|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
What is your opinion of President Obama stating that the current Administration scandals are Phony?
Does this statement present a distraction to the public? Does it show that the President has little concern for the truth? Does it echo the same illogical rhetoric as that used to hide personal records from the public? Does it reflect the inappropriate activity by a president that has spent more and done less than all others? Does it imply that the President believes that the lives lost in Benghazi are a joke? Does it present the type of leadership you believe is required for a President?
The answer(s) to your first five questions is YES; the answer to the last is NO. Unfortunately, with a sycophantic press, he's getting away with it. Thank God for Fox News, otherwise most of this stuff would have bee swept under the rug.
Of all the news outlets available in this country, I rate Fox last and MSNBC next to last. Their bias is so blatant, it defies all the aspects of good journalism.
Adding to Larry. And those networks have erased the line between disrespecting Pres Obama, the man, and disrespecting the office of the President of the United States. And have basically called the majority that voted for Obama a bunch of idiots.
It's the old Law School adage:
"When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor facts are on your side, slam the table and be as loud as possible."
He'd lose a policy debate, and he can't afford to get into a character debate this close to the midterms. All that's left is to try to distract from the issues and marginalize the opposition.
Once again, we are looking at a distraction, given all the negative blogs I read before finding Obama's actual words. to wit:
-- “With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball.”
As expected, nobody seems to understand plain English, it seems. The words causing such a useless firestorm is obviously "phony scandals".
The definition of a "scandal", if anyone cared to look it up is, (take your pick)
- 1. A publicized incident that brings about "disgrace" or "offends the moral sensibilities of society:" a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation.
- 2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to "cause disgrace or outrage": a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal.
- 3. Damage to reputation or character caused by "public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior"; disgrace.
- 4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; "malicious gossip".
The three things most commonly brought as having been a real, honest-to-goodness "Scandal" are:
- 1. The IRS overzealous inspection of groups (it is known that it was all groups, not just Right-wing ones) who logically don't seem to qualify for the charitable exemption they were seeking.
- 2. A traitor exposing classified information about a program the Congress (at least those with a need-to-know) knew about all along.
- 3. The terrorist attack on an embassy facility in Benghazi, Libya, the subsequent explanation of it, and the internal security problems in the State department.
Now, I put in quotes those part of the "scandal" definition which are the action words, the words that must be found in the three events listed above. As I see it, ?not a one" of them qualify as an Obama scandal! The closest you "might" come is the potential "scandal" surrounding the inadequate security measures.followed by the State Department; although even this is missing the element of "purposefulness" that is normally associated with the idea of a scandal.
Please tell me, without doing damage to their definitions, where the immorality or malfeasance is exhibited by Obama in any of these? Even the IRS scandal has turned out not to be a "scandal" at all but more of poor management and oversight.
If none of these are "scandals", then by definition they are phony.
IRS scandal not a scandal ??? Over 300 conservative groups all held up in perpetuity. About 12 liberal groups are held up half of which get subsequent approval. And the WH Chief counsel is directly reviewing the Tea Party apps. Give me a break
That might be an indication of the predominance of Right-wing groups trying to get undeserved non-profit status. Shouldn't that be the scandal?
Actually nothing was found in virtually all of the apps that should have disqualified them from tax exempt status. And the numbers of total apps was less than prior years. They just chose to single out political opposition as per Chief Counsel.
Benghazi Scandal - grossly improper behavior
IRS Scandal - a circumstance that causes disgrace
NSA Scandal - a publicized incident that offends the moral sensibilities of society.
Was the Challenger explosion a scandal? Do we blame Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon for the Vietnam scandal. I think Clinton was president with the USS Cole was captured. Every event is not a scandal. It is a much overused and misused word.
No but when the WH claims nobody knew anything about extra scrutiny of political opposition, and it was just a few rogue agents. Then we find Chief Counsel was reviewing applications of political opponents...and many in the WH knew...it's a scandal
again, these comments are twisted versions of the truth, or should i say they are typical fox news reporting. Making blanket statements that put down the president is not proof of anything. the author of this ? is notorious for this tactic.
