‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans

‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/20/2013 6:38:46 PM)
I`d bet money on it...... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-20/-obama-scandals-could-actually-hurt-republicans.html "Conservatives are at a low boil over the administration’s dissembling about its actions after the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The public is concerned about the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. And even liberals are outraged by the administration’s heavy-handed investigations of leaks to the news media. Finally, many Republicans think, the tide is turning against the Democrats. Republican strategists -- and the few conservatives on Capitol Hill who were in Washington during the Clinton years -- are less excited. They fear that the party is about to repeat the mistakes it made in 1998. Watch the way the Republicans are handling today’s controversies and it’s easy to see how their tactics could backfire again. You would expect that Senator Lindsey Graham, who helped to lead the impeachment proceedings against Clinton, had learned to be cautious in pursuing a scandal. Yet he decided to tie the Benghazi investigation explicitly to the 2016 presidential race, saying that the controversy would doom Hillary Clinton. If Graham were a Democratic plant trying to make the investigation look like a merely partisan exercise, he couldn’t have done better. Republicans are trying to tie IRS misconduct to President Barack Obama, so far without much evidence. The Republican National Committee is demanding that the president apologize to targeted groups, apparently on the assumption that the public isn’t satisfied with his calling the IRS’s actions “intolerable and inexcusable.” Other Republicans are saying that the president created a “culture” that made the scandal possible by being a partisan Democrat."

MrRodgers -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 1:09:20 AM)
You could be right, Bloomberg could be right. The public is very slow but the tide of partisan tripe may become overwhelming.

Yachtie -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 4:23:53 AM)
FR All this circling of the wagons for Obama. It really is to bad the guy in the White House isn't named Bush. [;)]

Yachtie -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 5:41:58 AM)
FR PJM is reporting - The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel. Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft. Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.” PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004. I foresee the Dem wagons circling even closer.

thompsonx -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 6:08:31 AM)
PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay

Owner59 -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 7:31:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie FR All this circling of the wagons for Obama. It really is to bad the guy in the White House isn't named Bush. [;)] Ha ha...... What does laughing out loud at the goepee epic fail have to do with wagons?.....[:D] I`m still amazed and amused by this con-mind-set that thinks events,history and outcomes are as random as snow-flakes with no connection to conduct or one`s record. It`s was just stupid ol` bad luck that made shrub one of the deadliest presidents(to Americans) who also ruined our economy.... And President Obama has nothing to do with Wall Street`s record breaking performance,bin-laden`s death or General Motor`s success.[8\|] See folks....in the con`s mind.......bush was a successful and good president......[sm=m23.gif] This might help you understand how cons think and avoid thinking.

Owner59 -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 7:37:03 AM)
Report: Christopher Stevens declined security http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-91406.html

papassion -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 10:10:56 AM)
Innteresting. We have a story that the dead Ambassador refused security. He can't deny that story now can he? The story also said there is PROOF that the Ambassador's people asked for MORE security at least FOUR times. Wonder who is lying? The dead Ambassador or people who look like incompetant asses for refusing security?

YN -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 11:17:39 AM)
Judging from how these three "scandals" are viewed internationally, the Libyan scandal is a partisan squabble and of little interest, (as I have noted the French and English have suffered similar attacks on their embassies and ambassadors,) while your IRS "scandal" is an internal security matter. The one that is often seen as "interesting" is the spying on journalists.

