IN WHAT IN THE RIGHT-WING WORLD WILL VERY LIKELY be labeled the definitive word on the matter, former Vice President Dick Cheney has noted that Benghazi is “one of the worst incidents, frankly, that I can recall in my career.” Thenceforward, upon entering the terms “Dick Cheney” and “Benghazi” in a Google search window, be prepared for inundation. (I reached the 220-article point — and read many of them — before deciding I had far more than I could use of Cheney’s read on reality and the great concurrence on the right!)
Given the career of Dick Cheney, his quoted words carry great weight in the circles of some — and considerable drag in others. For background I’ll briefly review that career.
We begin with his credentials as a warrior, the role he later played with such fervor in his service as vice president.
In his Vietnam years, Cheney received five educational deferments. On Oct. 26, 1965, Selective Service declared that married men without children who previously had been exempted from the draft would now be called up. Married men with children remained exempt. Subsequently, in what has to be one of the timeliest fertilizations in the annals of draft avoidance, a child was born to the Cheneys exactly nine months and two days after that Oct. 26 date. What a wonderfully intense and intimate period that must have been for the Cheneys! Or, considering the stakes, goal and seriousness of the task, perhaps not.
In what captures most succinctly the sense of Cheney’s view of those historical realities, we have the following from “How Dick Cheney dodged the Vietnam draft,” by Timothy Noah: “Cheney’s unself-consciousness about this is (or at least was) so pronounced that in 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, ‘I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.’” And so much for the infinitely less significant priorities of the men who did serve, including the dead and wounded!
We move forward to Cheney’s service as quite possibly the most powerful vice president in American history and, in his new role, one of the most attuned to the rhythms of war. It may be a startling revelation, but for some leaders, their macho spirit is directly proportional to their distance from the actual fighting — and so it has clearly seemed for Mr. Cheney.
For torture and waterboarding — policies and practices in which Cheney had a major voice — we have his very strong defense to this day in his speeches and writings. While considered by many both within and outside our borders to be a deep and permanent stain upon the reputation of the United States, Cheney remains strongly convinced of their necessity. Interestingly enough, in a recent interview with Matt Lauer, he noted that he would of course strongly object to Americans being subjected to such treatment! A form of patriotic logic.
Then, of course, there is Iraq. It is difficult for some of us to accept that the thousands of Americans killed, the far greater number wounded, and the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis killed, wounded and made homeless were a price worth paying. But for the former vice president, such costs are simply the price of insuring that Iraq did not have opportunity to deploy its weapons of mass destruction — even if, in fact, the latter never existed. On this solid rationale he stands tall and remains firm. (There was the oil, of course, which figured very large with Dick Cheney, but that is a footnote.) That those Americans killed and wounded might also have had “other priorities” than this incredibly expensive and counterproductive exercise of American will is quite clearly not relevant. That Iraq, with its instability and its large daily toll of dead and wounded, drifts ever closer to both Iran and to the status of a failed state is also irrelevant. To Richard Cheney.
Similarly, it must be understood that old history is past, gone, behind us and to be forgotten. What happened, what might have been — these are preoccupations for idle speculators, not those like Mr. Cheney who are able to blot out that past and to confront our present realities squarely and without fear. And in that present we must confront the horror of Benghazi and what is for this rare and clear-eyed statesman “one of the worst incidents that, frankly, that I can recall in my career.” Four, count them, four brave Americans killed in Libya on Obama’s watch — this is clearly beyond the pale!
A relevant note here from “The Deafness Before the Storm,” by Kurt Eichenwald of the New York Times (Sept. 10, 2012): “Cheney also accused the Obama administration of ‘having ignored messages from their own people on the ground’ in Libya.” But it’s funny Cheney should mention that because I seem to remember an Presidential Daily Briefing titled, ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.’ and dated Aug. 6, 2001 — just a few weeks before he succeeded in doing exactly that. Eichenwald wrote “that while that particular report is not as damning as the title would suggest, read in conjunction with other reports, it’s even more so. … While those (other) documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush (and Cheney) were told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
In fact, Eichenwald described the CIA as “apoplectic” over the Bush administration’s failure to heed its warnings in the summer of 2001.
