Nixon vs. Obama

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

By now it’s no secret that the Obama administration is plagued by scandal. The American people have likely only seen what’s at the tip of the iceberg invoking the IRS targeting, Benghazi, and the DOJ’s AP/Fox/CBS taps. Many in the mainstream media have hinted that the President’s response to these scandals is similar to a previous president who was plagued by scandal: Richard Nixon.

Revealing Politics created a ‘mashup’ of how the two presidents responded and reacted to their respective scandals to see how legitimate the claims actually were. Before watching the video below, see if you can guess which president said the statements below.

“The comments I made during this period, the comments made by my press secretary on my behalf were based on the information provided to us at the time we made those comments.”

“I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.”

“I must now turn my full attention, and I shall do so once again, to the larger duties of this office…”

Find the answers in the video below…

Revealing Politics highlights one difference between the two U.S. Presidents: President Obama hasn’t made this statement yet,

“In any organization, the man at the top must bear the responsibility. That responsibility, therefore, belongs here in this office. I accept it.”

Odds we ever see that type of response from Obama?

Glenn also points out that many of Nixon’s statements were made at the height of his scandals being exposes. That may not be the case for Obama. Like Krauthammer recently stated, Glenn believes that much of the most important details regarding Benghazi have yet to be uncovered.

  • Sam Fisher

    I hope history repeats itself. 

    • snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

      Indeed. Obama needs to answer for his crimes in the criminal courts.

  • snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    There are, at the bottom line, three major differences between Obama and Nixon:

    Obama will never take responsibility for the criminal activities he and his administration have committed in their pursuit of the fundamental transformation of the United States of America. They only seek to push their agenda unto the end game.

    In the case of Watergate, no one died; four men were left to die in Benghazi, and the rescue forces were twice ordered to “Stand Down.” This order for the military could only have come from either Obama, someone he delegated the decision unto, or someone who usurped the authority to do so and is being deliberately shielded by Obama.

    In the third case, unlike with Nixon who was a liar and a crook, Obama is a pathological narcissist, liar, crook, sociopath and murderer; not to mention traitor unto the land.

    • Anonymous

      There’s a fourth major difference. Obama has the Media on his side. They will NEVER investigate him the way the Washington Post and the rest of the leftist media investigated Nixon. 

      • Anonymous

        There is another big difference, Nixon was white and Obama is black.  This will be the reason we shall never find out what really happened in all of the scandals, except a miracle will happen!!!!

        • Anonymous

          Yep, that’s part of the media love affair with him. 

        • mspatdev

          Well, maybe that miracle will happen real soon. I hope it comes Friday, May 31,2013

      • Anonymous

        Nonsense.  The media lives for a scandal, any scandal.  This notion of the MSM giving Obama a pass is pure b.s.  
        Here’s a good rule of thumb to apply to any profession, especially one populated largely by educated, type A personalities, like journalism:  people do whatever it takes to get ahead.  A good scandal – or even the semblance of one – makes money and elevates careers like nothing else.

        If you look into it, you’ll see that the press has already done a good job of making  much ado about very little.  That’s how they make money.  All of them.   Think about it.

        • Anonymous

          You haven’t been paying attention the past four years. The leftist media will feign outrage but will circle the wagons when the critical moment comes. 

          • Anonymous

            On the contrary, I pay very close attention. More importantly, I pay attention to all sides, which is why I check on the Beck site.

            More importantly, you haven’t addressed my point: why do you accept the view that the media is “leftist” when there is no evidence of this besides anecdotal? Do you think journalists have different motivation than other career-oriented types? Are you referring to “the media” or a “leftist media?” Is it the same to you?

            You really haven’t thought this through. You’ve simply accepted a comfortable Right-wing nostrum.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve completely thought it through. I don’t just accept what people tell me. For the most part, leftist media is synonymous with media. There are a few conservative outlets, such as the Washington Times and Fox News, but the left-leaning publications are legion. No evidence? Seriously? All you have to do is objectively view various media outlets and watch for the slants in the stories. I have found that people who don’t believe the media are leftist are so far left that they don’t recognize it. I’m guessing that’s you. 

          • Anonymous

            If you had thought it through, then you should have been able to address my question. You did not. Explanation?

            Evidence of bias is always anecdotal and plentiful, but you don’t even bother with that. You simply make assumptions and express incredulity when I don’t agree. Q.E.D to your non-Q.E.D.

            Rather than make unsupportable claims of objectivity, why don’t you address the underlying issue: what motivation do journalists have that would explain left-wing bias? Phenomena like that don’t exist in a vacuum. People behave the way they do for a reason. Why would the media act contrary to its own interests?

