grove has a piece detailing all of the people that Barack Obama has supposedly "thrown under the bus" over the last year or so, with Grove implying that most of these people deserved better (Greg Craig, for one, did) and that this dastardly president of ours will do anything to further his ambitions. Except that the phrase he uses actually implies taking advantage of someone who is blameless. But why is Obama is responsible for Steve Rattner's pay-to-play scandal, the tax problems of his various withdrawn nominees, James Johnson's sweetheart mortgage deal, the federal investigation of Bill Richardson's campaign finances, Creigh Deeds' crappy gubernatorial campaign, Rick Wagoner running GM into the ground, Van Jones' decision to sign a Truther petition or David Paterson's inept job as governor?

Since Grove can't seem to think clearly, let me help: There is a difference between throwing someone under the bus -- letting them take the hit for a mistake you were complicit in, or using their loss to advance your own ambitions -- and declining to expend political capital defending someone who has made their own mistakes. In almost all of these cases, Obama and his staff declined to waste time fighting on behalf of people who made mistakes before they even worked with or for him. Loyalty is important, of course, but it can be pernicious, as we saw in the Bush administration. Obama, like all politicians, has been known to be politically expedient, and he ought to be reprimanded when he does so in violation of his stated principles. But Grove's decision to attribute so many people's mistakes to Obama is inexplicable.Then again, Grove's job is to gin up scandals.

-- Tim Fernholz