The incredibly exaggerated Cheney and GOP case against the Obama administration for its “unique” inability to predict and deal effectively with the Benghazi attack managed to skip over a number of current and historic realities — in addition to that enormous Iraqi skeleton in the closet.
On these and more next week . …
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
When are you liberals going to get over Bush? He’s been out 5 years now.
When are you con-folks going to get over your insanities of denial and misdirection?
RMS:insanities of denial and misdirection?
The biggest insanity and misdirection we have seen of late is the “It was the video” meme, that was touted for weeks after President ‘Stand Down’ Obama capitulated under duress, allowing the deaths of innocent Americans so that his re-election chances would not be diminished.
“so that his re-election chances would not be diminished.” Wild speculation and overreach, your Honor. Inadmissible.
These Radical leftist are only embarrassing themselves…How can liberals not know whats going on with Bengazi, Fast & Furious, I.R.S, etc? But they all know what Bush did 5 yrs ago. Liberals are so closed minded when something goes wrong with there King Obama… Wake UP!!! Stop supporting this corrupt administration!! There are good Dems out there to support and I’m not talking about Hillary.
A deeper look at Mr. Cheney for Mr. Page and the community to contemplate…
Source: Right Web: “Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.”
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Cheney_Dick
Another episode about Mr. Cheney for Mr. Page and the community to consider…
http://archive.truthout.org/article/jason-leopold-cheney-suppressed-evidence-california-energy-crisis
More on Mr. Cheney and his contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law…for Mr. Page and the community to consider–
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2007/06/impeach_cheney.single.html
Cheney is downhill from a slug. I hope his Halliburton stock pays adequately any copays not covered by the US taxpayers. When he’s gone, a maggot cloud will depart also. pb
Will, the story you linked was good for a few laughs, thanks. I lifted the closing section of it to make it more relevant to today and not to 6 year old history :
Yet without making a written transmittal to Congress, President Obama has ceded vast domains of his powers to Valerie Jarrett by mutual understanding that circumvents the 25th Amendment. This constitutional provision assures that the public and Congress know who is exercising the powers of the presidency and who should be held responsible for successes or failures. The Obama-Jarrett dispensation blurs political accountability by continually hiding the real decision-maker under presidential skirts. The New York Times has thoroughly documented Jarrett’s dominance in story linked above. It is quite a read.
In the end, President Obama regularly is unable to explain or defend the policies of his own administration, and that is because the heavy intellectual labor has been performed in the office of Valerie Jarrett. Obama is impeachable for his overweening power and his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law.
The part in bold is especially applicable to today’s Jay ‘Sgt. Schultz’ Carney, as well as to the President himself: “I know nozhing!”
Your disdain is a badge of honor for Obama and all Dems.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-lie-more-than-democrats-study-finds/
And no, this isn’t about National Memo. It’s by a nonpartisan think tank. Damning, yet again.
Your disdain is a badge of honor for Obama and all Dems.
tsk, tsk, tsk.
I see the rules being broken once again, by one of the prog-libs.
What rules are those? Are you a forum moderator?
Would that be a rule about name calling, connie?
Not the commentors decision.
Sorry Mr. Demars. We have a failure to communicate. I am writing about Cheney whose role in the Iraq decisions (as well as the torture issues) is understood to have been huge by virtually everyone who has written about this period. It is precisely why he is credited with so powerful a role as compared with most vice-presidents.
From the piece: For torture and waterboarding — policies and practices in which Cheney had a major voice
As much as many people deny it, torture was used and did play a factor in the capture of OBL:
“The movie seems to say, to indicate that enhanced interrogation techniques or torture was used to get information to get bin Laden. Is that true?”, Panetta, outgoing US Defence Secretary, was asked on a NBC show.
“Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” Panetta responded.
For a second it almost seemed like you were advocating torture. But that would be insane.
Why is it insane?
Shame that I have to explain this. How low conservatives have sunk.
Because, Bob, among other reasons, it means we lose the moral high ground. We torture, then they will torture our people, and neither side will be right.
