Boston Marathon Bombing

[RecycleMichael]

Fox News said that 40% of republicans think Benghazi is the worst scandal ever.

Really.

[patric]

As of late, everything with our government is getting weird. From the IRS becoming the president's personal gestapo, to the administration demanding that the hospital in Benghazi label Ambassador Stevens as a John Doe to fool the media, to classifying reporters as criminals for attempting to report the news.
Now we have federal officers shooting an unarmed suspect SEVEN times during an interrogation.  It seems that the incompetence is not just at the top of the chain of command, but throughout.

Suspects suddenly expiring after signing a "confession" is classic KGB, but what stuck out:

It was not certain who, or how many officers, had fired on Mr. Todashev. Nor was it clear why, with at least three law enforcement officials in the room, deadly force was used on someone without a firearm in his hands. Asked, one law enforcement official said: "If somebody jumps on you and you have a gun, and you don't do something, the gun will quickly come into play."
None of the officials present could say how many of their guns came into play when the suspect was shot.

There's at least three agencies that cant agree on a story here.  
Someone's going to get thrown under the bus.

[Conan71]

It reminds me of the time when Ronald Reagan folks illegally gave arms to our enemy Iran, bought and sold drugs in Nicaragua to finance it, then lied to Congress about it.

Now that was a scandal. I wonder what ever happened to the President on that one.

Oh. I remember. They named the airport in DC after him.

When the Obama administration comes under fire, the tactic becomes to dredge something bad from a previous administration.  Why are those of you who support Obama okay with continually lowering the bar for what is acceptable behavior from a president and those he surrounds himself with?  The defense always seems to start like this: "Well Bush...", "Well Nixon...", "Well Reagan..."

Why should the low points of a previous administration make future malfeasance justified?

[rebound]

When the Obama administration comes under fire, the tactic becomes to dredge something bad from a previous administration.  Why are those of you who support Obama okay with continually lowering the bar for what is acceptable behavior from a president and those he surrounds himself with?  The defense always seems to start like this: "Well Bush...", "Well Nixon...", "Well Reagan..."

Why should the low points of a previous administration make future malfeasance justified?

"continually lowering the bar"?  Obviously the bar was already well-lowered by those GOP administrations.  Not defending Obama on anything, but neither should he be held higher than previous administrations.  It's kind of like when Clinton was under fire for the whole Lewinsky thing.  Kennedy and LBJ both had flings and mistresses, but the GOP forced Clinton into a corner via congressional testimony, so it became a huge thing.  Now I'm not condoning Clinton either, but it's not like it hasn't happened before. 

It's a great thing to hold the office to higher standards, but don't be surprised when it's the same thing all over again.

[Conan71]

"continually lowering the bar"?  Obviously the bar was already well-lowered by those GOP administrations.  Not defending Obama on anything, but neither should he be held higher than previous administrations.  It's kind of like when Clinton was under fire for the whole Lewinsky thing.  Kennedy and LBJ both had flings and mistresses, but the GOP forced Clinton into a corner via congressional testimony, so it became a huge thing.  Now I'm not condoning Clinton either, but it's not like it hasn't happened before. 

It's a great thing to hold the office to higher standards, but don't be surprised when it's the same thing all over again.

Sorry I disagree.  No one is trying to hold Obama to a higher standard, just simply what we should expect of any sitting U.S. president.  The standard for leadership should be quite clear.  Thinking that screw ups of previous leaders is a justifiable cop-out for screw ups by subsequent administrations is accepting a lower standard any way you try and spin it.

[Red Arrow]

"continually lowering the bar"? 

Lowering the bar of what's acceptable, not what happens.

Watergate and Iran-Contra were the scandals that were going to bring down the USA according to Democrats and the Mainstream Press.  These little things during the Obama administration are just a minor disturbance according to Democrats and the Mainstream Press.

[rebound]

Watergate and Iran-Contra were the scandals that were going to bring down the USA according to Democrats and the Mainstream Press.  These little things during the Obama administration are just a minor disturbance according to Democrats and the Mainstream Press.

This last part is more what I was referring to.  I'm not defending Obama,  just more pointing out that the reaction to events depends upon what  side you are on.  The Dems howl when the GOP does something wrong, and the vice-versa.  To some degree it is the duty of the party out of power to police the one in power, and we should expect that will always be case.  I agree it would be best if both sides rebuked these issues to the same level, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Now I personally would argue that Watergate, and particularly Iran-Contra, were worse than anything Obama has done, but I know not everybody sees it that way.  Just as long as one side or the other is calling BS on things, I think we'll muddle through.

[BKDotCom]

Maybe you should start an airport re-naming pool.  Which airport gets re-named after Pres. Obama?

The Brady District's going to be renamed before Reagan airport gets renamed.

[RecycleMichael]

When the Obama administration comes under fire, the tactic becomes to dredge something bad from a previous administration.  Why are those of you who support Obama okay with continually lowering the bar for what is acceptable behavior from a president and those he surrounds himself with? 

No, it is not. It is wrong. I have not defended Obama on Benghazi, IRS or any recent scandal.

But it should be allowed to reference other President's behavior without you and gaspar acting as if anything this president did as reprehensible.

Reagan should have been imprisoned for the actions of his cabinet. They didn't, but 138 indictments for everything mentioned above and plus the HUD scandals (rigging bids to give republican contributors millions), EPA scandals punishing political opponents with fines and harrassment, the savings and loan crisis which bankrupt thousands of companies, etc. sure are proof that he was the most corrupt president ever.

