There is this leak investigation of the AP, so we can’t get involved. Oh, there is an investigation of Benghazi, so we’re not responsible. The President and the executive branch need to govern on a daily basis and you can’t purchase immunity from governing....
But some institutions have a no-surprise rule, which is you need to make sure the person at the top, who is the president in this case, he is constitutionally responsible for the whole executive branch, to be told about things that are going on that are bad. And you can’t kind of say, oh, that happened last year and they’re investigating. You need to stop the bad things right away.
१९ मे, २०१३
Bob Woodward: "I think you have to kind of step back and say what’s the theory of governing here."
"And the theory is, it seems, oh, there are investigations of the IRS so we can’t interfere."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२८ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 228 पैकी 201 – 228I don't want to read through this thread, but I do have a question based on the last few comments. What do you mean garage is a made up persona?
Has he been outed?
garage mahal said...
In a rich bit of irony, your comments have been parody all along.
In a rich bit of irony, you didn't know all along that this account has already been a parody of sorts. Meaning, under this moniker I never ever give a fuck. It's "separate" from me, even if you did know who I am I still wouldn't give a fuck.
Which makes your anger towards me and your tireless devotion of trying to discredit this anonymous moniker sort of funny. And tiring. It may be time to hitch up and take a ride.
5/19/13, 5:08 PM
Seems like there's an awful lot of mobys and sockpuppets and parody accounts around here.
What did Paladian have the other day, all connected to Inga somehow? It was about a dozen wasn't it?
I'm starting to wonder if anyone's a real person--and I'm starting to wonder who's ultimately responsible.
Cui bono?
Let's do some shopping at the Althouse Amazon Portal while we try to figure it out!
Oh...wait....
"I'm starting to wonder if anyone's a real person--and I'm starting to wonder who's ultimately responsible. "
I wonder how long it will be before one can automate a truly responsive blogger (not the current irrelevant spammer that comes through on occasion). Then you won't even be sure there is even one real person behind the curtain.
Well, that's too bad because I've enjoyed garage's comments.
I hope he comes back as himself.
Well, that's too bad because I've enjoyed garage's comments.
I hope he comes back as himself.
He's got a fan club.
"I'm pretty sure he's legally prohibited from doing much more, as he was prohibited from interfering before, earlier. In the throes of any "scandal"."
Please cite the pertinent provisions of the U.S. Code that prevents the POTUS from firing anyone for malfeasance or non-feasance, let alone criminality.
Really? All he does is post nonsense and falsehoods.
Scott Walker's being indicted!
Bill Clinton never even talked to Monica!
Obama...well never mind.
I don't get the fascination with him.
When he's not being political he's interesting enough, but ....
When he's not being political he's interesting enough, but ....
Agree.
Interesting article on the 10:00 p.m. phone call between Obama and Hillary.
My guess? It's Hillary who comes up with the video angle. She invented it.
Open question whether she lied to Obama or they conspired together.
My guess is she lied to him. I say that because Obama seens genuinely pissed that Susan Rice was ruined politically.
Troll here: all good. Y'all got nothin.
200+ comments of nothin but nothin.
Nothin to see here move along.
When he's not being political he's interesting enough, but ....
Agree.
5/19/13, 9:02 PM
Yeah, I like garage when he's talking about dogs and fishing and the Packers.
I'm real enough. I'm a conservative woman in deep blue Shorewood Wisconsin. But I'm not really an Althouse regular. I lurk when I have nothing to say, or think one of the regulars have said it better than I could.
As his political pants come down the rather comically skinny hindquarters of the POTUS will be visible for public derision. Hee, hee!
phx said...
I'm not a policy wonk by any means. I generally favor Dems in foreign policy. I was glad Obama had a plan when he first took office and, given my expectations for collapse, I've been satisfied with the economic stimulus spending, the economy in general. I'm frightened by the deficits but I'm not an economist.
I have a great interest in the way the right is managing the dyamics on their team right now. I'm very critical of that at times. Most of the time.
Short version: "I'm poorly informed but I have opinions."
I'm really not satisfied with the economy. I still have teenagers who need jobs and I'm still racking up ridiculous student loan debt because I couldn't find any sort of entry-level job with a future... and I don't see that anything has changed. One kid went to North Dakota because North Dakota has jobs (and oil) and (as I saw last summer) 12 year old grocery store baggers. In Albuquerque all the employees at the grocery stores are adults.