Real American are you at all familiar with WWII, Korean War, Vietam War or any other recents conflicts. I think you will find out who started the torture first. It was not America. By the way I do not consider water boarding torture. You may want to check out some military training that our military goes through. Shame that I have to ask.
John McCain, among many others, disagrees with you on water boarding. And what does it matter who started it first? An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Shame. Just shame.
It matters because you said we torture and then they will torture. Some call water boarding torture. I do not call it torture. Is the threat of a big prison term torture? Well we do it all the time to have someone turn and help the prosecutor. Just the thought of going to prison made them change their mind. Lack of information will make the whole world under constant threat. The procedures that America uses are very effective and do help to keep terrorist at bay. For sure not as effective as we woul;d like them to be. But for sure very effective and not life threatening.
Let us waterboard someone and I guarantee they will both admit it is torture and confess to wearing women’s clothes on the weekends. And anything else we want them to say.
“It matters because you said we torture and then they will torture.” And it’s never long before everyone involved forgets who started what. And then it’s a free-for-all, and we’re wrestling with the pigs and no one can tell the difference between us.
Mr. Cheney is a moral slug of the human species. Bush’s ineptitude allowed him to maneuver at will. As diabolically evil as Nixon. When he is gone he will be remembered like a foul chapter in US history. pb
You have your “Nixon” in the White House now, sir.
You’re right there, he’s bringing the troops home.
Nothing worse to me than a draft dodger when young and a war hawk 30 years later with other peoples lives.. That is Chaney
It is also Bill Clinton.
This is not talked about very much by the prog-libs, but Clinton used the US Military about 20 times, resulting in about 7,500 deaths. Bush at 9,000 deaths has a higher number, but it is closer than most people realize.
DDL, I researched and could find less than 100 battle deaths under Clinton. Somalia and Bosnia/ Herz, Yugoslavia and Kurd territory in Northern Iraq. Perhaps I missed some military action.
RKJ,
Try these links:
PBS Chronology of US Military actions
I used these numbers:
Bush vs. Clinton Military deaths
Those numbers are good through 2006, but I rounded up. The real point is when it comes to the use of military might, Clinton was right there as well.
Another fact that is selectively ignored is that the ignoble record, for most military deaths was held by Peanut Boy: Jimmah Carter from 1980 until the Iraq war. The number, as I recall was over 2500.
O.K. , military deaths vs military action deaths, that is why our counts differ.
Once again you impugn liberals for no good reason. “Selectively ignored”? What does that even mean? Few on either side are aware of these figures, if indeed they are accurate.
“Comment awaiting moderation”
Happens when I post links for some reason.
I was looking at Wikipedia
Bless you, Mr. Page, for again thrusting the facts in front of the backwardites. But, it’s a hopeless task. They are simply unequipped from childhood to deal with reality unfiltered by dogmas and simplistic maxims.
Cheney was central to the rise and dominance of the worst ideas and motives to govern this country in its entire history, namely, the Plan For A New American Century. We may never recover from negative consequence of that shallow philosophy of imperialist opportunism rooted in personal and national greed.
Thanks for your service to our country Mr. Page. You are a credit to your generation and those before and that followed. I will always have great rerspect for all that served. This is your day and I will not play down your roll in what we have now from your sacrifice. Good Bless you and God Bless America.
Should be God Bless not Good Bless. Sorry for the typo.
Jerome Page wrote: “In his Vietnam years, Cheney received five educational deferments. On Oct. 26, 1965, Selective Service declared that married men without children who previously had been exempted from the draft would now be called up. Married men with children remained exempt. Subsequently, in what has to be one of the timeliest fertilizations in the annals of draft avoidance, a child was born to the Cheneys exactly nine months and two days after that Oct. 26 date. What a wonderfully intense and intimate period that must have been for the Cheneys! Or, considering the stakes, goal and seriousness of the task, perhaps not.”
So, Mr. Page, you are accusing Mrs. Cheney of aiding and abetting her husband with “one of the timeliest fertilizations in the annals of draft avoidance.” If you can prove that charge, then you should do so. If you cannot, somebody should wash your mouth out with soap.
