It's going to be tough and it appears that the media is tiring of giving Obama a free ride.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 996.column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Contributing to cover-up suspicions is the administration's continued stonewalling when asked to provide information on Benghazi. CNN sources acknowledge that "An email discussion about talking points the Obama administration used to describe the deadly attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show the White House and State Department were more involved than they first said..." The American people deserve the full story.
The latest, but probably not the last shocker, is a report in The Daily Caller about CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, who has "steadily covered the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya," reportedly frustrating CBS News executives who claim her unrelenting coverage is "bordering on advocacy" on the issue. Now, according to Politico, Attkisson can't get some of her stories about Benghazi on the air. Oh, did I fail to mention that CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes? Coincidental? Attkisson is reportedly in talks to leave the network. Is it because she chooses to behave like a real journalist instead of a cheerleader for Obama?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In 1972, Republican partisans initially accused Democrats of wanting to destroy President Nixon, but most were forced to acknowledge his culpability in Watergate once the facts became known. One of the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon concerned his misuse of the IRS to undermine political enemies.
Journalists should stop protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton and do their jobs, like Sharyl Attkisson. Congressional Republicans should press for all the facts. That's their job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/us/po ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;It remains to be discovered whether the chief executive is guilty of more than an amazingly convenient failure to superintend the excesses of some executive-branch employees beyond the Allegheny Mountains. Meanwhile, file this under “What a tangled web we weave”:
The IRS official in charge of the division that makes politically sensitive allocations of tax-exempt status said Friday that she learned from news reports of the targeting of conservatives. But a draft report by the IRS inspector general says this official was briefed on the matter two years ago.
An emerging liberal narrative is that this tempest is all the Supreme Court’s fault: The Citizens United decision — that corporations, particularly nonprofit advocacy groups, have First Amendment rights — so burdened the IRS with making determinations about who deserves tax-exempt status that some political innocents in Cincinnati inexplicably decided to begin by rummaging through the affairs of conservatives. Ere long, presumably, they would have gotten around to groups with “progressive” in their titles.
Insurance executives said they supported the president’s goal of maximizing enrollment in the new health care program and encouraging healthy people under 40 to sign up, so insurers would not be stuck with a pool of older, less healthy subscribers. But several executives said they were uncomfortable with the discussions because the federal government has the power to approve or reject the health plans they want to sell in insurance markets that will be run by federal officials in more than 30 states.
Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group, is the founder and chairman of Enroll America. He said that he raised $7 million for the organization in the last two years, and that the group had collected substantially more than $7 million in more donations this year. He confirmed that “there have been solicitations in excess of $1 million.”
Health care executives said they were reluctant to make big contributions for several reasons, including the fact that insurers are required to pay more than $100 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years to help defray the cost of expanded coverage. Drug companies must pay new fees totaling $34 billion over the same period.
Just a few good articles. You might notice the parallels drawn between Obama and Nixon and the case for impeachment.
He's smarter and better.
