The New York Times' house Republican David Brooks, a man of such strength of belief that he is swayed only by pants creases, made an interesting observation on last Friday's PBS Newshour program.

And I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.

This calls for Brooks to use his employer-provided health insurance to see a doctor about early-onset Alzheimer's disease.

Alternatively, it begs the question: If the Times' news pages don't consider something to be a scandal, does that objectively make it not a scandal?

White House Dossier had a list of 24 scandals as of August 2013. (Here's another one that didn't make that pre-August 2013 list, but came to my mind.)

Since then, you've got Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and her repeated, willful violations of the memorandum of understanding she signed when she took the State job with regard to the Clinton foundation, both of which really should be Obama administration scandals too, simply because they're so adamantly against investigating any of it.

Really, how blinkered (or in the tank) do you have to be to believe that the Obama administration is scandal-free?