Golly, Mr. Optimisterb, I think you may have raised a crucial point! Was I accusing Mrs. Cheney of cooperating with Mr. Cheney in the process of creating a reason for the latter to avoid the draft? It would appear that unless she was cooperating it might have been an even more arduous task. But then, given the singlemindedness of Richard Cheney I suppose it is possible that the task was consummated over her objections and I would surely apologize for suggesting her complicity.
Brilliant!
Mr. Page stated:I suppose it is possible that the task was consummated over her objections
Jerry, would you then consider that to be just a run of the mill rape or as Oprah stated a ‘rape-rape’?
That’s Mr. Page to you.
Before today, I’d have guessed that D.C. reproduced through sporulation.
Jerry a very confusing answer.
This is a link to a piece was in the UK Guardian who is pretty much is spot on in this case. I have included the closing paragraphs:
Why are Liberals so rude?
President Nixon proposed a healthcare plan that was blocked by Senator Ted Kennedy, and the senator later apologized for putting political interests ahead of the good of the country. He had not wanted Republicans to get credit for accomplishing something positive.
This is a critical time in America. Instead of taking sides we should be working together. Now is the time for liberals to emulate Ted Kennedy and, instead of automatically ridiculing conservatives for digging into questions about Benghazi, the IRS and the seizure of press records, help us find the truth – no matter what that might turn out to be.
Those paragraphs tell the whole story. Thanks Dennis for the link. Seems so easy.
I have an answer for you: my link above. That’s why we don’t respect you conservatives.
Here it is again:
http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-lie-more-than-democrats-study-finds/
Saw it the first time, it is not an answer, it is a deflection one which ignores one salient fact: Bad data in = bad data out.
Since you have now twice posted the same report, one would discern that anything any conservative says will be assumed to be a lie. Is that not a generalization?
You keep talking about ‘lies’ of the right, yet you give no specific examples, while simultaneously selecting to ignore the lies now coming out of DC regarding a wide spectrum of things.
Good data. Very good data. Very sound conclusion, backed by numerous other studies and, perhaps most importantly, the evidence of our senses.
So the real question is, why should we take seriously anything conservatives say about Obama, Dems or liberals in general?
We shouldn’t. And we don’t. And we are the majority. Which is why the “scandals” have no legs.
I think you will find that your majority is of no importance at this time. The news media has turned on President Obama, Holder and all the top dogs at the IRS. These scandals are just beginning and will carry on well into 2014. Then the real big issue hits. Obamacare. That will destroy all chances of the Dems winning back the house and could very well cost them the Senate. The IRS , AP and Rosen issue are very by-partisan. Add the media to those issues and it is no longer just the Republicans umderstanding the issues at the WH.
Wishful thinking, of a type we have seen often on this blog. Prepare for disappointment, yet again.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/obamacare-will-be-a-debacle-for-republicans/
Plenty more where that came from
RA: I love it! I read the whole thing…The Repubs may soon self-destruct with no one to carp on but themselves…if you have no tools nor ideas nor answers in your toolbox, who needs you?–pb
“we are the majority. Which is why the “scandals” have no legs.”
From the story linked to above: ‘help us find the truth – no matter what that might turn out to be.’
That is something that any real American would agree with, as well as being something that any real partisan would ignore.
Only problem: You’re not interested in the truth, only in tarnishing the president.
I do believe the Republicans are seeking the truth on these three scandals. These three scandals are not going away. Two of the three are fully backed by the media and a group of Dems. Even the Huff Post is asking for Holder to resign. Now that shows how serious these issues are. The Republicans are not trying to tarnish the President. It just appears that way. The President and his WH aides are the ones stone walling and that will tarnish the President without any help from the Republicans. This is going to very interesting in the next six months or so. The big problem for the regime is they cannot make it go away. Now trying to shift to Obamacare and that is now getting resistance from the Presidents big backer the union. These next three and half years are going to hurt the Dems big time. It will have some effect on the President but it will hurt Dems more in 2014 and 2016 elections. Dem candidates will run from President Obama.
“The Republicans are not trying to tarnish the President. It just appears that way.” Ha! Thanks for the unintentionally hilarious statement. Which, however, goes straight to the heart of your problem.
These “scandals” are nothing but ginned up political maneuvers. People see right through them, or they don’t care about them. You can yell BENGHAZI all you want, it’s not going anywhere, and certainly isn’t going to put a Republican in the White House in 2016. As the president said, there’s no there there.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet your new Teflon President, Barack Obama.
My only advise to anyone following these three scandals is keep your eye on who is turning on the President. More are turning on him and his regime on a daily bases. Cannot get around that. What happens idf Holder is forc3ed out? Will that change the minds of the die hard Dems? We shall see.
Yes, keep an eye on how ALREADY everyone has moved on except partisan Republicans. That tells you all you need to know. No there there.
Bob,
I believe the key to determining WH involvement in this IRS imbroglio is finding out who Shulman met with over 100 times while at the WH (numbers vary, this link says 157 times, other reports state 118 times). These meetings do not fall under “executive privilege” (though some discussions might).
The American people deserve an answer to:
Who did he meet with?
What was the subject of the discussions?
How long was he there?
And how often did he meet at the WH when the President was not there?
IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member (source of data: Whitehouse.gov)
Doug Shulman, appointed by George Bush, confirmed by a unanimous Senate.
FYI, RA, here’s a litle-known fact, among many others you obviously don’t know: President Obama is not the one who first said, “There’s no there there.” It was Gertrude Stein, and she said it a long time ago about Oakland, Ca. where lived discontentedly for a short time.
optimisterb,
Looks like one of the mistakes of President Bush was appointing a democrat to run the IRS. He should have recognized that you just cannot trust them:
Info on Shulman’s wife.
“He should have recognized that you just cannot trust them.” This is the language of fanaticism. It does nothing to further dialogue.
Thank you Mr. Robinson, I knew that but I always appreciate lessons, regardless of the grammatical struggles of the teacher.
RA stated:regardless of the grammatical struggles of the teacher.
This is the language of grammar-nazi. It does nothing to further dialogue.
Wasn’t talking to you. Your interjections do nothing to further dialogue. Also, Nazi is capitalized.
RA: You’re not interested in the truth, only in tarnishing the president.
Actually, my thoughts on that point are these:
1) The Obama Presidency has been a disaster on many levels, with very few successes with some of those being questionable (health care) as to their long term benefits.
2) As much as I do not like the man, I like my country more and believe that impeaching him on specious grounds would be even more damaging to the country then what he could do in the 32 months he has left in office.
3) Even more damaging though, to the long term health of this country, is for people to willingly turn a blind eye when there are obvious issues that need to be rectified. The IRS targeting people for harassment, intimidation, coercion and to silence their right to disagree is an issue that should be troubling to both sides. The fact that 66% of those polled by the Washington Post agree that a special prosecutor should be appointed is encouraging.
4) If the truth leads to the President and he had knowledge of what the IRS was doing then impeachment proceedings/investigations should begin.
There is no reason to believe the president had anything to do with any wrongdoing at the IRS. The president , who has been an amazingly successful and terrific president on every level, has condemned the targeting of tea party groups for special scrutiny, even though those groups undeniably deserved it, and no laws were broken. If the GOP is foolhardy enough to try to impeach him the backlash will be even more severe than it was after the Clinton stupidity. The real damage you should fear is is to your already struggling and internally divided party, which will never again win a national election if it overreaches here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-gop-challenge-20130528,0,426574.story
no laws were broken If that is true why is Lerner pleading the fifth?
Because it is her right to do so. Are you suggesting that all who plead the fifth are guilty?
Do you not know how witch hunts work?
Dennis is right. No need to impeach. The President and his regime are doing everything that is necessary to destroy the Democratic party and their chances in 2014. No need to worry about 2016 right now. So if the Republicans just let the scandals and the following investigations play out, who gets hurt? Certainly not the Republicans. This IRS issue is the big one right now. Do not under play Benghazi or the AP/Rosen scandal. Try as the Dems may none of this is shrinking and going away. In fact they appear to be getting lots of strong legs for a big run. Every news cast and news paper are talking about these scandals. It does seem puplic opinion is not on the regimes side at present.
They’re already fading. They never caught the public’s attention, a prerequisite to a scandal with legs.