          • Anonymous

            You are incredibly naive about the media. They don’t need a motivation to be liberal or have a liberal bias. They are surrounded by like-minded people who all buy the same arguments. They honestly believe they are being objective because they are not exposed to the “other side” on a regular basis. The classic case of this was after Reagan’s victory, when a NY Times reporter said, “How did he win? No one I know voted for him.” The evidence you want is all around you. There are plenty of studies on the number of news stories favorable and unfavorable to Obama and Romney. Look it up. Note where the NY Times places stories favorable to Democrats in their paper and where they place stories unfavorable to Democrats. Note how often a negative story about a Republican has an R after the name and how often a negative story about a Democrat has a D after the name. Note that race is ALWAYS mentioned when whites commit crimes and race is NEVER mentioned when blacks commit crimes. I can’t sit by you while you read the newspaper and watch TV. You’re going to have to open your eyes for yourself. I don’t recall putting QED after my post. Wasn’t appropriate there and certainly not appropriate in your post. You have proved nothing. 

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for your response. I suspect you’re an educated person whose intellectual curiosity is, unfortunately, held in check by your evident self-satisfaction. In my experience, ideological certitude in today’s Right somehow seems to be considered an entitlement, when it’s considered at all. This leads to very shallow thinking.

            All behavior is motivated. The motivations and experiences of journalists are far more complex than you seem to be aware. “The media” is far more exposed to different sides of an issue than most of us – that’s their job. If you’re trying to make the case that media bias is motivated by social/peer pressure, perhaps similar to group-think, I would agree that there is an element of enforced conformity within any group, yours included. (Among journalists, there is also strong, countervailing motivation to be an independent/maverick.) Your examples are anecdotal and worthless as evidence of anything beyond the obvious fact that ideologically zealous conservatives and liberals alike can easily find innumerable instances where they feel their favored viewpoint has been slighted. And your “classic case”? Most of us have heard it, but I suspect it’s classic Right-wing apocrypha. Can you please tell me more about it? Who said it? Under what circumstances? How do you know?

            As to trends in media bias, Bush was treated more favorably by the media than Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 (yes, it was studied and quantified.) Can you explain that? If Romney was treated more harshly than Obama, could it be because he made gaffes that were easy for reporters to make into the type of recognizable stories that sell? That explanation would account for Gore’s and Kerry’s misfortunes as well. Is it possible that reporters, whose profession involves seeing things close-up and personal, came to see Romney as an empty suit and Gore as a condescending oaf? If so, was that due to unfair pack mentality or was it justified, informed opinion? Or both, perhaps? Or, were the losing candidates their own worst enemies, generally clumsy and unlikeable candidates, and so the media served more to reflect public perception than to create it? Isn’t this really more of a chicken and egg thing?

            Here, I’ll make a point in your favor: a healthy majority of reporters vote mostly for Democrats. Does that mean, ergo, they slant stories to fit their ideology? Or, is it the other way around, that they favor the liberal view because they’re highly educated folks who like to investigate things for themselves? Are you familiar with selection bias? Voting patterns as related to education? Is it still so simple in your opinion? Is your opinion still so simple?

        • Anonymous

          Their record with Obama is not anything that would inspire my confidence. You may be right, but I am not going to bank on it. After all, when have they ever really tried to find out the truth about anything that BHO has done? Even when the Blaze and Fox were showing clear proof and Glenn was telling them his sources and doing all of the work for them, they weren’t interested. They would much rather pursue fictional stories that cast Conservatives in a bad light than to seek the truth about Oblamer.

          • Anonymous

            Journalists investigate constantly, and they’re especially interested in low-handing fruit; that’s the easiest situation for them, since it means higher circulation for little work. If Beck, the Blaze or Fox had anything other than slant and misleading stories, it would quickly be confirmed by other sources.

    • unanimously

      I totally agree. Plus he could careless about the American people.

  • Anonymous

    Really there is only a slight difference :
    One was known as Tricky Dick !
    The other Dick Tricky !

  • dennis reilly

    The media knows what went on. Too cowardly to report it. 

  • ethix2

    Obama:  “The Middle Class will always be my Number One focus.  Period!”

    Is that why Obama has been doing ‘Number One’ on the Middle Class since Day One?

  • Anonymous

    At least, Nixon had the decency to take the fall, but obama has nothing of anything.

  • Take 2

    Time to grow up America!

    Bottom-line is there are a probable (less than) 150 people in this chain of transformation that Obama’s handler; at some point had to trust…! They all know that they and their family face prison or poison,  taking the fifth or disappearing for a very long time.

    This is reality folks.

    Its no conspiracy that this has the potential of a repeat of all the Bank board members in Ark. that were never allowed a choice.

    Meaning, Congress needs to accelerate a premo witness protection plan w/retirement for first come first serve key witness bases…even if its Eric Holder.     

  • Take 2


    Over 80 percent of Mexican-born lawful permanent
    residents in 2008 were eligible to naturalize.

    In 2009, 62 percent of all unauthorized immigrants
    in the United States
    were from Mexico.

    Over half of all Mexican immigrants in the United
    States were unauthorized.

    Mexicans accounted for more than
    three-quarters of all unauthorized immigrants in Arkansas, California,
    Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin.
    They accounted for 90 percent or more of unauthorized immigrants in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.

  • landofaahs

    Investigate and expose it so we can discredit the LSOS and make him a lame duck.. We want this jackass in office when the collapse comes because we want the people responsible for it on duty and get the blame when it happens.  It will be some pain first but it must needs be so in order to crush this liberal/progressive/socialist/communist/democrat/collectivism for a few decades until another hapless generation rises and knows no history.

  • bumpkin

    -You know, if Obama REALLY wanted out of all this scandal, all he needs to do is ask one of his to Boybuddies to ‘out’ him.  The world would shriek, scandal would get downright nasty, and nobody would talk Benghazi any more.  AND, that “single mother”, Michelle, and her lovely daughters, could finally just go home.  Even if it wasn’t a current affair, it would still have that effect.  In fact, I think that is his only card left…    LOVE that term ‘Bromance’, Glenn!  (gross!)  I am SO glad I am not a bromantic at heart!  

  • bumpkin

    NAW.   On Obama’s desk, there’s a little sign that says “The Buck just whizzed by outside this office, and didn’t even stop to say hi!”

    • Anonymous

       Or, the buck did stop, it was stamped “secret” and put away where it wouldn’t incriminate anyone!
      Probably filed under “Bush’s fault!”  Might be useful when he runs for his 3rd term!

      • bumpkin

        Have you read HJR 15?  Its this year’s attempt to do away with presidential term limits. Not even something to consider!  Considering Obama’s evil machinations, it would be absolutely lethal to America to do away with term limits.

      • bumpkin

        Have you READ HJR 15?  Its the 2013-2014 attempt to do away with presidential term limits, so Obama can get to be King.  Can you even imagine?!  The horror…  Not even a considerable thought.  May our Constitution Forever Stand!

  • Anonymous


    I’ve had lots of discussions with liberals. The honest ones can be objective and know, clearly, that there is a liberal bias in most of the media. There’s plenty of evidence–just compare the favorable and unfavorable stories about candidates in any election for the past 20 years. Anyone who does not recognize the left bias in the media simply is not paying attention or is so biased himself that he can’t see the reality. I’ve found in the past that I can NEVER convince such a person of media bias, no matter how many studies I put forth. So, I won’t waste any more time on you. 

    • Anonymous


      Thanks for your response, which I only saw yesterday, as it was not posted as a reply to me.  

      I’m sorry you feel your time was wasted.  I never find it a waste of time to exchange viewpoints and information. I learned – as I always do – by considering your arguments and style, and in fact, I thank you for bringing up the anecdote of the NY Times reporter (which, as you saw in my previous post, seems to be a classic example of Right-wing myth-creation.).  I think you should find it worthwhile to have learned about that and also have been exposed to evidence that media coverage of recent elections was different – in both tenor and interpretation  – than what you stated.  

      Intellectual jousting is good exercise for strengthening one’s ability to reason.  However, if the goal is to “win”, or to change a person’s convictions, you’re going to be disappointed most of the time.  Generally, the most you can do is provoke someone into thinking and perhaps, causing a bit of self-doubt, as I think I’ve done – if you’re as smart as you seem to be.

      I’m happy to continue, if you’ve a mind to do so.  I know a lot about how the Right thinks.

  • Anonymous

    Here is a video

    parallels between Nixon and Obama puts the axe in the stump. LOL

  • MagicPhysicist Tesla

    I know President Richard Milhous Nixon  would have done a much better job as the POTUS now than Opuppet has done.

    Nixon had much more experience before getting the job this first term since he already had 8 years as VP and Barry is nothing more than another problem from Chicago.

    After Nixon left office he worked the rest of his life.

    And Barry will just get some bronze statue and his face on the $3 bill and money by the millions doing nothing but BS’ing his way into history.

    • Livvyy Sims

      until I lℴℴk℮d at the draft ℴf $9771, I b℮ sur℮ that my n℮ighbℴur ℂℴuld trully taking hℴm℮ mℴn℮y inside their spar℮ tim℮ ℴn their appl℮ labtℴp.. th℮r℮ n℮ighbℴr start℮d ℂrrying this ℴut 4 nℴ mℴr℮ than twenty twℴ mℴnths and resently repaid the debts ℴn their place and bℴurt a stylish Lancia. l℮arn mℴr℮ at………..

  • Geoff Pace

    The difference between the two “gentlemen” in question is at least two fold:
    1) Nixon was not an international lackey like Obama and Soros 
    2) No one died under Nixon’s faux pas!!!
    …an oh yes, Nixon actually was a United States citizen born in these united states ! Duh!

  • Sharmane

    Nixon’s crimes (although in my view not exactly earth-shattering) pale in comparison to the crimes we have seen committed by this current administration.  Nixon was impeached; ultimately had the good sense to resign.  This president claims he never knows what is going on with the various scandals like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, EPA, illegal wiretapping, and voter suppression.  We still do not know his whereabouts during the Benghazi attack.  With his scandal plagued administration people die; no one died with Watergate.  Nixon is looking better by the minute.

  • Anonymous

    obumer needs to be impeach

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.