Who needs FOX, all we have to do is play the video tape of the WH spokesman Jay Carney telling a different story every time out. I can't help but feel bad for him. They made him quite the sacrificial lamb.
Obama is lying as usual. He has so many scandals and they are increasing that it is not even funny. Obama is making Bush look like a choir boy. In fact, Bush had NO scandals at all!
There have been no scandals in the Obama administration. The alleged scandals have been manufactured by the likes of Darrell Issa who has plenty of real scandals himself. If you don't believe me read his Wikibio here.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa
No Scandals here...Just lying about what happened and trying to pin it on some "Rogue Agents" when in fact they knew the truth months earlier.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … -party.htm
My Esoteric conveniently forgets the following:
Fast and Furious
ICE agents suing Secretary Napolitano for not letting them do their jobs
False accusation of reporter James Rosen
Seizing phone records of AP reporters
Did I miss any?
One test for telling sociopaths from just bad guys is to ask jaywalking is more or less serious than robbery. Sociopaths don't see the difference. You are wanting me to see no difference between F & F and the Iraq war; well, I do see a differe
Yeah, Bombing Libya and trying to do the same in Syria in order to arm Al Qaeda linked rebels makes him a good guy. Using the IRS to target political enemies like Nixon, and covering up Benghazi to win an election all make him just misunderstood.
If its the truth and it's on their side make a big deal about it. In fact ask all the media to cover it and spread it all in the social media network.
If its the truth and it's not on their side belittle it and slam the door shut everytime someone open it up. Ignore it and hope it goes away
He's absolutely right. They are phony. The people who keep talking about the alleged scandals are extreme partisans like Darrell Issa who has plenty of skeletons in his own closet.
So -you are ready to give up your freedom and Constitutional Rights.
Abuse of power is being touted as phony scandal by the individual that created the scandals.
As some said below, the "real" scandal is the "malicious" misuse of the English language to paint somebody as evil, who in fact is probably a better person than those slinging the false accusations.
Taburkett: I do not think anyone is giving up except you. There have been strong presidents and weak presidents and all had their supporters and detractors. Just state it that you would not like President Obama no matter what he did, except resign.
I agree! Both parties are guilty of doing this to 2nd term presidents. The goal is always to effect next election!
As an old reporter, the assumption is made (all to often) if a politician is involved, it must be crooked, illegal, a scandal, etc.
Regardless of his position, the top man is blamed for all things that go wrong--a mayor cannot control every employee action in the city. Thus the President cannot be responsible for every mistake made by a government employee.
The simple fact is that people who do not like Mr. Obama for one reason are looking for other reasons to dislike him.
Has he been our greatest president--no.
Has he been our worse president--no
Has he made mistakes--yes
Has anyone on this thread not made a mistake--no.
I promise you that a reporter can find something to pin on any elected official and with the way news is presented--screaming--not streaming--people become overly alarmed, when it is not necessary.
Amazing. A sensible answer. I agree with your assessment of his presidency. Not the best, but not up there with Grant, Buchanan, Fillmore, etc.
I never made a mistake that caused the deaths of others
I never hid my college records or other records when in public office
It is necessary to demand answers to the lies being spread
And, I must disagree He is our worst President in my lifetime.
You are entitled to your opinion. Most of us are not in a position to cause the death of others by sending them to war. Have you served in public office--if so what. You think Mr. Obama is worse that Herbert Hoover--the great depression?
Larry - yes Obama is worse than Hoover
Hoover - combat Depression with government efforts, tariffs, an increase in the top tax bracket
Obama has done the same and has also spent more wildly than Hoover.
Hoover only served one term - thus Obama worse
Your logic evades me. Obama is serving a second term because the people, remember them, elected him. So those who elected him are apparently at fault using your logic. So much for liberty. Hoover was worse, there were signs and he ignored them.
That explains why Hoover was a 1 term pres. You are right. The media can sway an election, but a political party can sway the media. Therefore, most scandals have ulterior motives other than finding the truth.
