Obama's Teflon Presidency?
Is Barack Obama our nation's second "Teflon President"? The question has occurred to me before, but it became impossible to ignore after the last week of "Scandalgate." Even after multiple scandals all vying for the top headline throughout the week, over the weekend CNN reported poll numbers showing Obama currently enjoys 53 percent of the public's approval for the job he's doing. His numbers actually rose from the last time the poll was taken, when Obama was at 51 percent approval. That's pretty stunning news, after the week the president just had. Which is why it's now time to ask the question -- does Obama have the "Teflon" quality of having nothing stick to him, no matter what?
Of course, this might be a premature conclusion to draw, for quite a number of reasons. The first of which is that it's still pretty early, as Washington scandal cycles go (except for Benghazi, which has been around for months). More revelations are likely on the way, and they could bend public opinion in either direction, really. But you can bet the Republicans are going to spend a whole lot of time digging, for the foreseeable future. So even if nothing major comes to light, there will still be a steady stream of wonky details from congressional committees, which the pundits will chew over with delight.
The second reason drawing any conclusions or predictions is premature is that it's too early for the public, as well. While people who constantly keep abreast of every tiny shred of political news (and I do include myself in that group) are already fully aware of the scandal details, the general public simply doesn't pay that close attention to politics. The number of people who get their news from late night comics is astounding, and has to be factored in. No matter what the political scandal, it takes time to seep in (or percolate up, take your pick) to the public's consciousness. Any poll takes a few days to conduct, and more time to compile, so CNN was asking the public pretty early on in the scandal cycle to begin with. Give it another week, and the numbers may shift dramatically, as more and more people become informed (in whatever way) about the details of what's going on.
The third reason it's too early to declare a trend is that this is only one poll. It may be what pollsters call an "outlier" -- a random skewing of the responses that winds up being mistaken about the direction of the public's opinion. This isn't to knock CNN or their polling -- outliers can happen to any polling organization, and it's why smart poll-watchers only believe a valid trend exists after multiple polls begin to show the same picture.
Even with all of these caveats, if the CNN poll does turn out to be indicative of the public's true feelings, it is pretty remarkable. Which leads to the Reagan comparison. Ronald Reagan (at least, up until the Iran-Contra scandal) was the first to be called a "Teflon president" because no matter what scandals popped up on his watch, he appeared to float above them all. Nothing stuck, hence the Teflon label. Barack Obama has long admired the transformational nature of Reagan's presidency (which has often been mischaracterized as Obama supporting or approving of Reagan's actual agenda, which is a completely different thing and not true). But the comparison in the two men's political skills seems to becoming more and more apt. Scandal after scandal (or, at least, what his opponents label "scandal," at any rate) is thrown at Obama, and not much of it gains any traction with the public, outside of people who already don't approve of Obama and never will.
Take a look at a comparison chart of job approval numbers for Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan (and please note, this is a chart of monthly averages which doesn't include any Obama numbers for this month, yet):
[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]
The blue and brown lines show Ronald Reagan's approval and disapproval. The green and red lines show Obama's. Reagan, by this point in his term (and excluding the first year's "honeymoon period") had experienced higher highs and lower lows than Obama has. Reagan spent a whole 10 months with a lower job approval rating than the lowest number Obama has ever charted, and Reagan dipped well below 40 percent in his worst month. By comparison, Obama (also excluding the initial honeymoon) has kept his approval rating almost exclusively between 45 and 55 percent. That's amazingly stable. Obama did spend four months below 45 percent and hit a low of 43.4 percent in the middle of the debt ceiling budget fight in 2011. But other than that, his numbers don't change all that much, no matter what story is breaking. Even the death of Osama Bin Laden didn't push Obama much above 50 percent approval, and if you remove that data point and his second post-election "honeymoon," his approval has stayed within the 45-50 percent range for over three years. That's a much tighter range than even Mr. Teflon himself, Ronald Reagan, could manage.
During this period, the Republicans have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him. They have made it their party's highest priority to tear down Obama, and they have stunningly failed to convince the public to change their mind about the man all that much. Perhaps this is a big part of the problem. Perhaps crying "Kenyan!" too often has discredited their alarms, to put this another way. The populace hears that Obama is a socialist or hates America or is trying to destroy this or that aspect of American life -- and they collectively yawn, because they are considering the source. Republican scandal overreach may be coming home to roost, to mix the metaphors a bit.
Perhaps the CNN poll will indeed prove to be an outlier. Perhaps Obama's numbers aren't actually going up even after the trifecta of scandals last week. It is really too early to identify that trend, and we'll have to wait a week or so to see some other polls to figure out what's really going on out there. But I would be willing to bet that even if Obama's numbers do go down, they won't go down all that much. It seems that roughly 45 percent of the public will approve of Obama no matter what the other side throws at him, and roughly 45 percent of the public will never approve of the job Obama's doing (even killing Bin Laden didn't convince them, remember) no matter what happens. The 10 percent in the middle will fluctuate by a few points, but on the whole, remain within a tight range.
I don't know what else to call that but Teflon.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
All that is likely to change considering that Obama has now gone after the Fourth Estate..
And so far, it's that Estate that has been carrying water for him for the last 4+ years..
If he loses that support....???
He'll be BEGGING for Jimmy Carter numbers...
And, considering the stories that are coming out of ABC and CBS...????
Obama might have bit the hand that has been holding his head above water...
Michale
CW,
Are you vying to monopolize your own MDDOTW awards? It isn't enough you joined the thundering herd in promoting media "scandals," for which there is no evidence. Now you're going for a two-fer, simultaneously dismissing the public's lack of interest in fact-free media non-events while breathlessly comparing the current conspiracy theory "scandals" with actual scandals of the past, for which there were, you know--proof?! Sure to be absolutely riveting! What could possibly be more illuminating than comparisons of fiction with fact? And the theory that Obama hasn't taken a hit, not because the public isn't stupid enough to buy into all the hype, but simply because it hasn't made enough late-night comedy routines yet!
Color me disgusted!
LewDan,
You know, Vice President Biden always recounts why he believes the American people are smart and politically astute.
I think the public reaction to the scandals that the Republicans are so obsessed with is just another anecdote to demonstrate that Biden is right about the American people, in the overall.
Doesn't anyone here think that it is rather ironic that it is none other than Vice President Biden who has the most faith in the American people when the American people have so little faith in him?
LD,
This *IS* a reality based forum, after all... And the reality is, there are PLENTY of facts to support the idea that Obama's numbers should be going down..
