The Fast and Furious scandal has many commentators comparing it with Watergate. Might I point out some major differences between the two? First, Watergate was not policy-oriented; it was a political scandal entirely. It was basically a botched burglary at the Democrat National Headquarters in Washington, DC. Some of President Nixon’s supporters, without his knowledge or approval, decided to break into the HQ to steal documents. As I’ve often told students, it was wrong to do so, but in addition, it was one of the dumbest moves any campaign ever made. The Democrat nominee that year, George McGovern, had no better chance of defeating Nixon than I would have trying to dunk a basketball over Lebron James.

When the aspiring burglars were caught in the act, they had achieved nothing—there were no stolen documents. That’s all this event would have been had Nixon not made matters worse by attempting to shield his offending supporters from the consequences of their foolishness. This turned into a coverup of the illegal activities carried out by others. For this, he was brought down, and deservedly so.

One caveat to the aura of Nixonian corruption: prior to Watergate, Nixon had never done anything remotely illegal. In fact, as a first-term congressman back in 1948, his doggedness in pursuing the truth in the Chambers-Hiss case was essential to the eventual prison sentence for Hiss as an underground communist agent seeking to influence American government policies. Then, in 1960, when he “lost” the presidential election to Kennedy, he had every reason to believe the result was fraudulent. Dead people in Texas and Chicago apparently found their way to the polls that year. If Nixon had won those states—and he lost both by extremely slim margins—he, not Kennedy, would have been elected. Yet he chose not to press the case; he was concerned for what a long, drawn-out recount would do to the country. Watergate was an unfortunate ending to a career that previously had some high points.

Now let’s switch to Fast and Furious, which, at least at its inception, was not political, but a policy. The supposed goal was to track where guns went, but those in charge allowed these guns to land in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals who, in turn, used them to kill many of their Mexican countrymen and at least one U.S. border guard, Brian Terry. This was miscalculation and stupidity on a grand scale. It was far more than a botched burglary; this time lives were lost. Any comparison of Watergate with Fast and Furious must begin with that essential difference, a difference that makes the latter a greater scandal than the former.

Add to that the lying and stonewalling by the attorney general, Eric Holder, and the invoking of executive privilege by his boss, the president, to avoid releasing documents that would shed light on who was responsible for this warped idea, and you have something that makes Watergate pale in comparison. If only the mainstream media were honest, they would be digging deep into this and not rest until the truth came out. They will not do so, however, preferring to call it a Republican political ploy in an election year.

Did anyone in the media and the Democrat party ever stop to consider that perhaps the Republicans on the Oversight Committee are pursuing this investigation because they believe wrongs were done and they need to be rectified? No. Everything is political. What’s this outworn concept of right and wrong?

At least some cartoonists are on the job. Here are some prime examples:

In a country that had a greater desire for truth and honesty, this would be a front-page and top-of-the-broadcast news item. The networks, though, have been slow to cover it, and are doing so now reluctantly, while offering their own partisan interpretation. Where is Deep Throat when he is really needed?

The accusations against Herman Cain aren’t any more substantial today than they were last week. In the meantime, he had an interesting sitdown debate with New Gingrich on the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I wasn’t able to watch it, but the reviews I’ve read say it was worthwhile—a real opportunity to allow candidates to speak their minds in depth on issues without being subject to the whims of the broadcast media. No “gotcha” questions, just straight talk.

What’s difficult for some people to grasp is that it’s possible to be a black citizen in America and hold conservative views. Many think all blacks are completely sold out to liberal policies, so it astounds them when someone like Cain espouses conservatism, especially on economic issues and the role of government in society. It also enrages some. Such divergent opinions shouldn’t be permitted. Send that man to the back of the bus!

Or at least to the other water fountain. Let’s revive segregation! At least, that’s the way it appears at times.

I was watching the Huckabee program last night. His opening statement was about the way Cain has been treated by the media with respect to the unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations. I wish I had a transcript of Huckabee’s statement, but it went something like this:

• The media have tried to make a big deal out of nothing; they’ve worked hard to manufacture a scandal where one probably doesn’t exist.
• In the past, the media have ignored genuine instances of sexual harassment and rampant infidelities—witness John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards, in particular.
• Therefore, the media are very selective in deciding which ones merit extensive coverage, and wouldn’t you know, they always come out strong against any conservative who can be dragged down by either real wrongdoing or speculations of wrongdoing, while the escapades of liberals are scarcely mentioned.

