The campaign against Scott Pruitt at EPA (more stories in the New York Times than it ran on the scarcity of women at Augusta a decade ago—clearly planned and planted by the environmental establishment) has finally borne fruit: Pruitt has resigned today.
I haven’t kept up with the running list of Pruitt’s alleged and real mis-steps, but the best account I heard of his tenure as EPA administrator is that he was “doing a good job badly.” He seemed to have more than the usual self-regard and obliviousness to “appearances,” whose double-standards Republicans need to understand when they go to DC. (If the media had been half as curious about scandals and self-dealing under Obama’s EPA we’d have seen a flood of stories.)
One aspect of the story did attract my attention, though. It seemed the drive to get Pruitt picked up steam shortly after the EPA announced it might substantially scale back the stupid ethanol blending requirements. Coincidence? I think not.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.