•Bracketology requires that the number of “contestants” must be a number which is the number 2 raised to an integer exponent (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.) So, I had to narrow the list down to 16 since I could not reach 32. I was able to do this narrowing down by restricting my definition of scandal as explained in the following two points.
•There is a distinction, at least to me, between actual scandals and just regular policy. For example, Obamacare in itself is not a scandal. It’s just bad policy. Snubbing Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu are not scandals either, just poor policy, as is snuggling up with Iran. That’s why I threw out “contestants” like: calling for Israel’s return to ’67 borders, the “chickensh*t” allegations, Obama’s decision not to meet Netanyahu when he addressed Congress, etc.
•It’s a stretch to say government incompetence is necessarily a scandal. Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. So, for example, I decided the roll-out of the Obamacare exchange websites was not a scandal. I was on the fence about “If you like your doctor…” because, while certainly deceitful, there were no direct cover-ups, lives directly endangered, direct personal gain or cronyism/nepotism, laws broken, or enormous ethical lapses.
Readers who disagree with my bracketology methodology are free to argue otherwise.
Here’s mine:
