Gyroscopic Investing

The press is really circling the wagons on this. I don't think they're gonna let the administration get off easy. The long honeymoon seems to be over; it sort of feels like they're beginning to turn on Obama a bit. I mean, The HuffPo is reporting daily on the IRS scandal now!

Pointedstick wrote: The press is really circling the wagons on this. I don't think they're gonna let the administration get off easy. The long honeymoon seems to be over; it sort of feels like they're beginning to turn on Obama a bit. I mean, The HuffPo is reporting daily on the IRS scandal now!

The problem with targeting journalists and advocacy groups (other than just being wrong) is that even the ones that normally advocate for you immediately recognize that the same treatment could just as easily be applied to them tomorrow.  Setting a precedent like this puts their own existence at risk. 

What's sad is that this is what it's taken to get the mainstream media to sit up and take notice of the broad abuses of gov't.  Maybe now they'll start "noticing" their other abuses as well. 

This is sort of the political equivalent of Jerry Jones firing Jimmy Johnson as coach of the Dallas Cowboys in 1994 after the team won back to back Super Bowls.

If the media had been as critical of Barack Obama as they have been of recent Republican Presidents and Presidential candidates, they would have made him look like an inexperienced and unseasoned liberal with no credentials or accomplishments suggesting he was ready to be President and he would have withered in the 2008 primaries (assuming he had even decided to run).  Instead, with the tailwind of media adoration combined with his great campaigning skills, he is now enjoying his second four year term of free Air Force One plane rides and White House meals and lodging.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

TennPaGa wrote: When you decide to create a federal leviathan to deal with terrorism, and view everything through the paranoid lens of national security, this is naturally (and sadly) what you get.

"view everything through the paranoid lens of national security"
Interesting that you view this as evidence of THAT kind of paranoid viewpoint as opposed to the paranoid viewpoint of Richard Nixon, or any number of Chicago politicians. 

Benko wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: When you decide to create a federal leviathan to deal with terrorism, and view everything through the paranoid lens of national security, this is naturally (and sadly) what you get.

"view everything through the paranoid lens of national security"
Interesting that you view this as evidence of THAT kind of paranoid viewpoint as opposed to the paranoid viewpoint of Richard Nixon, or any number of Chicago politicians.

I think they are one and the same.

National security is usually a cover for the expansion of state powers, and expansion of state powers is usually a cover for the expansion of the power of individual politicians.

"Crisis is a friend of the state", as they say.

It sounds to me like this is just more of:

From another board:
"Welcome to normal Chicago Democratic machine politics - where you get judges to unseal court records of private divorces so you can smear your opponent and force them to withdraw from the race so you win by default - as Obama did twice in Chicago."

and I have no clue what that has anything to do with expansion of the state or national security. 

TennPaGa wrote: My point (perhaps not clearly stated) is that the we, the country (i.e. Congress, citizens, the media) are the paranoid ones.  We decided, in the wake of 9/11, and in the name of national security, to give the executive branch wide-sweeping powers.  The executive branch keeps taking more and more power.  It seems they now have taken a big enough bite from the press's apple that the press is pissed off about it, and pissed off enough that Congress is complaining too.

Note that this security leviathan is also not above feeding on its own tail. 

Ask David Petraeus about how it feels to be taken down by a national security infrastructure when he was in charge of running a large part of it.  Doh!!!

It's probably about the way a baker would feel if someone hit him in the face with a pie.

Cue distracting overseas conflict in 3...2...1...

craigr wrote: Cue distracting overseas conflict in 3...2...1...

If there was ever a way to get Democratic politicians interested in a war with Iran, this is it!

craigr wrote: Cue distracting overseas conflict in 3...2...1...

Or better yet, a nice juicy sex scandal.  Those are always good for diverting attention.

Just so we're all clear, "Justice Department" actually means "FBI."

Carry on...