The problem here is that you (like many Weigantians) defines "facts" as anything that shows the awesomeness and greatness of Emperor Barack The First.
Anything that shows The One in a bad light is a "non-fact". At least by your definition.
But (inadvertently, I am sure :D) you have proven another point that I make often about the Left. When you have someone who joins you in basking in the awesomeness glow of The One, that someone is the cat's meow...
If someone starts to question, starts to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the emperor has no clothes, that MAYBE there is something to all the bonehead moves, then that someone must be cast out and down to perdition..
While I admire your loyalty, it is definitely misplaced. Obama is not a god. He is not deserving of such fealty.
He is simply a man. A selfish insecure little man.
That is all he is. That is likely all he will ever be.
This is a reality based forum...
Welcome to reality...
Liz,
Doesn't anyone here think that it is rather ironic that it is none other than Vice President Biden who has the most faith in the American people when the American people have so little faith in him?
That's likely because the American people are smart enough to realize when they are being stroked for political gain..
Of COURSE Biden is going to milk and bilk the American people.
Biden wants their vote in 2016...
He is the consummate politician.. Not in the same league as his boss, but nothing more than a politician nonetheless...
To paraphrase Biden, he really ain't no big *ucking deal... :D
Michale
When you have someone who joins you in basking in the awesomeness glow of The One, that someone is the cat's meow...
If someone starts to question, starts to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the emperor has no clothes, that MAYBE there is something to all the bonehead moves, then that someone must be cast out and down to perdition..
To be fair, the same could be applied to me as well..
But, in my defense, I am a little less blatant and a lot more logical about it.. :D
Michale
You really know nothing about Biden, do you, Michale?
He has been proclaiming the intelligence of the American people and their ability to make informed political assessments and decisions for as long as I have been following his illustrious career. Of course, even Biden knows that there are exceptions to every rule ... ahem.
You really know nothing about Biden, do you, Michale?
Only what I see and read...
Other than that, not a damn thing. :D
He has been proclaiming the intelligence of the American people and their ability to make informed political assessments and decisions for as long as I have been following his illustrious career. Of course, even Biden knows that there are exceptions to every rule ... ahem.
If you can find any evidence of this prior to his campaigning, I'll concede the point..
Michale
I don't play those games. You'll just have to take my word for it.
And, if that's not good enough, so be it.
CW,
isn't this pretty much the same thing i've been saying for awhile now?
~joshua (holding hand out for quatloos)
Liz,
I don't play those games.
Awwwww, yer no fun! :D
You'll just have to take my word for it.
That's never been a problem to date.. :D
Joshua,
(holding hand out for quatloos)
Just post your bank account number, routing number and PIN and I'll make sure those quatloos get deposited.. :D
Michale
These 'scandals' are about the least scandalous scandals I've ever seen. Most of them are about as desperate as the birth certificate 'scandal'. Yawn.
Droning innocent people, keeping open a US concentration camp, the over-the-top war on drugs etc. These are real scandals happening under Obama that he actually has direct influence over. Unfortunately the vast majority of Republicans can't say much other than 'we agree with him' on these issues so they have to jump on lunatic pseudo-scandals from birth certificates to religion to his usage of the phrase 'act of terror' instead of the word 'terrorism' (the latter is a clear impeachment, come on!).
Most of them are about as desperate as the birth certificate 'scandal'. Yawn.
Yea, how boring is it that a US Ambassador and 3 others were brutally murdered..
What a yawn fest when IRS targets innocent Americans and destroy their financial well-being, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because they believed in a different political ideology than our POTUS...
And you call yourself a liberal!???
Michale
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328232/Oklahoma-tornado-Daily-Show-creator-Lizz-Winstead-faces-backlash-insensitive-tweet.html
Here ya go, Michty...
Apparently, she is your kind of liberal... :^/
Michale
Most of them are about as desperate as the birth certificate 'scandal'. Yawn.
The ONLY litmus test of ANY relevance as to whether or not it's a true scandal is this..
Would these incidents be scandals under a GOP Administration???
Of course they would be... There is absolutely NO QUESTION that they would be scandals.
Ergo, they MUST be real scandals..
"Simple logic"
-Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK II: The Wrath Of Kahn
:D :D
Michale
Yer right, Michty...
IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.storyTop
No scandal there... :^/
Michale
"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It's actually closer to us being idiots."
-Obama Administration Official Regarding Benghazi
Vindication, thy name is MICHALE!!! :D
{{{rumble, rumble}}} {{rumble, rumble}}
House of cards... Tumbling down....
:D
Michale
The Democratic Party's edge over the GOP on who the public trusts more on ethics and corruption issues has flipped in the wake of the IRS and Benghazi scandals, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Not only do voters trust Republicans more now, they have their highest level of confidence in the GOP and the lowest level in Democrats in seven months.
While the Democrats had an eight-point "trust advantage" over Republicans a month ago, Rasmussen's latest poll said that edge has disappeared and now the GOP has a two-point advantage.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/after-irs-benghazi-scandals-public-trust-shifts-to-gop/article/2530167
{{{rumble, rumble}}} {{rumble, rumble}}
OK, I'll try and stop now.... :D
Michale
You can trust me, Michale, and know that I would never lead you astray.
"I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious, here."
Liz,
"I know...."
-Han Solo, STAR WARS VI Return Of The Jedi
:D
Michale
http://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/mallardfillmore/s-1326152
:D
"It's funny 'cause it's true "
-Homer Simpson
:D
Michale
Droning innocent people, keeping open a US concentration camp, the over-the-top war on drugs etc. These are real scandals happening under Obama that he actually has direct influence over.
Not to mention Apple's (and other large multinationals) overseas tax avoidance, the continuing erosion of the middle class, and the effects of idiotic, across-the-board sequestration cuts in government funding.
So many real scandals. Which is, of course, why the monied interests have to keep hyping the fake scandals.
-David
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/21/correspondents-association-concerned-government-too-aggressive-in-tracking/?test=latestnews
Again, one has to wonder if the Bush DOJ had done this to NBC or MSNBC or CBS??
I think the howls for blood from the Left and Weigantians would be defining..
AND RIGHTLY SO!!
Michale...
Not to mention Apple's (and other large multinationals) overseas tax avoidance, the continuing erosion of the middle class, and the effects of idiotic, across-the-board sequestration cuts in government funding.
I agree...
So, let's see some reasons why Apple would be able to skate on taxes...
Interesting.. Apple and Obama are tight...
So many real scandals.
