The “reward” from concealing the IRS and Benghazi scandals may have been Obama’s second term....WHAT ABOUT THE KNOWN ELECTION FRAUD TOO?...

Is Obama an ‘asterisk president’?

Forbes: The Media Threw the 2012 Presidential Election

 

“Voters understand abuse of power  – especially using the IRS – when they see it. News of IRS harassment would have demolished Obama’s carefully cultivated image of moderation and tolerance.

Rather than demanding answers to the Benghazi disaster, the mainstream media eagerly seconded the Obama campaign’s accusation that the Republicans were turning a national tragedy into a partisan issue, and fell into a stupor of indifference…

The ‘reward’ from concealing the IRS and Benghazi scandals may have been Obama’s second term.”

 

Op/Ed

6/30/2013 @ 5:32PM

 

The notorious asterisk (*) is applied to discredited sports records. Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories have been followed by an * in the record books since his admission of doping. Richard Nixon is modern history’s only asterisk President. His * denotes the only President to resign from office. More generally, the asterisk applies to any achievement gained through questionable means.

Hence, the media elite will discredit any piece that has Barack Obama “Asterisk President” in its title as spiteful partisanship, sour grapes, and ignorance of “politics as usual.” Obama’s spin doctors and the media will retort: Do these conservative wing nuts not know that Obama won by a comfortable margin?  Our Democratic Underground has indeed put an asterisk next to George W. Bush, but that is only right. Bush did not really win in 2004 and lied about weapons of mass destruction, but our Barack won fair and square and by a comfortable margin.

Columnists James Taranto and Peggy Noonan  have broken the “asterisk taboo.” Taranto (President Asterisk) describes how the mainstream media has circled the wagons to protect Obama from the swirling scandals that threaten the legitimacy of his second term.

The media chant in unison: “Barack did not know. It was only low level bureaucrats. Government is too complicated anyway. The Republicans will lose by overplaying their hand.”

Peggy Noonan (Where Was the Tea Party?) paints a White House frantic after the 2010 Tea-Party “shellacking,” intent on emasculating this toxic small-government crowd. The White House knew then it could count on the mainstream media to discredit the Tea Party as gun-toting, bible-thumping, and anti-abortion misfits, but it needed insurance. Whether ordered from on high or by winks and nods, IRS harassment of conservative groups fit the bill, but it had to be kept secret. Indeed, Tea Party targeting by the IRS began back in March of 2010, as the small-government movement was gaining momentum.

Noonan ventures that a Tea Party, not under attack by the IRS,  but that simply maintained its momentum after 2010, would “have brought the Republican Party as many as 5-8.5 million votes compared to Obama’s victory margin of 5 million.”

Per Noonan, the mere  disclosure of the IRS harassment would have cost Obama even more votes:

 “Imagine if we–if you can–what would have happened if this fact (IRS harassment of Tea Party groups) came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different.”

I agree.

Voters understand abuse of power  – especially using the IRS – when they see it. News of IRS harassment would have demolished Obama’s carefully cultivated image of moderation and tolerance. Older voters also would remember Nixon’s attempt to sic the IRS on political enemies and know that, in those good old days, the IRS refused to play ball, but, sadly,  not today’s IRS.

No wonder the IRS targeting of conservative groups had to be concealed at all costs in the months leading up to the election. I can imagine the many sleepless nights worrying about the upcoming Treasury Inspector General’s report on IRS abuses and potential whistle-blowers within the IRS. But, of course, the President himself remained totally ignorant of all these things, even though his reelection may have hinged on them, we are assured by the mainstream media, who take the President’s non-involvement as a given. After all, CNN’s Washington News Bureau itself reported that the President himself labeled conservative targeting as “outrageous.” That’s all we need to know.

The Obama campaign made it through Election Day, largely because mainstream investigative reporters sat on their hands. Only talk radio “entertainers” and Fox News – known surrogates for the Republican Party, we are told — paid attention to targeted and harassed conservatives. What’s even better: Conservatives listened to these outlets and came away too intimidated to donate to their political cause.

Let’s add Benghazi to the asterisk presidency saga.

Almost two months before the election, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by a well-armed terrorist group on the evening of September 11. Four Americans including the Ambassador were killed. The last casualties occurred eight or more hours after the attack began. No military assistance was organized.

Despite massive evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration blamed an unorganized mob incited by an obscure video for these American deaths. The President himself peddled the video story in the hallowed halls of the United Nations and in television interviews long after it was known to be false. (This fact seems to have been forgotten. Only Susan Rice’s Sunday talk shows are remembered, but she is doing fine as the President’s foreign policy adviser).

Rather than demanding answers to the Benghazi disaster,  the mainstream media eagerly seconded the Obama campaign’s accusation that the Republicans were turning a national tragedy into a partisan issue.

Why was no assistance sent?

Why blame an obscure video?

Why the Benghazi consulate was not properly protected?  

Why can’t we talk to the survivors?

Shame on them for asking such questions!

The party line set in concrete, the media’s investigative reporters fell into a stupor of indifference.

Imagine just one renegade reporter from the mainstream media (network television, the New York Times, or Newsweek) reporting just one simple fact, which we know to be true – that the President communicated directly with his top defense and intelligence officials handling the Benghazi crisis only once – at 5 PM – as word of the tragedy was first coming in. (We still do not know the President’s whereabouts that fatal night. He was next seen at 10:30 AM the next day in the Rose Garden before jetting off to campaign in Las Vegas).

The renegade reporter’s headline — Obama AWOL as American Diplomats Killed in Benghazi – could have dealt a critical blow to the Obama campaign. This pithy but true headline would have changed the complexion of the Obama-Romney foreign policy debate on October 23 and shut off mainstream-media’s Candy Crowley’s shameful and incorrect interference in the debate on behalf of the President.

American voters would not have taken kindly to White House spinners telling them that the President’s whereabouts on the evening of September 11 are “irrelevant” as America’s diplomats were being slaughtered in a country, where the President’s “leading from behind” had been touted as an outstanding success.

We cannot estimate the millions of votes such disclosures would have cost the Obama candidacy. Voters may not pay attention, but they could not overlook an “AWOL President” in a time of national crisis.

The mainstream media neutralized other game changers throughout the campaign, such as their lack of interest in Justice’s “Fast and Furious” gun running, and the Attorney General’s contempt of Congress citation. The New York Times delivered the mislabeled Romney op-ed (“Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”) on a silver platter to the Obama campaign.  Inappropriate off-the-record comments by Romney (the 47%) went viral in the media. Obama’s private gaffes remained taboo. 

Victor Davis Hanson (When untruth undermines democracy) succinctly captures the “end-justifies-the-mans” philosophy of liberals and the mainstream media:

“There is also utopian arrogance in Washington that justifies any means necessary to achieve exalted ends of supposed fairness and egalitarianism. If one has to lie to stop the Tea Party or Fox News, then it is not quite seen by this administration as a lie.”

One liberal critic of my Timeline of IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups  dismissed the IRS scandal as illogical:

“This whole scandal is so dumb. The risks far outweigh the rewards from Obama’s standpoint. The risk of discoverability is astronomically high, and the payoff was minuscule from what I read.”

That is exactly my point in reverse: The “reward” from concealing the IRS and Benghazi scandals may have been Obama’s second term.

Recall that he would be the first President in a half century to be reelected with such a miserable economy. The risk was not astronomically high, but small, because the campaign knew they could count on the mainstream media – firmly in their corner – to cover for them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/06/30/will-obama-follow-richard-nixon-as-an-asterisk-president/