Nixon actively used his position as president to cover up illegal acts. I have seen no evidence that Obama has done something similar.
I'm not saying that - but the similarities in the way the two men dealt with the media, their party, their subordinates and the American people are STRIKING. That's what a lot of the commentary has been focusing on. But consider this:
*Was it "illegal" to put politics first when the news of the Benghazi attacks initially came to the attention of senior Obama administration officials?
*Could lives have been saved if people - at whatever level of the Obama administration - had thought FIRST about how best to respond and not worried about how a "terrorist/al Qaeda attack" would look in the media six weeks before a very close Presidential election?
*Was it "illegal" for conservative groups targeted for "special treatment" by the IRS to be so significantly handicapped in their their ability to compete for Romney votes in the 2012 presidential campaign that it might have swung the election to Obama?
IMHO - could be. They are now investigating several "scandals" to determine the wrongdoing and who knew what when. But I'll point out one other thing: It took more than a year for the full extent of involvement by the "higher-ups" was known in the case of Watergate. We are only several months into the investigation of these three scandals (and those that may branch out from the ongoing investigations). To me, the similarities in personality and the way that Obama and Nixon treat(ed) the media and use(d) their position are glaringly evident. Also - the tone a president sets as he deals with his administration, the opposition, the press and the people sets a tone and example which "All The President's Men" (and women) are wont to follow. Is Barack Obama setting a "Nixonian" tone in some of these areas?
I can see it.
I think only the IRS thing could be considered "illegal", the rest is just bad politics. I'm not minimizing the effect the first two have on the nation, just they cannot be considered illegal as there are no laws on the books to charge anyone. Again, Nixon got in trouble for actively using his office to cover up a crime. A crime which he was aware of after the fact. I have not heard of any evidence linking Obama with any kind of cover up in regards to the IRS. Therefore I do not believe there isn't any credible similarities between Nixon and Obama.
When people die - perhaps needlessly - it ought to be illegal even if it isn't. I'm not just talking about the President per se - it's HIS administration. He is responsible for everything that his people do or don't do. He is quick to take credit for things that reflect favorably on him. A big selling point for his reelection was that Osama Bin Laden was now DEAD. Did President Obama personally kill him? No. Did he fly one of the choppers for Seal Team Six? No. Did he draw up the plan for the operation? No. Did he do much more than say "yes" when he was told the plan and was asked whether they could proceed? Probably not. But he was out there touting the achievement and HE MADE IT HIS OWN for election purposes.
On the other hand, he has been quick to point fingers and assign blame (and indirectly the responsibility) to everyone else BUT himself when things go wrong. We saw it in the first term with the economy and eveything else he could claim he "inherited" with the BLAME BUSH FIRST policy. Now it's a BLAME THE REPUBLICANS/TEA PARTY FIRST policy. FYI - tomorrow, Lois Lerner - the head of the IRS unit which targeted the Tea Party/conservatives for delays, extra scrutiny, etc., WILL TAKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT when she testifies before a congressional committee. By definition, one takes the 5th Amendment when they believe they are culpable for criminal liability for their actions or lack thereof.
The bottom line is that the President owns the IRS, the DOJ, and the State Department. He is responsible for what they do or don't do. Period. So - IMHO - he needs to get after it and clean up the mess, before he himself gets further tainted.
But regardless any criminal liability or "taint," he President sets the tone of his administration, and when he "criminalizes" the Tea Party and the GOP with the tar and feathers as he has over the past 4+ years, he should not be surprised when his subordinates in his administration do what the IRS has admitted it has done; what the DOJ has admitted it has done; what the State Department has admitted - in drips and drabs, kicking and screaming all the way - what they did or didn't do re: Benghazi.
At the end of the day criminal act or not, it was and continues to be bad buisness. He is going to spend the rest of his tenure trying to bolster his failed policies as successess and continute to unholster his pointing finger to the closest scapegoat. Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the "change you can believe in" slogon hasn't been used lately? Right now it reads more like"Change whether you like it or not... Truly a pathetic man with no backbone and no inner fortitude. However, this is what you wanted America, might have wanted to read the fine print on this one. Bad times are coming folks and we do not have a LEADER to guide us through this. I hope that you all realize that this has nothing to do with color, it has to do with the person or in his case the lack thereof. Think about it, what descibes him best? what sets him apart, what makes his citizens believe in him and trust him. None of the above. The best thing he could do for this country if he truly loved it is step down. He has lost the faith of all of his people and will accomplish nothing of importance for the next three years. At this point, all politicions cans kiss my third point of contact. I am done, with this mess, done...
Don't leave, HMJC. We still got tomorrow's Sunday Morning Newscasts, Meet the Press, Face the Nation et al, to see if the 'scandal trifecta' still has its legs. I'm going with NADA OR VERY LITTLE.
Yeah, I'm sticking my neck out a little here. But hey, it's put up or shut up time, no?
The only one close to being a scandal is the one Up2 says above: the IRS thingy. That one, may have some legs...itty bitty ones...but legs nevertheless.
They all have legs, Jimmy, and they are expanding every day. Watergate took more than a year to unravel, and even if these do not rise (or sink) to the level of Watergate, there is still much we don't know.
*Clearly, the IRS went after Tea Party and conservatives, which severely impeded their ability to marshal their efforts to support conservative candidates (including Romney) and conservative causes in the year leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. Who knew and when did they know? There is STILL much to be revealed.
*The DOJ investigating journalists has now expanded from AP journalists to FNC journalists. The more they dig, the more comes out. The biggest joke is that Obama wants Holder to investigate Holder in this instance. This one ain't going away any time soon either.
*As to Benghazi, see my latest blog (soon to be posted). New whistleblowers with new allegations - according to Roger L. Simon, an American Novelist, screenwriter and political commentator - that supposedly will be "DEVASTATING TO CLINTON AND OBAMA."
Hello Sebe. Please see my comment on your latest blog above:...On the Cheap for detail.
I will concede that it has been a rough week for Liberalism, but not a knock out blow by a long shot.
I wouldn't say it has been rough for "liberalism." I'd call it a good week for DEMOCRACY. In my experience, the arrogance of power generally comes out into the sunshine during a President's SECOND term (presuming he gets one). It happpened with Nixon; it happened with Reagan; and it happened with Dubya. Of course, the press was primed with Nixon and Reagan, but it has eventually caught up with (and caught on to) President Obama and his administration.
Mark my words - the President is going to regret doing the Tammy Wynette dance with Holder, who is starting to make John Ashcroft look good. The common thread in all of these scandals (to a lesser extent BenghaziGate) is the DOJ's active participation in activities which are either illegal, improper or "inappropriate." My hunch is that Obama likes Holder not only because he's "one of us," but also because he share's the President's "lead-from-behind" management style. The problem with this - aside from the view never changing - is that it usually results in the "leaders" winding up waist-deep in manure. That's what we're seeing unfold right now before our very eyes as the layers of these these "scandals" continue to be peeled away.
"15 minutes" have long expired. We're into overtime now - with no end in sight until the truth is revealed.
What seems to get lost in the sauce here is we continue to go from one blunder to the next. Whether it grows legs or not is irrevelent; when you have so many ponies to ride you would think that would be troublesome in itself. I will agree that some topics do get sensationalized however, for four and a half years the current administation continues to defend pretty much everything it does. Is this because the Republicans refute everything? to some extent maybe but, when you spend most of your time employing the local spin doctor that doesn't sit very well with me. At the end of the day if it smells like poo poo, it's poo poo.