I have already proven beyond ANY doubt that the IRS targeting of Conservatives, the DOJ raiding the AP for nothing and Benghazi *are* real scandals..
They would be real with a '-R' POTUS so they are real with a '-D' POTUS...
Simple logic..
Michale
Would these incidents be scandals under a GOP Administration???
Lol are you kidding me. They are having Congressional Hearings on most of these 'scandals'.
Under the previous GOP Presidency, the GOP Commander in Chief gave a direct order to go to war based on a complete and utter lie coming from his administration, directly leading to the death of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent civilians and thousands of US soldiers. Not 1 single Congressional Hearing has occurred to look into the deaths the GOP President (and the lies of his administration) was responsible for.
Lying to go to war leading to the deaths of millions of people = scandal; having your embassy attacked (Benghazi) = couldn't be further from a scandal.
The IRS scandal (for me) is summarised in this cartoon: http://www.mattbors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/994.png
The closest thing to an actual scandal is the AP one. But it is the right, not the left, pushing for the destruction of civil rights in the interest of 'National Security'. So naturally the GOP has actually not been too outraged by this one and focused their attention on the other non-scandals.
Ask anyone around the world what 'Watergate' is and most will have a clue. Most will know about Clinton and Lewinsky. Almost everyone will know about the Iraq war and the non-WMDs. Ask someone about Benghazi and they'll stare at you with a blank look on their face. Heck even almost half the lunatics claiming that this was somehow one of the biggest scandals ever can't even tell you where Benghazi is...
Heck even almost half the lunatics claiming that this was somehow one of the biggest scandals ever can't even tell you where Benghazi is...
And I'm not even kidding: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/where-is-benghazi-poll-051513
Ya know, Michty..
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just say, "It's ALL Bush's fault"...
Because that's what your entire comment is about.
Obama and the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
It's all Bush and the evil Republican's fault...
Well, ya'all were wrong about Benghazi..
Ya'all are wrong about the illegal targeting of conservatives by Obama's IRS.
And ya'all are wrong about the illegal seizure of records from the AP and FNC by Obama's DOJ...
And the disclosures are only getting more and more serious..
I just wonder how long ya'all are going to hold on to that crazy pipe-dream that Obama and Democrats are blameless....
My guess is to the bitter end..
Michale
A Democrat on the House’s investigative committee raised the specter of a special prosecutor on Wednesday to investigate political targeting of conservative groups at the IRS from 2010 to 2012.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/22/rep-issa-accuses-irs-misleading-congress-and-ameri/#ixzz2U2owkfmL
Apparently, a Democrat thinks it is enough of a "scandal"...
He must not be a REAL Democrat! I bet he is racist, to boot!! :^/
Michale
Oh yeh I can't remember Republicans trying to invent any scandals out of anything at all during Obama's Presidency. Not once have they gone all out over the top lunatic bat-shit crazy about the dumbest things. Oh wait...
LabelPinGate
RezkoGate
PledgeofAllegianceGate
AyersGate
57StatesGate
IndonesiaGate
RevWrightGate
TeleprompterGate
BirtherGate
CzarGate
LongFormBirtherGate
AcornGate
DeathPanelGate
ForgedLongFormBirtherGate
SecretMuslimGate
IndoctrinatingSchoolChildrenGate
AuntZeituniGate
ChurchillBustGate
FastandFuriousGate
NewBlackPanthersGate
BeerSummitGate
Marxist/Socialist/FascistGate
TerroristFistBumpGate
SolyndraGate
ApologyTourGate
BowingToSaudiKingGate
Didn'tVisitIsraelGate
ChristmasTreeOrnamentGate
SocialSecurityNumberGate
VacationGate
CollegeTranscriptsGate
FEMADeathCampGate
SecretlyGayMarriedGate
RecessAppointmentsKillTheConstitutionGate
OnceAteDogMeatGate
Didn'tBuildThatGate
AmmoHoardingGate
BenghaziGate
BENGHAZIGATE!!!!!!
DIDN'TYOUHEARME!!!BENGHAZIGATE!!!!!!!!!!!
IRSProfilingGate
APPhoneRecordsGAte
UmbrellaGate
Like I said before: yawn.
Yea, keep dreaming and yawning, Micthy..
That's all you ever bring to the discussion..
Reality is that these scandals are not going to go away...
You were wrong on Benghazi..
You'll be wrong about everything else..
Michale
But look at the bright side, Michty..
Ya'all on the Left still have Anthony Weiner..
BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D
Michale
I have no idea who that is. I'm excited though, do I have a new one to add to the list: Weinergate?
:)
Looks like the IRS official at the head of all the conservative targeting is not going to be allowed to take the 5th...
This keeps getting better and better.... :D
Michale
LewDan [2] -
I suppose it all depends on your definition of "scandal" and the perception of both the media's and the public's reaction.
In my humble opinion, Benghazi is a "scandal" (with "scare" quotes... as opposed to a real scandal) -- as Obama said, there's no there there. Gasp! The CIA and State don't agree! Talking points -- by definition, spin -- were spun! The American public didn't learn the truth within 24 hours! It's pretty silly when you unpack it, that's for sure.
The IRS thing is indeed a scandal. It's not very far-reaching, and there doesn't seem to be a shred of White House impropriety whatsoever, but it's a scandal for the agency, that's for sure. Obama did the right thing, fired the two people at the top, and I'm sure more heads are going to roll. Ask those two guys who got cashiered whether it's a "scandal" or not -- they'll tell you.
The AP/Fox thing is also a scandal, and I sincerely hope Holder will resign eventually. Why was the AP not informed of the subpoena so they could fight it in court? Why is the 1917 Espionage Act being used against a Fox reporter. for the first time in history? This is governmental overreach. The "Pentagon Papers" decision states clearly that a reporter cannot be held accountable for a leak -- they're just doing their job. So why is Obama and Holder going after one? That, to me (although I'll admit my bias... I'm not a reporter, but sometimes I play one on the web...) is a scandal.
As for the media's reaction, well, it is what it is. As for the public's reaction, I've just been astounded at its non-reactibility throughout Obama's term, not just in the past few weeks. Hence the article.
LizM -
Biden might be right. He contradicts the famous PT Barnum quote, though, about one being born every minute...
:-)
Michale [5] -
You're as guilty as you're making everyone else out to be. You see things from your set of facts in your reality. Those facts show you, time and again, that Obama is at the brink of being the most unpopular president ever. Again and again, this turns out not to be true. This is because the people in the middle (where you've always said you live, by the way), listen to one side, they listen to the other side, and then they decide -- mostly discounting what both sides are saying, and usually just using common sense. Republicans have overplayed their hand so often, the people in the middle now find it increasingly hard to give any sort of weight to any scandal they try to gin up. They've heard "Wolf!" so many times, turned their heads, and seen maybe a Chihuahua (probably spelled that wrong, "a tiny dog") -- and they now are not very trusting when they hear the same cry. You always fail to figure this into your "facts" and you always come to the same result -- being wrong about "Obama's numbers about to fall off a cliff."
So who is really deluding himself, hmmm?
Michale [6] -
Wait... did you just type my response for me?!?
Heh. I did like your use of "the cat's meow" but then I'm biased...
joshua [10] -
You know, the whole time I was writing this, I was thinking "joshua's going to be happy I'm finally writing the article he's been begging me to write for so long!"
As for your quatloos, let's see, we'll figure a percent for you and then multiply it times the $0.00 I made on the article... oh, wait...
Heh. Seriously, credit where credit is due: this article was indeed for you!
:-)
michty6 [12] -
The AP/Fox thing is an Obama/Holder scandal, although I agree with your main point. I would add the sexual assault in the military thing to your list, the scandal that got forgotten during Scandalgate Week.
Michale [13] -
Nobody's financial well being was destroyed. No audits were performed, nobody got fined. They were asked for more paperwork, and none of them even had their applications turned down. Stick to the facts...
[OK, I'm going off to boil some water, I'll do the rest of these in a "part 2"]
-CW
I agree...
What would be a good recommended fix? Could we agree to close the tax loophole on overseas earnings? Or would you suggest something else?
-David
[Armed with a fresh mug of bubbling hot caffeine, I continue with part 2...]
Michale [15] -
It's an interesting uber-question: how do we all define the word scandal in politics? I'm not sure I have a clear cut answer to that. It's kind of like the line on obscenity: "I know it when I see it." That's a pretty poor definition, though, so I should re-think it.
David [22] -
The Apple thing might be a scandal, but it's Congress' scandal if it is. Same for the vague nature of the rules on 501(c)4 orgs. Congress sets these rules. Congress can clarify them or revise them at any time. The scandal: Congress has not done so. It's pretty hypocritical of them to yell at others because Congress hasn't done its job.
Apple broke no law -- they just did exactly what Mitt Romney did: use the existing tax law to their advantage. The law that Congress wrote. Of course, Apple's not running for president...
Michale [24] -
I find it interesting that you're taking the AP side of things, since it must be the first time you didn't salute when any administration ran up the "national security" flag on the flagpole, if you catch my drift. Obama's position (I'm not saying I agree with it, just stating it) is that the leak endangered American lives, and it was a breach of national security. So you're on the side of the news organizations instead of national security? Hmmm... how do you feel about the recent court decision on the dead OBL photos? The court ruled the public didn't have a right to know, and the release of the photos could harm national security -- so where do you stand on that one? If it helps, a conservative media outlet was the one trying to get the photos...
michty6 [25] -
On the AP: Not to mention that it was the GOP itself who demanded the investigation into the leak in the first place -- kind of hard for them to denounce the investigation now, eh?
michty6 [29] -
What an excellent list! I must remember to mark it for future reference. I'd spell it TelePrompTerGate, but then I'm pedantic at times.
Oh, and for Michale's sake, let's throw in "GolfsTooMuchGate" as well, shall we?
:-)
Once again, superb list!
Michale [34] -
They repealed the Fifth Amendment? Nobody told me, I better check the news or something...
OK, whew! Made it to the end...
-CW
Cw,
Obama did the right thing, fired the two people at the top,
Only one got fired.. The other one was retiring in a week anyways...
The "Pentagon Papers" decision states clearly that a reporter cannot be held accountable for a leak --
My point exactly..
Again, don't misread my issue...
National Security trumps EVERYTHING, including freedom of the press..
*MY* issue is that, once again, ya'all (for the most part) are arguing *MY* position. And I damn well don't like it! :D hehehehehe
they're just doing their job. So why is Obama and Holder going after one?
To be accurate, there are three....
AP, FNC and CBS....
I mean, they grabbed the phone records of an FNC reporter's frakin' PARENTS for frak's sake!!
Can you imagine the outcry from the Hysterical Left if Bush's DOJ did that to an MSNBC or NBC reporter!???
Wait... did you just type my response for me?!?
Yea, pretty much.. :D
I admit my biases... Which makes me somewhat unique amongst rank and file Weigantians...
Heh. I did like your use of "the cat's meow" but then I'm biased...
Yea, I thought ya might.. Dammit, that brown stuff keeps appearing on my nose!! :D
Nobody's financial well being was destroyed. No audits were performed, nobody got fined. They were asked for more paperwork, and none of them even had their applications turned down. Stick to the facts...
I always do...
The facts are HUNDREDS of people lost their financial well-being and owe tens of thousands of dollars to friends, family and financial institutions..
And now, on TOP of losing a LOT of money, they owe the IRS upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.
You see, they counted on that they would be treated FAIRLY by the IRS...
And they weren't...
This isn't a victim-less crime here...
David,
What would be a good recommended fix? Could we agree to close the tax loophole on overseas earnings? Or would you suggest something else?
Flat Tax rate.. No deductions, no loopholes, nuttin...
That's my vote...
Michale
CW,
It's an interesting uber-question: how do we all define the word scandal in politics? I'm not sure I have a clear cut answer to that. It's kind of like the line on obscenity: "I know it when I see it." That's a pretty poor definition, though, so I should re-think it.
Would you agree that, if these events had happened under a GOP POTUS and Administration that they would, in deed, be scandals??
If not, why not??
I find it interesting that you're taking the AP side of things, since it must be the first time you didn't salute when any administration ran up the "national security" flag on the flagpole, if you catch my drift.
But that's just it.. I am NOT on the AP's side in this. Or FNC's.. But the CBS reporter?? Yea, I am on her side.. But only because she is cute.. :D
*MY* point is that ya'all should be apoplectic that an Administration (**ANY** Administration) would go after the Press in such an aggressive and un-constitutional way...
In other words, all of the rank and file Weigantians are taking *MY* position on things.. That, if there is even the SLIGHTEST whiff of National Security, then an administration can shred the Constitution, if necessary in the name of National Security...
On the OTHER had, the AP position DOES have merit, as they cleared their report with the CIA, not once, but TWICE...
It appears that the ONLY asset that was in danger was the ego of our POTUS...
