Your problem is that many of the folks who are "concerned" and "troubled" and just outright disgusted aren't members of the GOP. Take Max Baucus as only one example.
Max Baucus, really? Baucus is a red, red state Democrat who has voted with Republicans on most big issues and single handedly killed any discussion of single payor healthcare reform that lead to the passage of Obamacare, the plan that Republicans hate because it does too much and badly, and Democrats don't like because it doesn't do enough, and it does it badly. A lot of the concern is about optics, not culpability, President's don't see their approval ratings rise as more people think they are guilty of something, they see their approval ratings rise as they see the President under attack with unfounded allegations.
Another problem is that at some point--I'm not sure where--the President does have to be accountable. At the very least, he needs to explain why he supposedly knows nothing about what's going on. About anything.
It is a longstanding tradition, for good reason, that the White House keep an arms length relationship with the IRS. There is no process direction from the WH to the IRS precisely to avoid a reality or perception of political direction of the IRS. This is why some of the attacks have now devolved into accusing the President of "influencing" the IRS to be partisan by the simple act of being a partisan Democrat in charge of the Executive branch. Somehow saying what he approved of and what he did not approve of now counts as directives to the IRS (as if every President is not a partisan).
I've seen the photo-opp pics in the "Situation Room" of him and Sec/State Clinton. Where was the President on 9-11?
Who cares. Unless there is some evidence that the President was needed to give an order and could not be located, it is completely irrelevant. Find evidence his whereabouts affected the safety of the people in Benghazi, then ask this question.
I'm reading the Washington Post and, grudgingly, the NY Times. Sorry, but when you have the likes of Maureen Dowd and Eugene Robinson speaking up, the Obama Admin has a problem.
Maureen Dowd has been an outspoken critic of Obama for years, and Robinson considers the IRS issue a scandal that doesn't involve the President, even though it looks bad.
Your mistake is in thinking that people are "listening to the GOP." I'm not a Republican, and I'm not just reading what George Will has to say; I've been reading what progressives are now beginning to say.
Really, are you really? If you are, then you are reading that Benghazi could not have been prevented or better responded to unless the President was omniscient, and the "talking points coverup" was the result of negotiations between the CIA, State Department, with an understanding that Justice did not want details like who was suspected included to protect the investigation and the WH quickly approved the most informative versions of the talking points. On the IRS, if you are reading liberals, you would understand that the IRS is kept at a distance from the political leadership for a very good reason.
And this is maybe what you should think about--the fact that it's not just the GOP speaking up now. Catch up on what Politico is saying. Check the WaPo headlines if nothing else.
I get daily email updates from Politico and WaPo. Just a few minutes ago, I read the article about Petraeus and the Benghazi talking points and noted this quote from the CIA, "In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m. that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
The only thing that liberal journalist are bothered about is the AP and Rosen stories, and they should be, if they don't defend themselves, who will?
Just don't cast the President as a victim...unless, of course, you mean to say that he's a victim of his own hubris. Do you seriously want your fellow citizens to regard the President of the United States as a "victim" or an "underdog"?
I am not casting the President as a victim, I am describing my observations in light of my understanding of what happened 15 years ago to Bill Clinton, who saw his approval ratings go UP as he was impeached by the House. I don't "want" anything, it is an observation of what is happening.
Seriously? Is he also a credulous dupe who just had no earthly idea what the heck was going on in his own Admin? Or were his chief legal counsel and chief of staff just too skeered of his basic coolness and awesomeness that they "protected" him from the FACTS that are now emerging?
Should the President be informed about ongoing investigations? Really? The only purpose for doing this would be to give him input, and avoiding political input is a key element of many executive functions. Imagine he WERE informed about the AP subpoena before it was executed and stopped it. Now THAT would be scandalous. Imagine he had meetings with the IRS Director to discuss process, now THAT would be scandalous. The GOP is trying to blame the President for not knowing things that President's SHOULD NOT know.
If you genuinely regard Obama as some tragi-heroic, trailblazing hero, then I'd think you'd prefer to see him as a hardball-playing, ruthless, cynical political player than some pitiably clueless dolt.
Again, I am making observations. As to how I regard the President, I see the President as a corporate Democrat, middle right authoritarian, a hair away from Mitt Romney on the political spectrum. But partisan politics are making that hair into a bottomless chasm, preventing governing from getting done. We are tragically broken systemically and no one is getting what they want except the corporate political funders who laugh at us while left blames right and right blames left, while they quietly steal from all of us beneath the fray.
If Obama is a "victim," it's of his own hubris. Or "boldness" for which he must be punished. Or doltishness. Your choice.
Again, I am making observations, Obama is not a victim, but his approval ratings indicate that he is being seen as the victim of unwarranted political attacks. If people were buying the allegations against the President, his approval ratings would be going down, not up. His "punishment" seems to be elevating him, just as Clinton's "punishment" did for him. But the real victim is the American people, who are the victims of a lack of government. Feel free to blame Obama for this, but I can't help noting that Obama never said he wanted Republicans to fail, but I can recall the very top of the GOP saying that their top goal was making Obama fail (as opposed to making America succeed).