Nothing has improved at all.
The best that can be said is that we've adjusted... gotten used to it.
I think they came up with the video angle because of the one guy on Twitter from the Muslim Brotherhood who was complaining to the Cairo Embassy about it. The Cairo embassy apologized and Mitt Romey criticized them for it.
I believe the Obama campaign (or Axelrod) actually criticized Romney during that time- during the time Bengazhi was under attact (unbeknownst to us). The next day Romney came out to explain himself, but of course we all had yet to learn what had happened.
So that, I believe, is why the administration chose to focus on the video. Because it also allowed them to. Criticize Romney. The video was never even the only thing the protests in Cairo were about.
I think Obama and the Dems really do have a problem with the theory of governance here. Their constant refrain seems to be that the government is so huge that the President shouldn't be expected to know what goes on in the bowels of the government. Or, in the case of Benghazi, in his own situation room and with his top cabinet secretaries. But, they are the party of big government, and run on a platform that they are the best and the brightest at controlling and running such. If this sort of thing happened to a Republican, they could just say "I told you the government is just too big". Doesn't work with Dems.
Combine this with the reality that Obama probably didn't know some of this. He has run maybe the most disengaged, hands-off Administration in most of our memories. We now know that when Ike looked above it all, he was actually managing things quite closely, but had the experience of being Supreme Allied Commander in Europe behind him when delegating. Obama had never managed anything larger than a campaign staff before this, and I don't think he understands, to this day, that the buck does stop at the desk that he fought so hard to obtain, and then to retain.
And, yes, as with any sitting President, he has become surrounded by sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear, and do the dirty work of running the government. But, that is no excuse to the American public. They elected him to run that huge monstrosity, our federal government. Dana Perino pointed out the other day that Bush(43) staffers (from her on down) worked very hard at catching budding scandals as quickly as they could. They followed the alternate media closely, and took allegations like the IRS scandal very seriously, getting well out ahead of such, and would inform the President as soon as they knew. Obama probably didn't know about a lot of this stuff until the public did, because he didn't see it as his job to do so. Rather, I think, that he views the job as looking Presidential and setting lofty goals. Something like that.
The flaw in Woodward's premise is that he assumes Obama wants the bad things to stop.
master cylinder said...
Troll here: all good. Y'all got nothin.
200+ comments of nothin but nothin.
Nothin to see here move along.
Translation:
Flop sweat.
Short version: "I'm poorly informed but I have opinions."
I know. You listen to Rush and maybe read Instapundit. So you are very well informed.
gutless said...
As his political pants come down the rather comically skinny hindquarters of the POTUS will be visible for public derision. Hee, hee!
I think he recently painted himself into a logically inconsistent corner vis a vis the IRS and Benghazi scandals and wants to exit as gracefully as he can.
Not that that is possible.
phx said...
Short version: "I'm poorly informed but I have opinions."
I know. You listen to Rush and maybe read Instapundit. So you are very well informed.
So. Put you down for;"There ain't no stinkin' scandals!"
Whoa. This thread is too much for me in general...at least the political sniping portions. That and I'm still painfully cognizant of my time-line error of ignorant oversight, which I acknowledged...so I will be far more careful in the future.
One question: specifically, what is a "low level IRS employee?" Does that mean Civil Service grades GS-01 through GS-15 or some range within it? Does it mean level 1,2,or 3 SES grades less than the topmost? Just who are these low level malefactors?
Those who have worked for the federal government know it is highly unlikely that GS graded employees go rogue with policy.
So. Put you down for;"There ain't no stinkin' scandals!"
And Rusty, misinformed as always. I've commented twice in this post talking about "the scandals".
I'm a real person.
Although I've been Herman Carol and Rickey Branch.
Any sockpuppets I use are just parody accounts that don't lend any credibility to any argument.
phx said...
So. Put you down for;"There ain't no stinkin' scandals!"
And Rusty, misinformed as always. I've commented twice in this post talking about "the scandals".
Not misinformed. Just yankin your too short chain.
What was the name of the Captain of the EXXON VALDEZ?
Not misinformed. Just yankin your too short chain.
All right. Fair enough Rusty. Go in peace.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा