In looking around the Internet, "largely irrelevant" was the talking point that Pfeiffer was passing around in order to hypnotize the public watching the Sunday shows.
But one Sunday host wasn't buying the White House's snake oil, liberal and usual Obama apologist Bob Schieffer of See BS News (The Other McCain).
“It looks like they’ve lost Bob Schieffer,” says John Hoge, which might be a slight exaggeration. Schieffer is a liberal, but he’s also a veteran Washington journalist who has seen enough scandals to know what a scandal looks like, and he was having none of the Jedi mind trick — “These are not the scandals you were looking for. Move along.” — from Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer today. Right off the bat, Pfeiffer tried to cast the argument in partisan terms, which every scandal-plagued politician does, claiming that any suggestion of wrongdoing is a manufactured artifice, the creation of one’s political opponents:
“[T]he Republican playbook here . . . they don’t have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations.”
Schieffer was highly dubious of this excuse, and reminded Pfeiffer of how familiar his excuse-making sounded:
I don’t want to compare this in anyway to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren’t born then, I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said these are all second-rate things. We don’t have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people’s business. You are taking exactly the same line that they did.
Exactly right. Bob Schieffer was born in 1937, he was working for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the day JFK was shot, and he’s not likely to be impressed by a 37-year-old “senior advisor.” And when it came to Benghazi, Schieffer didn’t let Pfeiffer bulldoze him:
The bottom line is what [Susan Rice] told the American people [Sept. 16] bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed. . . .[T]hat was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn’t know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn’t the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don’t know yet? Why didn’t White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn’t the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?
Now, judging from his tone, I think Schieffer was really trying to be generous to the Obama Regime..."I really don't want to tell you this, I don't want to believe this is the same, but you're acting like the guy we took down almost 40 years ago."
And Schieffer is right. Here is an example from Nixon's 24 minute Oval Office address from April 30, 1973. Key point comes around 13.19:
It is also essential that we not be so distracted by events such as this that we neglect the vital work before us, before this Nation, before America, at a time of critical importance to America and the world.
Since March, when I first learned that the Watergate affair might in fact be far more serious than I had been led to believe, it has claimed far too much of my time and my attention. Whatever may now transpire in the case, whatever the actions of the grand jury, whatever the outcome of any eventual trials, I must now turn my full attention—and I shall do so—once again to the larger duties of this office. I owe it to this great office that I hold, and I owe it to you—to my country.
I know that as Attorney General, Elliot Richardson will be both fair and he will be fearless in pursuing this case wherever it leads. I am confident that with him in charge, justice will be done.
There is vital work to be done toward our goal of a lasting structure of peace in the world—work that cannot wait, work that I must do.
Nixon did the same in a similar speech on August 15, 1973 (beginning around 4:30):
Let me turn now to an issue that is important above all else and that is critically affecting your life today and will affect your life and your children’s life in the years to come.
After 12 weeks and 2 million words of televised testimony, we have reached a point at which a continued, backward-looking obsession with Watergate is causing this Nation to neglect matters of far greater importance to all of the American people.
We must not stay so mired in Watergate that we fail to respond to challenges of surpassing importance to America and the world. We cannot let an obsession with the past destroy our hopes for the future.
Legislation vital to your health and well-being sits unattended on the Congressional calendar. Confidence at home and abroad in our economy, our currency, our foreign policy is being sapped by uncertainty. Critical negotiations are taking place on strategic weapons and on troop levels in Europe that can affect the security of this Nation and the peace of the world long after Watergate is forgotten. Vital events are taking place in Southeast Asia which could lead to a tragedy for the cause of peace.
These are matters that cannot wait. They cry out for action now, and either we, your elected representatives here in Washington, ought to get on with the jobs that need to be done for you—or every one of you ought to be demanding to know why.
The time has come to turn Watergate over to the courts, where the questions of guilt or innocence belong. The time has come for the rest of us to get on with the urgent business of our Nation.
And then we all know why Nixon thought it was important to "get on with the urgent business of our Nation," and why we couldn't have access to those tapes. Isn't that why the Obama Regime is so anxious for us to MoveOn.org from looking at BenghaziGate, the IRS scandal and the bugging of AP, because what's below the surface is the most damning?
As quoted yesterday from Andrew McCarthy's piece on BenghaziGate:
Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders.Isn't it interesting that the Obama Regime will "fire" IRS officials who are already planning to leave, but are defending the person in charge of this and who will now enforce Obamacare?