So, while I am more inclined to throw ANY news agency to the lions if National Security is involved, it appears that there was no national security issue with the AP story..
Unless you feel that Obama's ego is a national security matter... :D
They repealed the Fifth Amendment?
Not really...
But one of the quirks of jurisprudence is that you cannot invoke the Fifth on SOME questions, but then answer or respond to OTHER questions..
Remember the Mark Furman testimony???
If one makes a statement under oath or answers some questions under oath, they forfeit their 5th amendment rights...
In short, you can't answer the questions you WANT to answer, the questions that SUPPORT your case but then invoke the Fifth over questions you DON'T like, questions that would DISPUTE your case...
Michale
In other words, all of the rank and file Weigantians are taking *MY* position on things.. That, if there is even the SLIGHTEST whiff of National Security, then an administration can shred the Constitution, if necessary in the name of National Security...
And, what is particularly galling about it is that, when we had a GOP POTUS everyone here argued JUST THE OPPOSITE..
That freedom of the press and freedom of speech are sacrosanct and must *ALWAYS* trump National Security...
In other words, my position has been consistent, regardless of whether we have a '-R' POTUS or a '-D' POTUS...
It would just be nice to have a little consistency from everyone else too...
Michale
Let's take a poll and get everyone on record here..
Does anyone else, besides me of course :D, believe that the IRS scandal will really cause some hurt on the Obama Administration...
By hurt, I mean poll numbers plummet, criminal indictments, maybe even de-frocking??
Michale
Michale -
I consider the IRS scandal to be precisely that (so far): an IRS scandal. There are (so far) no links beyond the IRS that anyone has uncovered. If that holds true, then it will be a limited scandal in a government agency that everyone already loves to hate. But it won't make it an "Obama scandal." That will only happen if anyone does expose ties to the White House, which (at this point) I doubt is going to happen. Obama didn't do anything scandalous, neither did anyone in the White House. Obama did exactly what I'd expect an executive to do: fire people, immediately. As more facts come in, fire anyone else responsible. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of that, so far.
So, yes, it's a scandal. An IRS scandal.
The AP thing was worrisome, but the Fox News thing was outrageous. This may be the biggest of the scandals (I'm hoping it takes down Holder, personally). I hate to be on the side of both Fox News and the paranoid Right, but this is indeed an overreach of the federal government's powers. Reporters should not be targeted by the Justice Department for reporting. Period. End of sentence.
Benghazi isn't a scandal and never will be, but the Republicans will keep chasing it and attempt to bludgeon Hillary with it in 2016, that's for sure.
I judge scandals as they come, not by who is in the White House. Or I try to, at any rate.
Oh, yeah, the military sex scandal is a military scandal, but this one could indeed reflect on Obama if it doesn't get some damn quick action on it. He is C-in-C, after all. I'm already on the record with this one: demote some generals, and you will see results FAST over at the five-sided building across the Potomac. Isn't that what the whole military chain of command is all about, after all?
-CW
CW,
There are (so far) no links beyond the IRS that anyone has uncovered.
Key words being "so far"...
Considering all the versions of the "truth" that has been coming out of the White House to date, is it so far beyond the realm of possibility that the White House is more involved than we now know??
That will only happen if anyone does expose ties to the White House, which (at this point) I doubt is going to happen. Obama didn't do anything scandalous, neither did anyone in the White House.
That we know of... :D
The AP thing was worrisome, but the Fox News thing was outrageous.
Agreed...
Yet, to date you and I are the only ones that has said so. I find that puzzling as I would think that it's a no brainer of a conclusion..
And trust me.. I KNOW "no brains" when I see it! :D
This may be the biggest of the scandals (I'm hoping it takes down Holder, personally). I hate to be on the side of both Fox News and the paranoid Right, but this is indeed an overreach of the federal government's powers. Reporters should not be targeted by the Justice Department for reporting. Period. End of sentence.
WOW.. just... WOW.... Color me VERY impressed.. Even more so because it IS Fox News we are talking about..
If more Weigantians showed THAT kind of passion for right and wrong, I wouldn't have much to comment about... :D
Benghazi isn't a scandal and never will be, but the Republicans will keep chasing it and attempt to bludgeon Hillary with it in 2016, that's for sure.
On that we disagree.. It's as much of a scandal as the Left's case against Bush and 9/11/01...
Like LD himself pointed out, all the elements of the case against Bush for 9/11/01 are present in the case against Obama for 9/11/12. Even if some of the comparative points are a REAL stretch...
So, either everyone here has to drop their case against Bush or take up the case against Obama..
Anything less is hypocritical..
I judge scandals as they come, not by who is in the White House. Or I try to, at any rate.
Yes.. YOU do.. So do I.... But you and I are the exception that would seem to highlight the rule...
Oh, yeah, the military sex scandal is a military scandal, but this one could indeed reflect on Obama if it doesn't get some damn quick action on it. He is C-in-C, after all. I'm already on the record with this one: demote some generals, and you will see results FAST over at the five-sided building across the Potomac. Isn't that what the whole military chain of command is all about, after all?
The problem is that ya are suggesting civilian solutions in a military environment. And that simply will not work..
Much the same as the Left tried to impose a civilian solution on dealing with terrorists and even Obama has realized that civilian solutions don't work in the military. Hence all the drone executions..
I don't know what the answer is to the sex scandals in the military. Paula actually made some good points, but it smacks too much of blaming the "system" and to hell with personal responsibility.
But taking "military law" out of the hands of the military is the worst possible solution...
For better or worse, soldiers simply cannot serve two (or more) commanders..
You can't have a commander for legal issues, a commander for combat issues, a commander for peacetime issues and a commander for wartime issues...
"THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!"
-Highlander
:D
Michale
So, yes, it's a scandal. An IRS scandal.
Lemme ask ya'all something...
It's accepted as fact that the targeting of conservative groups by IRS agents was not the work of a couple of rogue IRS agents who are flaming liberals out to destroy the Tea Party.
It's well documented that the targeting orders had to come from higher up in the IRS..
Again, as an investigator, the first thing you look at is motive.. Who stood to gain..
WHY would higher ups in the IRS order such conservative targeting??
Given the obvious motive of the Obama Administration and the fact that this isn't the result of rogue agents, what is the only logical conclusion??
Further, it has also been well documented that the targeting of conservatives started *the day after* Obama met personally with the head of the IRS Employees union..
Finally, the fact that the illegal targeting occurred in Ohio (a MUST WIN state for Obama).
All of this evidence points to White House involvement in the illegal IRS targeting..
And there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that the White House was in the dark.