I fail to understand defending Obama - he is UNDOUBTEDLY the worst president in history and is screwing up this country like no one before him. The only saving grace is that he is inexperienced and quite incompetent otherwise it could be much worse.
Hmmmm, causing the needless deaths of 1000's of Americans in Iraq and allowing the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression to occur because of his economic philosophy must be a good thing in your book.
@My Esoteric - so replacing a mediocre president with an absolutely terrible one is all right in YOUR book.
Are you saying my description of Bush simply makes him mediocre while Obama, who didn't start one war, let alone two, who got us out of the Great Conservative Recession, stopping a depression at the same time, and insuring 30 million is worse??
The recession ended before he signed a single piece of legislation in March of 2009. And insuring 30 million is a stretch as people all over are getting dropped from their insurance or getting cut to part time as a result of this so called reform.
No, the recession ended in July 2009, according to the NERB. What few of the people getting dropped (and the part-time move was happening for other reasons) have other or access to insurance just like the 30 million who didn't on Sept 30, 2013.
The data was revised for all economic data dating back to 1929 several months ago. Under the old methodology it was March 2009. Either way irrelevant, since nothing had been implemented until nearly year end. Access to insurance and no Job..helpful
Sorry off a month, June, not July. Market did 180 as soon as Pres acted in March, tax piece took effect in April, unemployment piece, immediately, State piece, April or May. Only jobs piece was long, and that was known. Depression with Rep plan.
LOL. the market did a 180 because the technicals hit support levels. And when the law is signed is not when the money is dispersed. TARP was signed in 2008 and still getting distributed in 2010. If you use July then the data is from months earlier.
History will record George W. Bush as a far better president than Obama - mark my words.
Bush v. Obama: Bush got us into two foolish, costly unnecessary wars; Obama ended one and is winding down the other. Bush passed an unfunded Medicare drug plan which was written by the big drug companies; Obama signed AHC which will help reduce costs
last time I checked Obama bombed Libya, and tried to Bomb Syria. And if you think the ACA will reduce premiums, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn.Costs are skyrocketing already. But you're correct about the medicare Drug Bill, bad idea
Our President makes excuses and initiates coverups so that the truth does not come out. The Government has become so political that one never knows what to believe. He bypasses laws, tries to influence decisions by the Supreme Court, and makes inappropriate comments. President Obama does not try to bring the two parties together. Benghazi and the Navy Seal incidents are examples of his coverup attempts. One skill that he uses is his ability as a public speaker, It is difficult to form an opinion of his successes and failures, because of the issues mentioned. No one knows what to believe..I do believe that he tries but is in a difficult situation at the present time.
"The Government has become so political that one never knows what to believe." Government is always political. Check every presidency for scandal. JKF--Bay of Pigs, FDR--Not prepared for WWII, Nixon Watergate, Carter, Hostages---out of room for rest
brakel2-you are right.
Larry-You are utilizing the same blame game as Obama.
I was not born until after WWII-I could not fix it
I am too young for Bayo Pigs-so could not fix it
Watergate was fixed
Hostages-I assisted Reagan to fix
Obama needs fixed
Taburkett. Events create scandals. Scandals do not create events. Are you saying that Obama pertetrated Benghazi, IRS and NSA? Since all agencies we have can't prove that or even imply that, how can you? You seem to have personal resentment.
Taburkett, I was born after WWII. I am not playing a blame game. I am pointing out historical facts and Reagan did not fix the hostage situation. Carter and Kissinger fix it--Reagan got credit. I see you are a veteran, have you ever had any trust?
He is simply being another corrupt politician by making such a statement. But I don't expect him to actively do anything other than downplay them. Take the IRS scandal. The story line went from a few rogue agents in Cinncinati, and now it's traced all the way back to a White House and the WH chief counsel. So the closer the scandal gets to a political figure, the more they have to down play it. It's just a lot easier when the media is in your corner.
Landmark. I've read a lot of your stuff and this response disappoints me. Do you really believe the media is in anyone's corner but their own? No one is immune from a media stab in the back.