DaddySatyr -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 11:24:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN Judging from how these three "scandals" are viewed internationally, the Libyan scandal is a partisan squabble and of little interest, (as I have noted the French and English have suffered similar attacks on their embassies and ambassadors,) while your IRS "scandal" is an internal security matter. The one that is often seen as "interesting" is the spying on journalists. Actually, I would hazard a guess that the last one you mentioned is interesting because it targets the one set of people that, up until recently, many thought would never abandon the failure-in-chief. I think they're all worthy of investigation. I think they all seem a bit "moldy". I think, as with many previous administrations, we're seeing proof positive that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've been in favor of single term presidencies ever since King George I. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 11:27:06 AM)
And I think that is probably the stupidest shit ever set to words. What we are seeing is 18 USC 2701-11 and 18 USC 798 in action, the laws of our land as handed down to us thru the much vaunted St. Wrinklemeat.

joether -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 12:03:35 PM)
I heard one Republican Representative from Utah (I think it was Utah...) that said the President should be impeached for lying to the country over Benghazi. Which I find amusing in that of the last two Presidents: 1) One was impeached for lying about a blow job by a Jewish intern, and nothing happened beyond it. (oh, and the Speaker of the House who was Republican and 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' was ALSO having an affair at the time....) 2) The other was not impeached for lying to get the nation into a war, getting 4,000+ US Soldiers killed, 25,000+ US Soldiers injured (many with issues that will cost us taxpayers for years to come), 100,000+ civilians put to the sword, and paid with $4 trillion dollars worth of borrowed money. If your pushing to impeach a sitting president, make sure he or she has done something...WORST....than someone from your own party. That way you do not look so 'out of touch with reality' when making your argument. If the President is to be attacked by Republicans in the US House of Representatives over one Embassy attack. Why was the previous sitting president NOT attacked by the same House Republicans for 13 Embassy Attacks from between 2002 to 2008?.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 12:51:57 PM)
Republicans have, for quite some time now, engaged in smoke and mirror politics. Distract the electorate with irrelevant scandal while simply failing to enable useful legislation. That worked when the economy was doing better. I'm not so sure it makes sense as a strategy now when regular voters are truly looking to government (meaning Congress) to DO something relevant. Both parties need to focus on the important stuff and not get side tracked. Voters ignore sometimes, but they aren't as stupid as the Republicans seem to think. [sm=2cents.gif]

Yachtie -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 1:48:14 PM)
FR LMAO..... WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. bwahahahahaha[8D]

Hillwilliam -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 1:51:40 PM)
Back to the OP. It may be correct. The American public has a really short attention span and they don't like reruns (except MASH). These 'scandals' aren't going to be worth much in 3 years.

mnottertail -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 2:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie FR LMAO..... WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. bwahahahahaha[8D] And that is particularly hilarious in that she called a friend to ask her that question at the meeting. She invited it, and now, she isn't blowing any whistles. Cute. Lois G. Lerner Selected as Director of IRS Exempt Organizations Division IR-2005-148, Dec. 22, 2005 WASHINGTON — Lois G. Lerner has been selected as the director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service. In this position, she will be responsible for administering and enforcing the tax laws that apply to more than 1.8 million organizations recognized by the IRS as exempt from tax. “Protecting the integrity of tax-exempt organizations is an important part of our enforcement program,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “Lois’s background, including her work for the Federal Election Commission, qualifies her for this new assignment.” Before this appointment, Lerner had been the director of the Exempt Organizations Rulings & Agreements Division, where she was responsible for the EO determinations letter program, public guidance and technical assistance for IRS agents conducting examinations of tax-exempt organizations. Lerner came to the IRS in 2001 from the Federal Election Commission, where she was Associate General Counsel for Enforcement and Acting General Counsel. She replaces Martha Sullivan, who will retire from the IRS at the end of December. A Bush administration official. How does this pan out? Yeah, LMFAO.

DaddySatyr -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 2:16:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie FR LMAO..... WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. bwahahahahaha[8D] I believe the correct wording is something along the lines of: "I respectfully refuse to answer on advice of counsel and am asserting my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination". Hence, the old saw: "Only the guilty invoke the 5th" Shit just got real. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans (5/21/2013 2:28:18 PM)
Wasn't it real all along? She was head of the division that did this, and could have straightened it out then and there with the old Bush appointed Commissioner of the IRS (when this shit happened) she is also a Bush administration appointee. Shit could indeed hit the fan. I figured her for culpable from the get go.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625