NONE.. ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...
Given these FACTS and employing Occam's Razor, the only logical conclusion is that the White House instigated the illegal IRS targeting of conservatives to assist the Obama Re-Election campaign...
"Cue applause...."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS, The Return PART 1
Michale
Finally, ya'all have to ask yourselves one question..
"Do I feel lucky??"
No, no.. That's not the question.. :D
The question is, "Do I feel Obama is innocent because I *want* him to be innocent?"
It goes back to what I was saying above about facts..
Ya'all (with notable exceptions) seemed to have a biased definition of facts.
IE "facts" are only those things that support ya'all's preconceived ideas..
Anything that disputes those preconceived ideas are not facts..
Michale
how do you feel about the recent court decision on the dead OBL photos? The court ruled the public didn't have a right to know, and the release of the photos could harm national security -- so where do you stand on that one? If it helps, a conservative media outlet was the one trying to get the photos...
I feel it sets a dangerous precedent.
If we start quashing our liberties just to appease a bunch of uncivilized savages (as an aside, is there such a thing as a "civilized" savage? :D) where do we stop??
The SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that the possible reactions of an angry mob is not sufficient cause to limit, curtail or otherwise cancel certain freedoms that we, as Americans, enjoy.
That's why some lunatic down here in Florida has a right to burn a hundred Korans, even if it means that some savages on the other side of the planet gets a wild hair up their arses...
So, in short (too late! :D) those photos would not have harmed "national security"...
The only thing they would have harmed is Obama's ego vis a vis his imagined "standing" with the muslim community...
BinLaden brutally murdered over 3000 innocent men, women and children.. Soak the asshole's corpse in pig fat, crucify it and take it on tour throughout the world..
THAT's a fitting requiem for the scumbag...
Michale
CW,
GolfsTooMuchGate - of course how could I have missed that one!
Michale,
Looks like today you finally have a real scandal. 4 US Americans killed on foreign soil. No, not Benghazi, but actual deaths as a direct result of orders from Obama. 3 of them were unintentional.
This is probably the most scandalous thing to have happened during Obama's Presidency. Something tells me that right-wing land might not think so though...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-drone-strikes-killed-four-americans-081846621.html#J0PQTAF
Looks like today you finally have a real scandal. 4 US Americans killed on foreign soil.
That ain't a scandal.
That is legitimate military ops..
But I agree that, for the Left, it SHOULD be a scandal...
. Something tells me that right-wing land might not think so though...
Of course not..
National Security trumps EVERYTHING...
That's about the ONLY thing Obama has done right in his 4+ years as POTUS...
Michale
Looks like today you finally have a real scandal. 4 US Americans killed on foreign soil. N
Typical of the Left..
That happened over a year ago.... :^/
Michale
Looks like today you finally have a real scandal. 4 US Americans killed on foreign soil. No, not Benghazi, but actual deaths as a direct result of orders from Obama. 3 of them were unintentional.
So, what do you think should happen to Obama???
Impeach him then prosecute him???
Or just more unwavering and hysterical support???
Michale
Hay CW!!
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says?lite
Holder's going down!!! :D
Michale
Flat Tax rate.. No deductions, no loopholes, nuttin.
Fair enough, Michale. I like the "no deductions, no loopholes" part !!!
4 US Americans killed on foreign soil. No, not Benghazi, but actual deaths as a direct result of orders from Obama. 3 of them were unintentional.
Wow. This is getting no coverage in our "liberal" news here. Where are you "liberal media"?
Oh yeah, like the Obama scandals, you don't really exist.
To his credit, however, Obama is at least working on trying to redefine the endless wars started by Bush.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18448515-obama-reframes-counterterrorism-policy-with-new-rules-on-drones?lite
Have to give you a quick shout out on your scandal sheet as well, michty. Absolutely brilliant! One of the best illustrations of the sheer amount of idiocy the right is willing to throw out there in the hopes that some sheep believe.
-David
A story of a "Non Victim" of Obama's IRS...
Catherine Engelbrecht—a nice woman, a citizen, an American. She and her husband live in Richmond, Texas. They have a small manufacturing business. In the past few years she became interested in public policy and founded two groups, King Street Patriots, and True the Vote.
In July 2010 she sent applications to the IRS for tax-exempt status. What followed was not the harassment, intrusiveness and delay we're now used to hearing of. The US government came down on her with full force.
In December 2010 the FBI came to ask about a person who'd attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011 the FBI had more questions. The same month the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011 the FBI called again for a general inquiry about King Street Patriots. In June 2011 Engelbrecht's personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. In October 2011 a round of questions on True the Vote. In November 2011 another call from the FBI. The next month, more questions from the FBI. In February 2012 a third round of IRS questions on True the Vote. In February 2012 a first round of questions on King Street Patriots. The same month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did an unscheduled audit of her business. (It had a license to make firearms but didn't make them.) In July 2012 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012 more IRS questions on True the Vote. In March 2013, more questions. In April 2013 a second ATF audit.
All this because she requested tax-exempt status for a local conservative group and for one that registers voters and tries to get dead people off the rolls. Her attorney, Cleta Mitchell, who provided the timeline above, told me: "These people, they are just regular Americans. They try to get dead people off the voter rolls, you would think that they are serial killers."
But, what does it matter. According to most of ya'all here, she deserves it because she dares to have a political ideology that is at odds with The Great And Powerful Obama... :^/
David,
Wow. This is getting no coverage in our "liberal" news here. Where are you "liberal media"?
Exactly..
If we had a GOP POTUS, this story would be screaming to the high heavens..
But, because it's Obama, it's barely given mention..
Oh yeah, like the Obama scandals, you don't really exist.
You still going with that totally debunked line of BS??
In other words, Obama's IRS targeting of conservatives is perfectly OK with you..
Obama's DOJ targeting of reporters printing stories unfavorable to the administration is perfectly OK with you??
To his credit, however, Obama is at least working on trying to redefine the endless wars started by Bush.
Yea... It's all Bush's fault... :^/
But, face the facts, David. Ya know what facts are, right? Those are the things you claim to care about, except when they go against your guy.. :D
The fact is, Obama is not "working" at anything. He is simply paying lip service to what he already claimed he was going to do..
But I guess that, when you have a DEM POTUS, all he has to do is say they right words and you follow him to the depths of hell..
I admire the loyalty, blind and destructive though it may be..
Michale
'sides...
Ya'all's definition of "scandal" (like ya'alls definition of "facts") strains credibility past the breaking point.