Herman Cain should be given the benefit of the doubt, particularly since so many of his coworkers in the past have come to his defense, noting that he always treated everyone professionally, men and women alike.

Is the “Cain train” going to be derailed by this? We don’t know yet. But if it ever is derailed, let it be on the basis of a vote on his ideas and qualifications for the office, including his character, but not on a “he said, she almost-said” controversy. It’s time to turn the page on this pseudo-controversy and get back to the business of choosing the next president.

The presidential primaries are not until next year, but the contestants are lining up for the race already. On the Democrat side, there is no contest, although there should be. The last time a sitting Democrat president was seriously challenged for the nomination of his own party was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy tried to wrest it from Jimmy Carter. Kennedy failed miserably. Anyone who tries again this year will face the same fate, regardless how discredited President Obama may be in the public’s eye.

The real race is on the Republican side, and we haven’t yet seen the final list of those who will be part of it. Some in the media have concluded that Republicans cannot field a quality slate of contenders because Obama is unbeatable. The mantra of “invevitable reelection” was designed well before this date. The fawning portion of the media [which appears to be the majority] declared his 2008 victory well ahead of the actual election; they are doing the same now. This is no surprise; they share his radical agenda.

There are actually so many Republicans wanting to battle Obama and his policies that it’s almost breathtaking. Just because Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, and Donald Trump have opted out doesn’t mean there is a dearth of real challengers. It seems as if everyone and his brother and sister think they have a shot.

The mainstream media has anointed Mitt Romney as the “frontrunner,” a title that is laughable at this time. I remember quite clearly they did the same for Rudy Guiliani in 2008. Anyone remember him winning the nomination? In fact, anyone remember him winning any caucus or primary? It’s absurd to anoint anyone right now. Besides, Romney has plenty of negatives, not the least of which is Romneycare:

He says he will overturn Obamacare. Why? He provided the model for it and refuses to acknowledge its liabilities. He’s not the Republican savior.

The real fun this week has been the Palin bus tour of America’s historic sites. The media are beside themselves trying to figure out if this is her unconventional way of declaring her candidacy. They are upset with her for not providing itineraries ahead of time; they don’t know for sure where she will be. In Gettysburg, she even slipped out of the hotel and went to the battlefield without them knowing, while they stayed glued to her bus.

They’re getting rather upset. This isn’t fair. She isn’t playing by the rules. And she seems to be enjoying every minute of their angst.

As grossly unfair as they have been to her ever since she was picked to be McCain’s running mate, why should they expect to be treated with any special respect? What are they—entitled? Palin has her own timetable and plans; she has no obligation to share them with a disreputable press.

Is she running? I have no idea. But whether she is or not, I will savor these moments just for the pure joy of seeing the media frothing at the mouth.

Today used to be George Washington’s birthday. Yes, I know it still is, but how many people are aware of it nowadays? Instead, we have Presidents Day, always celebrated on the Monday of the week and apparently dedicated to all presidents regardless of merit. Washington had merit; some of the others have had very little.

I mean, do I really have this urge to celebrate the presidencies of Millard Fillmore or Chester Alan Arthur? Am I supposed to rejoice in the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson, the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, or the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson? Should I extol the lack of Christian character in John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, to name only a few who demonstrated that lack?

There certainly are presidents I admire. Washington served his country without regard to personal desires. He led an army for eight years without pay; he came out of a comfortable life to lead a nation as its first president. Everything he did set a precedent, particularly his model for stepping down after two terms.

My appreciation for Abraham Lincoln grows with each new piece of research on him. Grover Cleveland was, as one biographer tagged him, “an honest president.” Calvin Coolidge understood constitutional limitations and decided not to run again for the office in 1928 because he didn’t want the position and the power to change his character for the worse. Ronald Reagan, in my view, was the most effective president [in the positive sense of actually doing something worthwhile] of the twentieth century.

