Mediaboss Marketing

House Republicans are zeroing in on what they claim were Obama administration missteps on the Benghazi attack. Democrats must decide whether to participate or boycott an investigation they see as highly partisan.

Making a partisan big deal out of scandal (or the perception of scandal) is always a bit of a gamble.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

Republicans flogged then-president Bill Clinton with impeachment over his extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky, which certainly didnt do Al Gore any good a year later when Gore lost in the US Supreme Court, not in the popular vote a very close and very divisive election to George W. Bush.

But as Gallup has reported, Clinton weathered the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998 with fairly high personal ratings averaging 58 percent that year and ended his presidency on a positive note, with a 57 percent rating in December 2000. Last year, Gallup ranked him the fourth most admired man between Pope Francis and the Rev. Billy Graham.

Now, congressional Republicans are going after the Obama administration over the 2012 attack by Islamic militants on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which killed American Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US personnel.

Speaker John Boehner has named a special committee to investigate charges that the Obama administration white-washed or covered up missteps in the US response to the attack. Rep. Darrell Issa, (R) of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has issued a subpoena intended to force Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before the panel about Benghazi.

Kerrys predecessor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who leads any possible opponents in the 2016 presidential race is an obvious target.

Its clear that there are implications for 2016, Rep. Steve Stivers, (R) of Ohio, told Bloomberg News.

The rest is here:
Democrats' Benghazi dilemma: Join 'blatantly political' congressional probe?

FILE: January 2, 2012: Potential caucus voters cast shadows on an Iowa state flag at a GOP campaign rally, Clive, Iowa.REUTERS

Democrats are thinking about using Internet balloting in 2016 to expand their voter base and select a president -- prompting Republicans to consider such a strategy to keep from losing ground.

Iowa Democrats proposed the idea and several others during a recent Democratic National Committee meeting, saying Internet balloting could expand access to their unique caucus process to overseas military personnel, absentee voters and others.

They have already conducted some interviews and are now embarked on a listening tour to get input from party activists, caucus experts and others, says Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman Christina Freundlich.

Were looking at different options, she told FoxNews.com earlier this week. Democrats are always looking at ways to get more people in 2016 to participate in the Democratic process.

The idea of online voting is nothing new, but Iowa Democrats considering the idea, with the DNCs support, has reignited debate on the issue.

I think its a very bad idea, says the Heritage Foundations Hans von Spakovsky, who thinks computer-based voting will never happen, or at least not in the foreseeable future.

Von Spakovsky, manager of the conservative think tanks Election Law Reform Initiative, made in his case Friday in large part by citing examples of online voting gone wrong including a 2010 test run in the District of Columbia.

The citys Board of Elections and Ethics suspended its new Internet-based voting system just days into the test run, after observers reportedly heard the University of Michigan fight song when trying to cast a vote.

It was the work of a Michigan professor who was assisting in the project and who challenged his students to hack into the system.

See original here:
Democrats propose Internet voting in 2016, making Republican also consider the idea

As Congress left Capitol Hill for a two-week recess on Friday night, it remained unclear whether Democrats will participate in the newly minted House committee to investigate the Obama administrations handling of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) announced a roster of seven Republicans primarily comprised of members loyal to the GOP leadership who will serve on the committee, which is charged with determining whether the State Department responded to the attacks properly.

Democrats have decried the committees creation, and the caucus remains torn over whether its members should participate. The panel, Democrats say, is a politically motivated witch hunt.

The Republicans named to the committee were Reps. Susan Brooks (Ind.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Mike Pompeo (Kan.), Martha Roby (Ala.), Peter Roskam (Ill.) and Lynn A. Westmoreland (Ga.). The roster notably excludes many of the Republican caucuss most vocal members when it comes to the controversy over the Benghazi attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) will chair the panel.

The attacks in which four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were killed occurred just weeks before the 2012 presidential election. Initially, the State Department blamed the attacks on a controversial YouTube video that had sparked protests throughout the Middle East. That proved to be an incomplete if not inaccurate explanation for the attacks.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of purposely crafting dishonest talking points in order to insulate the president from criticism in an election year.

That furor was reignited this month when a conservative watchdog group obtained new State Department e-mails about the attack e-mails that had previously been withheld from the House committee investigating the matter.

Some Democrats have called for a boycott of the new committee, while others favor appointing at least one Democrat to serve on it.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said that the committee membership should be split 50-50 to be fair, but the House GOP leadership rejected that and created a panel with seven Republicans and five Democrats.

Democrats took issue with several other provisions of the committee, saying that under the current rules, Gowdy, as chairman, could subpoena and interview witnesses without consulting Democratic members.

See the original post:
Democrats havent decided about joining Benghazi probe

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Will it be a boycott or a chaperone?

House Democrats remained undecided Friday on whether they would join a select committee created by majority Republicans to investigate the Benghazi terror attack.

The chamber's Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, described a split in her caucus over the matter in remarks to reporters that lambasted Republicans for what she called a "political stunt," "subterfuge" and a "diversionary tactic."

Options under consideration include participating as a minority bloc, which Republicans have proposed; having a lone member take part to register disapproval but maintain a presence, or rejecting the entire process as a partisan witch hunt.

"The question is what are the terms under which Democrats can participate," Pelosi said, citing the need for her side to concur with any committee decision to issue subpoenas.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said it was Democrats who have to decide what to do.

"The ball is in their court," said the aide, Michael Steel.

However, a letter from Pelosi to Boehner later Friday rejected the GOP stance as "fundamentally unfair" and said it would politicize the process.

Boehner, meanwhile, used a glitzy Twitter post akin to a concert or pro-wrestling poster to announce the seven Republicans to serve on the new panel chaired by GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a former prosecutor.

Read more here:
Democrats yet to decide on Benghazi panel

Democrats Greatest Hits
___ {o,o} |)__) -"-"- Right Change.com http://www.rightchange.com.

By: yazchat

More here:
Democrats Greatest Hits - Video