Ya'all still think to this day that Abu Ghraib was a "scandal"...
Given that, it's obvious that your definition is completely ideologically based with no foundation in reality...
Michale
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-increase-in-domestic-terrorism-fueled-by-internet/article/2530391
Once again, it's NEVER Obama's fault...
Under Bush ya'all screamed hysterically that it was Bush's policies that fueled terrorism..
But, when Obama expands those policies, all of the sudden, it's the "Internet" that is at fault and the POTUS is blameless...
The hypocrisy is so blatant, it's blinding...
Michale
So, what do you think should happen to Obama?
More importantly. What should we do about drone strikes?
I think we need to either end or seriously scale these back.
President Obama is doing the right thing here.
-David
More importantly. What should we do about drone strikes?
Will your tongue turn to fire if you speak ill of Obama???
I think we need to either end or seriously scale these back.
Based on what??
President Obama is doing the right thing here.
Wow, you got really low standards.. All Obama has to do is TALK about and yer all ready to give him another Nobel Peace Prize.. :D
Michale
Will your tongue turn to fire if you speak ill of Obama?
Nah. He does plenty of things wrong. Compromising too early is probably his greatest weakness (though he seems to have gotten better).
I agree with his position on ending drone strikes though. And that's something we would never get from a conservative.
Why is "bitching about Obama" so important to you?
If you want to end drone strikes, why not work with those who want to end drone strikes?
Or if you want a flat tax, why not work with those who want a flat tax?
Why not be for something, instead of the endless anti-Obama whine fests?
-David
Nah. He does plenty of things wrong. Compromising too early is probably his greatest weakness (though he seems to have gotten better).
So, basically, Obama's ONLY fault is he doesn't stick it to the GOP enough..
Which is what I have been saying all along.. :D
I agree with his position on ending drone strikes though. And that's something we would never get from a conservative.
But yet you praise him to high heaven for his words, but don't hold him accountable when it is JUST words...
Why is "bitching about Obama" so important to you?
Because you are not being the fair person I know you to be..
If you want to end drone strikes, why not work with those who want to end drone strikes?
Who said I wanted to end drone strikes?? The question is why do YOU want to end drone strikes??
Why not be for something, instead of the endless anti-Obama whine fests?
I am "for" something.
Above all, I am "for" holding our leaders accountable when the frak up..
In that (barring a couple of notable exceptions) I am the *ONLY* here is IS "for" something...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that ya didn't mind "whine fests" when it was wall to wall back to back 24/7 whines fests during the Bush years...
Hell, things here are STILL Bush whine fests 4+ years after Bush left office..
So, as usual, it appears you gripe against "whine fests" is ALSO politically ideologically motivated..
Ya don't mind "whine fests" if the target is the Right.
But gods forbid, you should actually have to look at the facts of the failings of the Left.
THEN, it's nothing but "whine fests"...
Funny how that is, eh? :D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that ya didn't mind "whine fests" when it was wall to wall back to back 24/7 whines fests during the Bush years.
Thanks, Michale! You just helped me win a $20 bet.
I bet a friend that you would claim that the "Left" did the same thing under Bush.
Easy money ... :)
-David
I bet a friend that you would claim that the "Left" did the same thing under Bush.
Of course it's an easy bet..
Because it's factual..
Ya remember facts, right?? :D
It's like betting someone that the sun is going to come up in the east and set in the west...
Duuuhhhhhh :D
Now, would you like to discuss the facts??
Or just carry on with more Bush/Republicans bashing??? :D
Michale
Did it ever occur to you, David that I might bash Obama less if you would bash him more??
Michale
Thanks, Michale! You just helped me win a $20 bet.
Kewl.. Then YOU buy the beer..
:D
Michale
Did it ever occur to you, David that I might bash Obama less if you would bash him more?
First, I find it highly doubtful that you would give up your favorite hobby. Second, why the focus on "bashing"? Seems a bit counter productive to me. Third, I have no interest in "bashing" anyone.
Kewl.. Then YOU buy the beer..
Beers on me! :)
-David
First, I find it highly doubtful that you would give up your favorite hobby.
Actually, I likely would. As evidenced by the AP/FoxNews Reporters scandal..
CW came down very hard on the administration for that bone-head action..
Given that, I don't feel the need to hash it all again with him, because we are in complete agreement..
Second, why the focus on "bashing"? Seems a bit counter productive to me.
And yet, ya'all STILL bash Bush...
Isn't that not "counter productive"??
That's the problem with your arguments in this issue. It's not consistent..
Third, I have no interest in "bashing" anyone.
Except Bush, Republicans, conservatives and the Right in general.. :D
Now, if you would have finished your sentence with a '... on the Left', then you would be dead on ballz accurate.. :D
Beers on me! :)
Frakin' A!!! :^D
Michale
And yet, ya'all STILL bash Bush.
Really?
To me, bashing is when you go after a person because you simply don't like them.
I disagreed with Bush and most of his decisions. And I've told you why I think they're wrong.
I believe his decision on the Iraq War was wrong, for example. Same with his economic policies of deregulation and trickle down theory.
But I don't make up stuff about him. I don't call him a Muslim or question where he was born.
This is "bashing". Big difference.
-David
To me, bashing is when you go after a person because you simply don't like them.
To me, bashing is making false accusations out of anger or animosity rather than fact...
"Bush made some wrong decisions" is not bashing.
"Bush is a liar and incompetent" is bashing..
But I don't make up stuff about him. I don't call him a Muslim or question where he was born.
No, you just say he lied and he was incompetent...
This is "bashing". Big difference.
Calling him a muslim is bashing???
Questioning where he was born is bashing???
How so???
Let me ask you this. If I called you gay would I be bashing you???
Michale
"Bush made some wrong decisions" is not bashing.
Fair enough. However, when a person makes enough wrong decisions, it's fair to question their competence.
Especially when the decisions are made hastily, without considering other options, and without considering the ramifications. And when the decisions lead to poor results.
Calling him a muslim is bashing?
What does being Muslim have to do with someone's ability to lead?
In other words, the only reason this is brought up is because the Right wants to link Obama, a person with a different sounding name, to scary un-American Muslims.
It is "making false accusations out of anger or animosity rather than fact."
Now in the conservative right's case it's likely less anger or animosity than a political attack.
If I called you gay would I be bashing you?
If I were gay and you were describing a fact, no.
If you were doing it to be a dick and as a put down, yes.
Either way ... what does it have to do with whether or not I'm capable and make good decisions? The answer is: nothing.
