You talk about a degraded public debate. That we have to waste any time on such inane questions tells you all you need to know about the state of pubic debate in our country today. Suffice it to say that the connection is only there in the eyes of deluded Tea Partiers who desperately want to believe it. Anyone who knows anything about history and the Nixon Administration-like John Dean, Nixon's chief counsel for instance-knows perfectly well there's no similarity.
Why do we keep hearing about the comparison? Part of it is what Elizabeth Drew says-the GOP has always wanted payback for Nixon. In the 90s we heard that Clinton was the worst since Nixon. Now we hear that Obama is just like Nixon. Why do we never hear that Obama is just like Clinton then?
"Compared to Watergate, on the basis of everything we know about what are the current “scandals” amount to a piffle. Watergate was a Constitutional crisis. It was about a pattern of behavior on the part of the president of the United States abusing power to carry out his personal vendettas. It was about whether the president was accountable to the other branches of the government; it was about whether the Congress could summon the courage to hold accountable a president who held himself above the law. It was about a president and his aides who were out of control in their efforts to punish the president’s “enemies.”
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/18/why-obama-is-not-nixon/
I like that-the current scandalfest does indeed amount to piffle. I mean the story of Tea Party groups having to wait a little longer to get 401(c)(4) status-while continuing to pay zero tax-is piffle. It's nothing but Republican piffle aided by media piffle from the Very Serious People.
Speaking of the IRS we have been hearing a lot lately about the idea that the President is "just a bystander" in his Administration because he was "kept in the dark" about the IRS investigation into the story of the Tea Partiers having to wait for official 401(c)(4) status.
Actually, it's not a question of being a bystander but it does underscore the fact that the President is not Nixon, not anything close. The trouble with Nixon was that he was totally involved with the day to day running of the IRS. He actively pushed the to target those he deemed his "enemies." Check out this piece by Robert F. Kennedy
"President Richard Nixon was aware that the IRS had audited him in 1961 and 1962 and presumed those audits were politically motivated by the Kennedy White House. When, early in his Administration, Nixon learned that his friends and political allies John Wayne and Rev. Billy Graham had endured recent audits by his own IRS, Nixon boiled over. He ordered White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, "Get the word out, down to the IRS that I want them to conduct field audits on those who are our opponents." Perhaps recalling the Kennedy era audits, Nixon ordered that its investigator begin with my Uncle's, John F. Kennedy's, former campaign manager and White House aide, then Democratic Committee Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien."
"Nixon's minions had the IRS set up a special internal arm "the Activist Organization Committee" in July of 1969 to audit an "enemies list" provided by Nixon. My uncle Senator Ted Kennedy was at the top of that list along with a small army of well-known journalists. The IRS later renamed its political audit squad "Special Services" or "SS" to keep its mission secret. The SS targeted over 1,000 liberal groups for audits and 4,000 individuals. The SS staff managed their files in a soundproof cell in the IRS basement."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/obama-nixon-watergate_b_3305611.html
So as far as the audits are concerned, what put Nixon over the edge was when his allies got audited. None of this has anything to do with the President, however, what it does bring to mind if Peggy Noonan's bizarre sense of entitlement-if someone is in the party and donated to Mitt Romney somehow they must be guaranteed not to be audited. No one else has this guarantee but she feels that its a travesty that ta rich man who spend $1 million dollars in donations to groups that supported Mitt Romney got audited.
"The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/after-reading-peggy-noonan-today-maybe.html
Aha. As we know correlation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt causation. The answer is simple: anyone who spends millions of dollars on Mitt Romney must never be audited. In Noonan's strange premise she sounds more like Nixon in his rationale-who felt outrage that his friend was audited while he was in the White House.
Why do we keep hearing about the comparison? Part of it is what Elizabeth Drew says-the GOP has always wanted payback for Nixon. In the 90s we heard that Clinton was the worst since Nixon. Now we hear that Obama is just like Nixon. Why do we never hear that Obama is just like Clinton then?
"Compared to Watergate, on the basis of everything we know about what are the current “scandals” amount to a piffle. Watergate was a Constitutional crisis. It was about a pattern of behavior on the part of the president of the United States abusing power to carry out his personal vendettas. It was about whether the president was accountable to the other branches of the government; it was about whether the Congress could summon the courage to hold accountable a president who held himself above the law. It was about a president and his aides who were out of control in their efforts to punish the president’s “enemies.”
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/18/why-obama-is-not-nixon/
I like that-the current scandalfest does indeed amount to piffle. I mean the story of Tea Party groups having to wait a little longer to get 401(c)(4) status-while continuing to pay zero tax-is piffle. It's nothing but Republican piffle aided by media piffle from the Very Serious People.
Speaking of the IRS we have been hearing a lot lately about the idea that the President is "just a bystander" in his Administration because he was "kept in the dark" about the IRS investigation into the story of the Tea Partiers having to wait for official 401(c)(4) status.
Actually, it's not a question of being a bystander but it does underscore the fact that the President is not Nixon, not anything close. The trouble with Nixon was that he was totally involved with the day to day running of the IRS. He actively pushed the to target those he deemed his "enemies." Check out this piece by Robert F. Kennedy
"President Richard Nixon was aware that the IRS had audited him in 1961 and 1962 and presumed those audits were politically motivated by the Kennedy White House. When, early in his Administration, Nixon learned that his friends and political allies John Wayne and Rev. Billy Graham had endured recent audits by his own IRS, Nixon boiled over. He ordered White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, "Get the word out, down to the IRS that I want them to conduct field audits on those who are our opponents." Perhaps recalling the Kennedy era audits, Nixon ordered that its investigator begin with my Uncle's, John F. Kennedy's, former campaign manager and White House aide, then Democratic Committee Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien."
"Nixon's minions had the IRS set up a special internal arm "the Activist Organization Committee" in July of 1969 to audit an "enemies list" provided by Nixon. My uncle Senator Ted Kennedy was at the top of that list along with a small army of well-known journalists. The IRS later renamed its political audit squad "Special Services" or "SS" to keep its mission secret. The SS targeted over 1,000 liberal groups for audits and 4,000 individuals. The SS staff managed their files in a soundproof cell in the IRS basement."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/obama-nixon-watergate_b_3305611.html
So as far as the audits are concerned, what put Nixon over the edge was when his allies got audited. None of this has anything to do with the President, however, what it does bring to mind if Peggy Noonan's bizarre sense of entitlement-if someone is in the party and donated to Mitt Romney somehow they must be guaranteed not to be audited. No one else has this guarantee but she feels that its a travesty that ta rich man who spend $1 million dollars in donations to groups that supported Mitt Romney got audited.
"The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/after-reading-peggy-noonan-today-maybe.html
Aha. As we know correlation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt causation. The answer is simple: anyone who spends millions of dollars on Mitt Romney must never be audited. In Noonan's strange premise she sounds more like Nixon in his rationale-who felt outrage that his friend was audited while he was in the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment