Skip to comments.Not a Crook—Yet: The Obama administration seems more Nixonian by the day.
Posted on 05/15/2013 8:44:57 PM PDT by neverdem
The comparisons of the Obama and Nixon White Houses are suddenly coming—pardon the expression—fast and furious, and why not? The IRS investigations; the administrations fixation on leaks and leakers and its obsession with enemies; the cover-ups, the blame-shifting to subordinates, the defiant chief executive, even the sweating, pathetically dissembling press secretary; it all has the odor of that earlier time. Again, its all happening early in the second term, following a triumphant reelection. Again, the operative terms are arrogance, contempt for law, and thuggery.
The growing awareness of administration malfeasance is evident in the numbers on Google: more than 59 million hits for Obama and Nixon and 24 millionplus for Obama and Watergate. For those interested, the 44th presidents face can already be found morphing into the 37ths. Then theres the rising tide of commentary. Obama knee-deep in Nixon-esque scandal runs the headline of columnist Joe Battenfields piece in the Boston Herald, which notes that Obamas campaign slogan would have been more appropriate if it were not Forward but Backward—All the way to, say, 1972. Benghazi, IRS—Son of Watergate? asks Cal Thomas. In IRS Scandal, Echoes of Watergate, observes the Washington Posts George Will.
Such talk is mostly confined to the Right so far, but a handful of principled liberals have also weighed in. Theres no way in the world Im going to defend that, said U.S. Representative Michael Capuano of Massachusetts of the IRSs going after the Tea Party. Hell, I spent my youth vilifying the Nixon administration for doing the same thing. Former Michigan Democratic congresswoman Lynn Rivers echoed him: For anyone over 50, this news couldnt help but stir memories of Richard Nixons Political Enemies Project. . . . To use Dan Rathers duck test, the IRS probe of hostile ideological groups looks like, swims like, and quacks like government dirty tricks. One of the heroes of Watergate weighed in, too. This is outrageous, and it is totally inexcusable, Carl Bernstein raged about the revelation that the Department of Justice had secretly seized the phone records of Associated Press journalists. There is no reason that a presidency that is interested in a truly free press and its functioning should permit this to happen.
Thus it is that questions that once seemed unfathomable take on unexpected plausibility. Where and how far will it all go? Is it remotely conceivable that where Richard Nixon led, Barack Obama might follow? The answer, of course, depends primarily on the nature and severity of the crimes committed—if, indeed, they are crimes—and whether presidential culpability can be established.
But such an observation instantly gives rise to two other considerations. Lest we forget, while Democrats led the congressional inquiries into the Nixonites misdeeds—Sam Ervins committee in the Senate, Peter Rodinos in the House—in the end, it was principled Republicans, led by Barry Goldwater (who told Nixon he could count on no more than 15 Republican votes in the Senate), who forced the presidents resignation. Can we expect such nation-above-party behavior on the part of todays Democrats? Can you imagine Patrick Leahy ever deserting Obama? Or Al Franken? Or Barbara Boxer?
Then theres the role of the press. Unsurprisingly, the media on the far left have circled the wagons in defense of the president. Desperate for a Scandal, Foxs Dobbs Attacks Obamas Inner Nixon, read a dismissive headline on Media Matters for America, while DailyKos has harped on previous GOP-Fabricated Non-Scandals that went nowhere. And its true that, whether it was the presidents associations with his racist pastor or the Fast and Furious boondoggle, such allegations have gone nowhere—but primarily because the press has protected Obama. So it is a given that the media will again play a key role in determining whether the current scandals are pursued to their logical conclusion or are allowed to fizzle out.
Recent history suggests which outcome is more likely.
Benghazi? With a few notable exceptions, such as CBSs Sharyl Attkisson and CNNs Jake Tapper, reporters shrugged off the administrations cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the attack, when it might have harmed Obamas presidential fortunes. They have at last been forced by whistleblowers to start asking obvious questions, but their impulse to protect Obama is presumably undiminished. The IRS scandal? Reporters have as little sympathy for the Tea Party as other liberals do, but this story cant be ignored, at least for the moment. Even administration apologist Joe Klein opines: I dont think Obama ever wanted to be on the same page as Richard Nixon. In this specific case, he now is. But the specific case wording is telling; Kleins piece is generally tepid, arguing that the IRS matter is an exception to what has been a generally scandal-free administration. It is a line that many in the media are apt to adopt.
As Bernsteins outburst makes clear, the media generally saves its greatest outrage for government attacks on . . . the media. Thus, the DOJ/AP episode may be the most dangerous to the administration of the mushrooming scandals. Its likely that a prominent head or two will roll, perhaps even Attorney General Eric Holders. Reporters are nothing if not creatures of the pack, and the pack has been dissed here, big-time. How hard will they go after the president? Probably not very. Think battered-woman syndrome: he may be an abuser, but hes still their man—the one they covered for when he was caught with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, the one they played along with on the faux war on women and the anti-Islam video as the cause for the Benghazi attack. With Nixon, by contrast, once the media picked up the faintest scent of blood, they were relentless and increasingly joyous in pursuit.
As George Will writes: Episodes like this separate the meritorious liberals from the meretricious. The day after the IRS story broke, The Post led the paper with it, and, with an institutional memory of Watergate, published a blistering editorial demanding an Obama apology. The New York Times consigned the story to page 10. So its also the case that, amid all the stunning events of the past few days, the story that will likely prove the most relevant is this one, courtesy of hotair.com: Top CBS, ABC, CNN execs all have relatives working as advisors for White House.
nixon didn’t kill anyopen because of incompetence- Dear leader has on several occassions
Obama makes Nixon look like a Puritan!
Just so long as O doesn’t start channeling his buddy Putin.
Impeachment File for B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
The conclusion sounds spot-on. If the press gets the sense that they’re putting Obama’s presidency at risk, they’ll end their temper tantrum and get back in line.
Obama makes Nixon look like a Puritan!
Actually, Nixon was a Quaker if my memory serves me correctly!
Reminds me of the lyrics to the song “Wide, Wide River” by the Fugs.
Great pic bump
Not if the press decides to focus on and circle the wagons around H!. she is next in line.
Benghazi still is the most important story here.
Nixon was a Quaker, actually...
Nixon was hated by many influential people in the Establishment and especially the MSM. I recall TV evening news that had nothing but Watergate stories the entire half-hour. The MSM was in a frenzy to get him. Started with that Alger Hiss thing.
I've oft-asked for anyone to name one thing that Nixon did that JFK and LBJ did not do.
I remember those days. And here is something from back then that I am sure is true.
"In Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon, author John A. Andrew III presents new evidence for what he calls 'the utilization of the Internal Revenue Service in what became a covert effort to discredit the right and undercut its sources of support' as part of 'a broad assault on the right wing by the Kennedy administration.'"
These kinds of shenanigans -- and much worse -- were suspected; in fact, the only thing that kept LBJ from going to prision was the assassination of JFK. LBJ's main man from his Senate Majority Leader days was already headed to prison and we knew that LBJ would soon follow.
I am still livid over the attacks on the emerging modern conservative movement. I am still furious over the attacks on Barry Goldwater in the 1964 campaign.
BTW the articles of impeachment stated that Nixon endeavored to use the IRS -- my recollection is that the IRS did not do it.
He’s a criminal and an a-hole to boot. The media will remain his teflon, the battered woman analogy was perfect and one I will use often.
Mister Obama, one suspects by observation, has no such feeling for our fine Nation. One worries about what an Obama might consider if cornered by impeachable charges. (And, one hopes to be completely wrong in one's suspicions.)
Mark Levin exposing more DC BS:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.