-David
Fair enough. However, when a person makes enough wrong decisions, it's fair to question their competence.
The problem is that your criteria for "wrong" decisions is based on partisan ideology and has little to do with facts or reality..
without considering other options,
More accurately, without considering the options that Democrats wanted...
What does being Muslim have to do with someone's ability to lead?
Absolutely nothing..
But why does it bother you if someone calls Obama a muslim??
If it has no relevance, then why does it bother you so???
If you were doing it to be a dick and as a put down, yes.
There can be no offence where none is taken.
-Sarek Of Vulcan
For you to believe that being called gay is "bashing" you would have to believe that there is something wrong with being gay..
For example.. Let's say I called you a toaster..
Would that be bashing???
Of course not.. It would simply be ignorance on my part..
Either way ... what does it have to do with whether or not I'm capable and make good decisions? The answer is: nothing.
If it is not relevant, then it should be easy to ignore...
No??
Michale
If you were doing it to be a dick and as a put down, yes.
"You better stand down or I'll mistake you for an Ethopian!"
"Ya know, yer stupid enough to actually think that's an insult!!"
-THE SIEGE
:D
Michale
For example.. Let's say I called you a toaster..
Would that be bashing???
Of course not.. It would simply be ignorance on my part..
Because, as far as I know, you are not a Cylon.. :D
Michale
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-fails-salute-marine_729017.html
Now, THAT was classy....
Credit where credit is due..
Michale
For you to believe that being called gay is "bashing" you would have to believe that there is something wrong with being gay.
It's "bashing" because many people believe there is something wrong with being gay.
And it's used as a wedge issue to influence these people.
But why does it bother you if someone calls Obama a muslim?
For the same reason. Many people believe ignorant things like "Muslims are terrorists" and it's used as a political attack to rally these people against Obama.
Is there another reason conservatives would focus so much time on the silliness?
Are you saying that conservatives are just idiots out there babbling about nonsense? What is it that they're doing if not playing on peoples' fears?
Why aren't there conservative talk shows about how good their plans are?
Why focus on making up stories about Obama being a Muslim?
-David
It's "bashing" because many people believe there is something wrong with being gay.
So, in other words, you are assuming another person's prejudices...
Helluva way to run a railroad.. :D
Why focus on making up stories about Obama being a Muslim?
Seems to me it's ya'all that are focusing on it, not I...
I simply point out that the people who say that are ignorant and I move on..
Again, it seems to me that you are focusing on straw men arguments that are easily defeated. And ignore the very real mistakes Obama has made like targeting conservatives with the IRS and targeting reporters with the DOJ...
Michale
The Justice Department acknowledged late Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder was on board with a search warrant to obtain the personal emails of a Fox News reporter, as media and civil liberties groups continued to raise concerns about the case.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/24/holder-probing-holder-obama-orders-doj-review-over-search-warrant-ag-likely/#ixzz2UFa01wW6
Well, that pretty much seals it..
Any one disagree that Holder has GOT to go???
Michale
I simply point out that the people who say that are ignorant and I move on.
Oh really? I seem to remember you defending birthers for ages ... what happened to that?
Again, it seems to me that you are focusing on straw men arguments that are easily defeated.
We're simply pointing out the history of fake and/or overhyped scandals from conservative media.
Of which the IRS profiling is one.
Any one disagree that Holder has GOT to go?
Nah. The real problem though are the laws which make going after the media possible. Let's change those as well.
Because technically, I don't think Holder broke any laws.
-David
Oh really? I seem to remember you defending birthers for ages ... what happened to that?
If by "defending" you mean I acknowledged that they raise some good points that SHOULD be addressed, then I accept your definition.
Why are you afraid of facts???
We're simply pointing out the history of fake and/or overhyped scandals from conservative media.
Just as there are fake and overhyped scandals from the the majority of the MSM which is liberal..
It's called "politics".. Mebbe ya have heard of it.. :D
Nah. The real problem though are the laws which make going after the media possible. Let's change those as well.
Because technically, I don't think Holder broke any laws.
Yea.. Neither did Bush or Gonzalez or Ashcroft...
Yet, ya crucified them anyways...
So you agree with Obama and Holder that reporters are fair game to prosecute just for doing their jobs....
Funny how "technically" only becomes important when we are talking about '-D's and not '-R's, eh?? :D
Michale
Just as there are fake and overhyped scandals from the the majority of the MSM which is liberal..
Ever hear of Abu Ghraib???
Of course you have. It was hysterically plastered to the high heavens..
Did ya hear about Afghani Kill Teams??
Hardly a peep...
Now.. WHY do you think that is??? :^D
Michale
So you agree with Obama and Holder that reporters are fair game to prosecute just for doing their jobs.
I believe reporters have a right to protect their sources.
That's why it's so important that confidentiality of sources is part of the law.
And yeah ... I'm all for getting rid of Holder. But if you don't get rid of the loopholes in the law, there will be another Holder.
Glad to hear you feel the same about Ashcroft and Gonzalez.
Did ya hear about Afghani Kill Teams?
Absolutely. Rolling Stone did a great expose on them. If more of the media were actually 'liberal,' you'd likely have heard much more about them.
-David
Absolutely. Rolling Stone did a great expose on them. If more of the media were actually 'liberal,' you'd likely have heard much more about them.
Unless, as the evidence clearly shows, the liberal media were working to protect Obama and his administration..
And yeah ... I'm all for getting rid of Holder. But if you don't get rid of the loopholes in the law, there will be another Holder.
Do you hold Obama responsible for ANY of Holder's actions? Much as you held Bush responsible for the actions of Ashcroft and Gonzalez??
I am betting... not. :D
Michale
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/25/us-usa-military-sexassault-idUSBRE94O07A20130525
Still not willing to hold Obama accountable??
Amazing...
Michale
Absolutely. Rolling Stone did a great expose on them. If more of the media were actually 'liberal,' you'd likely have heard much more about them.
Now, if you can convince me that the Afghani Kill Teams received as much press coverage as Abu Ghraib, then you might have an argument.
But we both know that THAT is simply not the case..
Michale
David,
I believe reporters have a right to protect their sources.
The issue is not about a reporter protecting his source..
This is about the Obama Administration labeling a reporter a "co-conspirator" simply because he was doing his job..
It's about the Obama Administration secretly obtaining wire-taps and emails because FoxNews is tough on the administration..
It has nothing to do with protecting sources and everything to do with an Administration using threats and intimidation to silence critics..
Something I *KNOW* you would oppose... IF it had been a GOP Administration...
Michale