I wouldn’t mind if we celebrated all of those presidents on their own birthdays. Of course we used to do that with Washington until the 1970s when Congress decided to create three-day weekends for a number of holidays. In the process, they excised a special recognition of our first president. I like three-day weekends as much as anyone, but the decision to relegate Washington to the dim recesses of our history was inexcusable. We do still see representations of him occasionally on Presidents Day when actors dress up like him to sell cars—but that’s about all.

Why do most people not miss it? Perhaps there’s a dismal reason educationally:

Am I kidding? I wish I were. Generally speaking, we don’t know our own history. My experience teaching American history at the university level confirms this sad diagnosis.

Anyway, for those who remember who George Washington was, have a happy Washington’s birthday.

So much has been written about the unsubstantiated accusations regarding the Tucson shootings that I hate to dwell on it, but the cartoonists have just now caught up with the issue, thereby providing some pertinent commentary. One has compared the conspiracy mentality with the ongoing mania over Pres. Kennedy’s assassination back in 1963:

Who are the real crazies here?

It was only a matter of a couple of hours before the accusations started flying:

It kind of brings to mind the infamous quote from former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

In this case, though, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stood in for Rahm. The whole thing has become rather surreal:

As most of these cartoons recognize, Sarah Palin has borne the brunt of the false accusations. What do you do when you are accused of being responsible for the actions of a deranged individual? She could have remained silent, of course, but a measured response, I believe, was necessary. She delivered that measured response yesterday on her Facebook page in the form of a video dealing with the entire situation.

For the video, go here. I watched it carefully, and came away impressed with the manner in which she handled not only the accusations, but also with her upbeat spirit as she pointed Americans toward a proper perspective on the events of the past few days.

Some of her best lines are the following:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

That is a statement pointing to personal responsibility for one’s actions—one heard all too rarely nowadays. She also called the journalists on the carpet for their irresponsibility:

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Palin delivered her message with a soberness befitting the tragedy. She decried the political atmosphere around the tragedy without focusing too much on how she personally was a prime target. All in all, it was a fitting word for a troubled time.

Yet her critics pounced again: the use of the term “blood libel,” they yelled, means she is anti-Semitic. Even liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz came to Palin’s defense on this one, making it clear that the term has a much broader usage in our society. Palin, when she was governor, had an Israeli flag in her office; her evangelical Christian faith ties her spiritually to the Jewish people.

Commentator Jonah Goldberg made fun of the reflexive, knee-jerk Palin critics, noting that if she had used completely innocuous terms, they still would have found something wrong—probably criticizing her for her use of semi-colons. And as that famous philosopher Forrest Gump reminds us, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

There’s a lot of stupid going around these days.

So a homosexual judge has decided that seven million Californians are heterosexual bigots. That’s the essence of the decision handed down the other day in the Prop 8 case. One judge with a desire to normalize homosexuality and destroy the concept of marriage has precedence over the actual vote of the citizenry of the state. Vaughn Walker, the judge [the term is a loose one], in his decision devoted a lot of space to undermining traditional marriage and only a nod toward constitutionalism. That nod was not even constitutional. National Review has the details here if you can stand to read them.

His decision is already being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but everyone knows how that’s going to turn out. That court is a mirror image of Judge Walker. Then it’s going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it will be decided by a 5-4 vote, but no one really knows which side the vote will favor. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a supposed believer in judicial restraint, doesn’t always rule that way.

The Court that will hear this case will now include Elena Kagan, confirmed by the Senate yesterday by a vote of 63-37. Five Republicans voted in favor of confirmation; one Democrat voted no. So the woman who was rubber-stamped through the Senate will now become a faithful rubber stamp for the “living Constitution.” The only saving grace is that she’s replacing an ideological twin, so the Court’s balance remains the same.

The bright side is that these developments will energize conservative opposition even more—and that energy is already apparent. The primaries on Tuesday revealed a Republican base that is eager to see change and a Democratic base that is dampened in enthusiasm. One of the most startling votes took place in Missouri where 71% of the voters marked ballots in favor of repealing the provision in Obamacare that requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. This also will go to the courts; even if it loses, it will push more voters into the polls in November.

Republicans in the Congress have come up with a chart that shows what the bureaucracy of Obamacare entails:

Good luck figuring out that one. Maybe this one will be easier to understand:

Brave new world or the nation’s worst nightmare?