Can you name any 2nd term president who was not thrust with one scandal after another concerning him or his cabinet? It's tradition for the opposition parties to keep the sitting president on defense in hopes of electing their own candidate next time
The media is far more hesitant to report on anything negative about Obama when compared to Bush as an ex. With Bush they plastered fake National Guard documents all over the news. With Obama, it's always reported in a defensive characterization.
The Benghazi and IRS are scandals of a magnitude that even Nixon did not commit! Benghazi and IRS are the SCANDALS of the millenium!
Good administration involves both offensive and defensive tactics, offensive to administer and defensive to enable administration. President Obama is just being a good administrator taking defensive shelter under the "Phony" umbrella when he calls those scandals phony. There's nothing strange about it.
I agree with the statement. Not because I'm a fan of Obama's. But I'm not a fan of the media. They are the ones, (along with Republicans), to label something a scandal when in fact it is an unanswered question or set of questions. If a complete, factual answer is present and someone tries to lie out of it, it's a scandal. If something is an accusation made by someone without explanation by the accused,it is not. The dictionary defines scandal as "malicious gossip". And more times than not, that's what it ends up being. Sounds phony to me. It's usually created or exaggerated by someone or something for the purpose of personal gain due to lack of ability to gain on their own merit. A perfect example of this is the marriage between FOXNEWS and the Republican Party. They have made an art of spinning an unexplained event into a huge, scandalous story.
all I can say is.. " how much wool does it take to pull over America's eyes?"
.. and finally, to wrap up my arguments, America wake up!..
I have no idea which scandals are "phony" or politically motivated and which ones are of genuine concern to the average citizen.
Historically it appears that most (2nd term) presidents are bombarded by the opposition party to derail their agenda in hopes of weakening the sitting president's party. I saw this happen during the 2nd terms of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. The goal of any "opposition" party is to replace elected officials with their own party members! Keep the sitting president on defense so he or she can't accomplish anything. A lot of 2nd term presidents turn to international issues. It's impossible for a president to go 8 years with a scandal in his cabinet.
If a 2nd term president finishes their term on a high note or remains popular then people are likely to elect his party's representative in the next election. The dirty truth about politics is "party loyalty" is more important than what is "good" for the country. Another said truth is the voters really (believe) their party hates the other party. When in fact both political parties are made up of rich elitist people looking to make a name for themselves in the history books. You're better off to ignore D.C. and focus on your local politicians and do what is best for your family.
I meant to say It's impossible for any president to go 8 years (without) a scandal in his cabinet.
I find it interesting that "rich elitist" also describes most of our founding fathers, those who wrote the Constitution, and made up the first Congress or so. It wasn't until later that more or less regular citizens got voted in. We do love circles
taburkett, you actually asked 7 questions there. haha.
The answer to number 1 is------Obama is a lying, deceiving, tyrannical, narcissistic jerk.
The answer to 2 through 6 is YES.
The seventh is NO.
Every President voted to office in our American Nation, has had some form of 'scandal'. We as 'American Voters' should be immuned to the mistake of our presidents! Nixon, Clinton, even Washington had 'secrets' and 'scandals'. No matter. They still represent us as our national leaders. I believe their personal lives are their business unless it involves, National Security!
by taburkett4 years ago
Why do US citizens continue to support a failing Administration. Is it because they are communists.With the latest scandal exposed about the Administration, one would think that the citizens would wake up to the...
by Thomas Byers23 months ago
Was Richard Nixon The Worst Crook We Ever Had As President?Was Richard Nixon the worst crook we ever had as U.S. President? What do you think? What did you think of Richard Nixon? How will future history judge Richard...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=107086from the article..."In fact, according to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, federal agencies have already negotiated agreements and contracts...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
the United States, are YOU happy with or regret the choice that you have made? Why? Why not?
by Jack Lee9 months ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his...
by tbHistorian4 years ago
Do you believe that the current Administration and President continue to lie when the truth hasbeen proven about Benghazi, IRS targeting, Obamascare, leadership failure, and promotion of socialist ideology - because the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.