Right on, RA:
The Repubs had two useless, war-mongering jerks in office, 2000-2008, and the economy tanked, and nobody foresaw the 911 plot????? Listen to Condoleeza Rice of that period sometime…what an empty toothpaste ad she was…Then they had McCain and Palin as further ho-hum toothless candidates. Palin? Seriously? Then these last two clown-candidates in 2012, Moneybags and Schwinn Boy and NO solutions for anything in Congress for the previous 4 years, obstructing Obama was Mitch McConnel’s only daily exercise, add the castrating fear of Norquist, and what was the 2012 platform of Repubs??…so they got hammered..they consist of old sour white men with “no-science mentality” as a hallmark. So they have nothing to their credit but looking for witch hunts and DNA in the spit on their restroom walls…They quote the good old days when Reagan’s wife and her Ouija board and astrology charts ruled his nap time in office…Dysfunctional Mediocrity couldn’t have a bigger head if it was a mushroom…When you have nothing to offer, look for a scandal…If all Repubs stood up at once, they’d bump their heads under their own beds…I take none of them seriously anymore, and the Dems run a close second…pb
RA: we are the majority
So then you favor a special prosecutor for the IRS debacle?
Very good Dennis.
Where would you two be without each other?
Yes, as long as his focus is on why the IRS didn’t go after the tax-cheating tea party groups sooner and with more force.
Show me similar actions taken by the IRS during the same time frame, which are in equal proportion, as well as complexity of questions asked, of likely Democrat groups. If you can I will buy you a $25.00 gift card, in your name, for the store of your choice. If you cannot do so, then you should buy one for me.
No thanks. That would take time and energy to research, and I have a day job and actual interests. But I’m sure it’s happened, especially under such shining patriots as Nixon and Reagan.
You misread the question asked.
You phrased it poorly.
RA:Doug Shulman, appointed by George Bush, confirmed by a unanimous Senate.
Old news.
The Washington Post recently reported that senior IRS officials, including Bush-appointed IRS commissioner and donor to Democratic candidates Douglas Shulman, “knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011,
D. Lund May 19, 2013
Schulman once — once — gave $500 to Democrats. So now he is forevermore a “donor to Democratic candidates.” Ha!
Who appointed him has no relevance to answering the questions listed.
It has just as much relevance as his 2004 political donations.
Time to get back on topic. This oped is not about the IRS but Benghazi and Dick Cheney. Ed.
RA: Because it is her right to do so. Are you suggesting that all who plead the fifth are guilty?
The purpose of the Fifth is to protect against self incrimination and it is not, as she stated to “protect the innocent”.
She is an attorney and selected her words very carefully. She is protecting other people, under the guise of the fifth.
And no, that is not a stretch, it is legaleeze (aka legal sleeze).
That’s your interpretation.
No, it is what the Fifth Amendment says.
“She is an attorney and selected her words very carefully. She is protecting other people, under the guise of the fifth.”
Prove it.
“Time to get back on topic. This oped is not about the IRS but Benghazi and Dick Cheney. Ed.”
The interesting thing about the Benghazi scandal is it is now getting more traction because of the IRS scandal. The public is now starting to say just what is going on in the Presidents White House regime. The public is now paying more attention to both the Benghazi and AP/Rosen scandal because of all the attention the IRS scandal is getting. They now see all of the stone walling and just pure incompetence of the appointed leaders of the Obama regime. Benghazi is not going away anytime soon. At some point the Obama regime is going to have to answer some very strong questioning by the Congress on Benghazi. These scandals can no longer be considered political by the Democrats. It is about answering to the American voters in a truthful manor. They will not be able to get away with off the cuff answers. The American voters have had it with all this stone walling and want answers. Just when will the regime come clean with full details? Better now than later.
“Benghazi is not going away anytime soon.” And we all know why. No amount of “answers” will quiet the hounds baying for blood. Better to focus on that than the economy, which is improving despite the GOP’s best efforts to derail it.
But an improving economy will outweigh all other considerations (1998 all over again? Perhaps). And throw calculations about 2014 into disarray.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/obama-s-economic-triumph.html