What Obama and his people are being accused of is petty in comparision, yet gaspar writes it as if it is the worst scandal ever. Showing historical perspective is not defending.

[Gaspar]

No, it is not. It is wrong. I have not defended Obama on Benghazi, IRS or any recent scandal.

But it should be allowed to reference other President's behavior without you and gaspar acting as if anything this president did as reprehensible.

Reagan should have been imprisoned for the actions of his cabinet. They didn't, but 138 indictments for everything mentioned above and plus the HUD scandals (rigging bids to give republican contributors millions), EPA scandals punishing political opponents with fines and harrassment, the savings and loan crisis which bankrupt thousands of companies, etc. sure are proof that he was the most corrupt president ever.

What Obama and his people are being accused of is petty in comparision, yet gaspar writes it as if it is the worst scandal ever. Showing historical perspective is not defending.

He is not the worst president ever.  He is simply the worst president TODAY. 

History will be the one to judge how he ranks among others.  However, the PRESENT is not done with him, nor is he with it.  The consequences of our actions (or inaction) take time to manifest, and perception is based on the weight of those consequences and the standards we are judged against.

I concede that my interpretation of his performance is indeed subjective, as is yours.   I understand that there are still many who think Nixon and Carter were great presidents.  Some choose a very different set of standards for comparison, while others simply accept a majority consensus.

Conan's point is valid though.  With every failure, lapse, tragedy, betrayal, or scandal, liberals turn to historical comparison for some twisted justification.  At the same time, the worship continues as the administration and media strive to market the president with messianic photography as the profit of deliverance. 

This was just released today:

[Conan71]

What Obama and his people are being accused of is petty in comparision, yet gaspar writes it as if it is the worst scandal ever. Showing historical perspective is not defending.

Wire tapping the media and an IRS which is acting like the Gestapo isn't petty.  When was the IRS given any such authority to query a religious group about what happens at their prayer meetings:

While applying with the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status in 2009, an Iowa-based anti-abortion group was asked to provide information about its members' prayer meetings, documents sent by an IRS official to the organization reveal.

On June 22, 2009, the Coalition for Life of Iowa received a letter from the IRS office in Cincinnati, Ohio, that oversees tax exemptions requesting details about how often members pray and whether their prayers are "considered educational."

"Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3)," reads the letter, made public by the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm that collected evidence about the IRS practices. "Organizations exempt under 501(c)(3) may present opinions with scientific or medical facts. Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your organizations spends on prayer groups as compared with the other activities of the organization."

The IRS is currently under fire for allegedly targeting conservative groups that applied for nonprofit status in recent years. In response, two IRS officials have stepped down, including Acting Commissioner Steven Miller.
That portion of the questionnaire, in which the IRS also asked about signs the group intended to carry at rallies at Planned Parenthood offices, is below:

Screenshot from IRS letter sent to Coalition for Life of Iowa in 2012.
In response, the group's attorneys at Mosher & Associates, a firm based in Chicago, responded:

...

During a Ways and Means Committee hearing Friday on Capitol Hill, Illinois Republican Rep. Aaron Schock asked Miller specifically about the Campaign for Life of Iowa letter from 2009.

"Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501(c)3 applicant?" Schock asked. "The content of one's prayers?"

"It pains me to say I can't speak to that one either," Miller said. He had said earlier that he would not be able to discuss individual cases during the hearing.

"You don't know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask?" Schock replied.

"Speaking outside of this case, which I don't know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked," Miller said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-conservative-group-2009-members-pray-193833144.html

[Red Arrow]

The Brady District's going to be renamed before Reagan airport gets renamed.

I was thinking more of Obama's "home town" and O'Hare airport.

[Gaspar]

I was thinking more of Obama's "home town" and O'Hare airport.

Sioux City Airport is out!

[heironymouspasparagus]

When the Obama administration comes under fire, the tactic becomes to dredge something bad from a previous administration.  Why are those of you who support Obama okay with continually lowering the bar for what is acceptable behavior from a president and those he surrounds himself with?  The defense always seems to start like this: "Well Bush...", "Well Nixon...", "Well Reagan..."

Why should the low points of a previous administration make future malfeasance justified?

A big piece of it is that so far, the bar is still vastly higher than those previously lowered bars....

No one has ever said that future malfeasance is justified.  What HAS been said repeatedly is there must be perspective...like the ratios of bad spending...say, $500 million versus $2 trillion.  It's arterial bleeding versus a skinned knee.  Both need treatment, but at different priority levels.

If you had a number of things break around the house at one time, which ones would you tackle first?  I would bet that you would let a little bit of peeling paint on the siding go for a very long time versus a broken water pipe in the kitchen that is flooding your house.  THAT is the type and scale of events we are talking about.

[Ed W]

This isn't about lowering the bar as much as it's about scoring political points.  As I've noted before, sometimes the difference isn't between right and left rather than right and wrong.  Instead of frantically searching for someone to blame, perhaps we should be asking if our government should be compiling these huge databases on all of us.  It's not a problem that originated with the Obama administration, and in fact, it probably goes back long before the Bush presidency.  All administrations want to (1) control the flow of information and (2) consolidate more power.  That's simply human nature.

For us liberals, the Obama presidency has been a mixed bag.  One writer said that when it comes to data collection via the internet and monitoring our phone calls, this is actually the fourth term for President Bush.  That our president didn't put an end to those practices is a huge disappointment.  Of course, if he had done so, our conservative friends would be whining about how he gutted national defense.  And so it goes.

Gotta go mow the lawn, but here's an interesting photo.  Dunno if it's 'shopped: