I recently published a column on how Barack Obama has publicly assumed many of the powers that were once cited as the basis for the investigation and attempted impeachment of Richard Nixon. One of those areas was the Obama Administration’s crackdown on journalists. This week Attorney General Eric Holder appears to have yet again added to this ignoble record. It appears that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. This disclosure follows another recent disclosure that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted conservative groups associated with the Tea Party. Yet, once again, most Democrats remain silent in a type of cult of personality where principle is discarded in favor of loyalty to the President.
The spying on reporters by the Obama Administration included outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters. The seizure covered general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn. The Justice Department showed no restraint or concern, even including the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. It now appears that in a few years historians could well be saying the Nixon was perfectly Obamaesque in his abuses.
AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt has written a letter to Holder objecting to the spying, noting that “[t]here can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” I would be equally upset with the mere fact of the spying as opposed to its breadth.
The spying may be part of a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. AP agreed to hold the story after an objection from the Administration but ultimately ran the story disclosing a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States. While working with the Administration in holding the story, the Administration apparently was moving to spy on five reporters and an editor who were involved in the story.
Holder would have to have personally approved the subpoenas under Justice Department regulations. However, it is not enough to again criticize Holder (who has assembled one of the most abusive records on civil liberties in our history). Obama is well aware of the objections by civil libertarians and personally approved such decisions as promising CIA officials that they would not be investigated for torture and the kill list policy.
What is most striking about this story is the sense of complete immunity and lack of concern shown by the Administration. That sense of impunity has developed over four years as Democrats have gone into radio silence over abuses by the Administration from Obama’s “kill list” policy to other rollbacks on civil liberties. There will come a day when this president is no longer in office and many Democrats and Liberals will be faced with the imperial presidency that he created in the hands of someone they do not revere. When that day comes, it will be hard to climb over the mountain of hypocrisy to find a principled ground for criticism.
Source: CNN
Gene,
Yes, I’d put Joffery Baratheon in the psychopath group.
There a some who hold the opinion that Petyr Baelish also rates high on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory
Blouise, The flick Game Change showed what you just said.
My shoot from the hip odds factor in the fact that it is a looong time till the next election and that there are many players still out there. It was just for fun, nothing more. We all need fun. Some here desperately need it.
I’m a gambler who has played craps, blackjack, bet on horses[I’m a a handicapper], and football. I took statistics in college, but I am not an academic. WE have an academic for president! How’s that working out. Having gambled for 30 years I understand probability, odds, etc. from the real world. That’s my classroom.
Tony C.,
and … as to Obama beating McCain … that race would have been much closer were it not for McCain’s choice of running mate. Some fool, maybe even McCain himself, fell for that old, angry, white, man lie left over from the Suffragettes’ time … “Women will vote for women.”
Talk about a politician getting played …
“I didn’t say they were sociopaths, Blouise.” (Gene)
I know you didn’t … I was referring to general talk on the blog regarding politicians being sociopaths.
“She ain’t heavy, she’s my brother.”
Tony C.,
Although I like Warren and worked hard and contributed money for her election, I do not think she has enough experience to sit in the Oval. I’d rather see her continue to work through the Senate and add a few like her to both Houses.
You know, Tony … after Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama, I’m fed up with rubes who need two years to come up to speed. This time I’d like to hit the ground running.
So, in the Primary, if Hillary is on the ballot, I’ll vote for her. If she isn’t and it’s Biden and Warren, I’ll vote for Biden.
(internal pollsters … take note and don’t bother calling me)
I didn’t say they were sociopaths, Blouise.
I said they were narcissists.
Petyr Baelish is a narcissist. Joffery Baratheon is a sociopath (probably closer to a psychopath because of his sadist streak). Not the same kinds of creature.
As for baggage? Sure. Everyone comes with a certain amount, however, not all baggage is created equal when it comes to elections. I think you underestimate the weight of Hillary’s.
Blouise: but given the hoopla coming out of the Repub and Libertarian camps, she’s the designated female-demon this time around (last cycle it was Pelosi).
Good, those camps are both pretty short-sighted in my view, meaning pretty short on predictive power and predicting people’s reactions. Just look at their Romney+Ryan ticket to see that, look at their budget proposals, their immigration proposals, their policy in general. Talk about Green Lantern thinking, they seem to think if they just believe hard enough they will somehow win.
I will point again at the start of the Obama campaign. Virtually nobody (including me) thought he had a snowball’s chance, yet he prevailed in the primary, and defeated a pretty popular Republican in the general. Despite being black, despite his lack of military, foreign policy, or national experience, despite what sounded initially like a completely foreign name.
Warren would be a first also (as a female) but with fewer negatives to overcome, and I think Hillary did at least one thing in her campaign, which was to come close enough to make the idea of a female President plausible. If she didn’t break through the ceiling she at least put a big crack in it, and that would make it easier for Warren to prevail in the primary and in the general.
I also think Warren has better rhetoric (and intelligence) for defeating Christie. That guy strikes me as a facile, off-the-cuff liar (proven by articles I have read about him), and I think Warren has the memory and quickness to call him on it.
Robert Paul Wolff:
The Benghazi matter is no scandal at all, and the attempts by the Republicans to blacken Hillary Clinton’s name three and a half years before she obliterates them in the 2016 presidential election will fail.
“Or do you really think I chose the word “fevered” without forethought to audience reaction?” (Gene)
Yes. dear, I know, which is why I called you on it. I do it all the time with guns.
I know why you dislike both women’s politics for you have never been shy in strongly stating your opinion. I just happen to disagree with it.
I expect baggage with any politician worth his or her salt … perfection and purity ain’t much use to a politician and, to be perfectly honest, I don’t subscribe to the sociopath idea either.
I don’t bother defending Hillary because I know she is a woman who understands power, knows how to wield it, and is a politician who is not easily played. She has all the experience necessary and all the established relationships here and abroad just waiting to be used. She is better suited for the office than anyone who has held it in decades.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/how-obama-can-escape-the-scandal-cloud.html Move left on civil liberties.
Tony,
Agreed. Laying odds at this point is premature. And the point about timing for Warren is well taken, however, one more cycle to build her credibility wouldn’t be a show stopper either.
Holder blasts Issa’s conduct as ‘shameful’
At House Judiciary Committee hearing, Issa inquired about communications with Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, and stated without proof that the Attorney General was deliberately hiding information from Congress and violating the Federal Records Act.
When Holder tried to respond, Issa tried to cut him off. The A.G. was not pleased.
“No, no, I’m not going to stop talking now,” Holer said, adding, “It is inappropriate and too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It is unacceptable. It is shameful.”
You can continue to illustrate my point about polarizing all you like, Blouise. I really don’t mind.
Or do you really think I chose the word “fevered” without forethought to audience reaction?
And while Hillary’s State Department experience does make her look slightly better on paper than Warren vis a vis experience (not character, on character Warren wins hands down), it is only slightly and her baggage – far in excess of what comes from simple experience – far offsets that advantage.
You seem to think I dislike Hillary (and Pelosi) for some other reason than they are amoral unprincipled politically opportunistic narcissistic corporatists. I don’t. They’re both Team Baelish through and through. That has always been my objection to both of them. That’s reason enough in my book not to like them regardless of their gender. While Warren may be newer to the game, she’s markedly not Team Baelish. Yet. “If ever” remains to be seen as the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
“Well in part your reaction shows why.” (Gene) Come on … supporting Hillary with something other than “fevered” hype is the reaction you get from me … the polarizing verbiage is all yours.
She has all the experience necessary and experience always brings its own baggage. She had it back in 2008 but the money went to the Green Lantern thinkers … a savior, a savior, lord give us a savior.
I’m not privy yet to the inside polling (I’m too far down the food chain), but given the hoopla coming out of the Repub and Libertarian camps, she’s the designated female-demon this time around (last cycle it was Pelosi). If she agrees to play that role, then we’ll see Biden take the lead but I doubt Warren will be on the ticket.
It’s utterly amazing how backward this country is when it comes to power and the females who know how to wield it.
Nick: Pick any given politician, and there is a pretty good chance they won’t be the nominee. Odds are meaningless here (and I say that as a sometimes professional statistician for my academic research), election years are not a repeatable experiment, we can’t run 2014 900 times and see if Warren reliably becomes the nominee a statistically significant number of times.
What were the “chances” that Barack Hussein Obama would win on the day he announced he would run? A huge majority of people thought Hillary would crush him as she steamrolled her way to the nomination. Including Hillary; it was a contributing factor to her loss (in the form of her campaign’s dismissal of the importance of the small state caucuses).
“Chances” cannot capture the defining moments, events, missteps and decisions that lie in the future and will decide the fate of those that run (or decide whether they run at all). Warren obviously has some ambitions, and she is 63 (two years younger than Hillary). In 2016, 66. Like Hillary, if she is ever going to do it, 2016 is probably her last chance to try. I think she has about a year to think about it.
There are many political veterans here. I would not exert too much energy debating Hillary, Rand and Elizabeth. Pretty good chance none of them will be the nominee. I would put Elizabeth @ 30-1, Rand 20-1, Hillary 8-1.
Tony C, I think sponsoring “personhood” legislation is a deal breaker for most women. I am not talking about being a christian; I am talking about sponsoring christianist legislation. He has attended rallies with Santorum and is going for his vote.
Swarthmore: I don’t care for Rand Paul, but he is good looking, speaks well, sufficiently educated, and is carving out a place distinct from his father in politics. Being a Christian appeals to about 90% of voters; it is pretty hard for a non-Christian to get elected Dog Catcher (I am exaggerating for effect, of course).
To be President, Rand could simply do what Obama did about his pastor Wright, along the lines of: “My father and I are from different generations. We agree on many of our ideals, but above all he raised me to think for myself, and what I think is that some of my father’s political positions can be too extreme to be practical.”
Not too tough, not too specific, and convey a caring relationship between independent peers that has moved beyond parent/child subordination.
As I said, Tony… with a stray comma… 😉