IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

CrossEyed, on 18 May 2013 - 22:15, said:Ok, I'm done talking about abortion, that's not what this thread is for.

Yep. It is place instead to show that you and the rest of the right wing crazies have learned nothing from the Ashley Todd experience.

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Is there general agreement here that the

Is there general agreement here that the targeting of these groups helped Obama get elected?

of these groups helped Obama get elected?

Not sure if it helped him or not, but that's an irrelevant point, IMO.

At the hearing, outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller repeatedly objected to the use of the word targeting. He said the so-called be on the lookout (BOLO) list was an inappropriate organizational tool or shortcut that IRS staff used to find potential political cases. Miller claimed the tea party groups would have be subjected to extra scrutiny regardless of the BOLO list. If the targeting wasnt targeting, if the targeting wasnt based on philosophy, how come only conservatives got snagged? Roskam confidently asked.They didnt, sir, Miller responded. Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. Thats shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration).

Two points:1) "of the ones that were looked at" leaves a lot still to be known.2) How many other conservative groups were targeted outside of the 501©4 application process? (i.e. Billy Graham's organization being audited weeks after taking out an ad in favor of traditional marriage)ETA: A third question is what are the rest of the 300 that were looked at? Just because they weren't "tea party" doesn't mean they weren't conservative/Republican.

Can we stop sugar coating with terms like "traditional" marriage and just call it anti-gay please? That is what you mean...

If we can call pro choice pro abortion sure.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

☝ Derp.

 

[CrossEyed]

CrossEyed, on 18 May 2013 - 22:15, said:Ok, I'm done talking about abortion, that's not what this thread is for.

Yep. It is place instead to show that you and the rest of the right wing crazies have learned nothing from the Ashley Todd experience.

For every Ashley Todd there is a Meg Lanker-Simons.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

CrossEyed, on 18 May 2013 - 22:15, said:Ok, I'm done talking about abortion, that's not what this thread is for.

Yep. It is place instead to show that you and the rest of the right wing crazies have learned nothing from the Ashley Todd experience.

For every Ashley Todd there is a Meg Lanker-Simons.

You are so busy connecting the dots that leads to the evil Obama that you miss the point entirely that my post had nothing to do with what Ashley Todd did.

 

[CrossEyed]

CrossEyed, on 18 May 2013 - 22:15, said:Ok, I'm done talking about abortion, that's not what this thread is for.

Yep. It is place instead to show that you and the rest of the right wing crazies have learned nothing from the Ashley Todd experience.

For every Ashley Todd there is a Meg Lanker-Simons.

You are so busy connecting the dots that leads to the evil Obama that you miss the point entirely that my post had nothing to do with what Ashley Todd did.

Connecting dots is not necessary. What happens in an organization starts at the top. When an administration is riddled with corruption, arrogance, and/or ineptitude, the guy at the top either fixes it, or he's responsible for it. There really are no other options.

 

[pittstownkiller]

unborn babies have no rights

...and sometimes even if they are born they still have no rights.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Connecting dots is not necessary. What happens in an organization starts at the top. When an administration is riddled with corruption, arrogance, and/or ineptitude, the guy at the top either fixes it, or he's responsible for it. There really are no other options.

The IRS is not part of any administration. As I am sure we all agree it is shielded from the partisan politics of patronage appointments. Obama is responsible for the hiring, firing, promotion of no one at the IRS.I keep asking how would Obama have benefited by knowing of the IG's audit of the IRS. Well one thing would be to know that the IRS lead by a Bush appointee was "riddled with corruption, arrogance, and/or ineptitude" so he could have replaced the one vulnerable appointee with his own. That didn't happen.

 

[otello]

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/19/185206908/nonconservative-groups-say-irs-scrutinized-them-too

 

[mr roboto]

People I am impressed with (for being relatively even handed)

BFS

Pitts

NCC

People who are just doing what they always do

Pantagrapher

CE

MaxThreshold

BigSteelThrill

 

[timschochet]

I wonder what the GOP is going to be going nuts about next month. Anybody care to guess?

I am betting Obama leaving Israel to defend itself. I believe the odds of that happening in June are probably 4 to 1, but that being the most favored horse on the board.

That would be an interesting criticism. Which American President, either Republican or Democrat, has ever gotten the United States involved in a war or military engagement that Israel was involved in? (Answer: none.)

 

[timschochet]

I think for all of you that are defending the Administration on this one

Anyone want to clue me in why political groups should have tax exempt status at all? Who are they helping?

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You're trying to throw up a smoke screen to distract from the main point which is the IRS should NOT be an arm of the Democratic Party.

Instead of finding ways to defend the Administration, you should be VERY, VERY concerned that a department of the Government YOU'RE GUY just handed a boatload of power to (thru Obamacare) is targeting political enemies.

Doesn't that bother you the least bit?

But see, I haven't read a single person on the "Obama side" make the serious argument that targeting political enemies is OK. The debate in thread is not about that- almost everyone agrees that if that happened it is extremely bad. Personally, I will go so far as to say that if Obama deliberately used the IRS to target his political opponents, that's an impeachable offense.

The issue being debated here is one of fact. Most of those on the "Obama side" argue that there is no evidence tying this to the President; furthermore, there is no evidence that this was even a deliberate act of targeting. Most of those on "your side" argue that we should use common sense and connect the dots anyhow, that there's no way Obama couldn't have known about this, etc. At this point nobody knows which side is right. But given the history of these sorts of scandals, given how partisans always seem to build them up way beyond what they actually turn out, I'd say the odds strongly favor the "Obama side".

 

[jonessed]

I think for all of you that are defending the Administration on this one

Anyone want to clue me in why political groups should have tax exempt status at all? Who are they helping?

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You're trying to throw up a smoke screen to distract from the main point which is the IRS should NOT be an arm of the Democratic Party.

Instead of finding ways to defend the Administration, you should be VERY, VERY concerned that a department of the Government YOU'RE GUY just handed a boatload of power to (thru Obamacare) is targeting political enemies.

Doesn't that bother you the least bit?

But see, I haven't read a single person on the "Obama side" make the serious argument that targeting political enemies is OK. The debate in thread is not about that- almost everyone agrees that if that happened it is extremely bad. Personally, I will go so far as to say that if Obama deliberately used the IRS to target his political opponents, that's an impeachable offense.

The issue being debated here is one of fact. Most of those on the "Obama side" argue that there is no evidence tying this to the President; furthermore, there is no evidence that this was even a deliberate act of targeting. Most of those on "your side" argue that we should use common sense and connect the dots anyhow, that there's no way Obama couldn't have known about this, etc. At this point nobody knows which side is right. But given the history of these sorts of scandals, given how partisans always seem to build them up way beyond what they actually turn out, I'd say the odds strongly favor the "Obama side".

 

[pantagrapher]

People I am impressed with (for being relatively even handed)BFSPittsNCCPeople who are just doing what they always doPantagrapherCEMaxThresholdBigSteelThrill

Keep us posted.

 

[General Malaise]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

Faux outrage is all the rage.

 

[timschochet]

I think for all of you that are defending the Administration on this one

Anyone want to clue me in why political groups should have tax exempt status at all? Who are they helping?

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You're trying to throw up a smoke screen to distract from the main point which is the IRS should NOT be an arm of the Democratic Party.

Instead of finding ways to defend the Administration, you should be VERY, VERY concerned that a department of the Government YOU'RE GUY just handed a boatload of power to (thru Obamacare) is targeting political enemies.

Doesn't that bother you the least bit?

But see, I haven't read a single person on the "Obama side" make the serious argument that targeting political enemies is OK. The debate in thread is not about that- almost everyone agrees that if that happened it is extremely bad. Personally, I will go so far as to say that if Obama deliberately used the IRS to target his political opponents, that's an impeachable offense.

The issue being debated here is one of fact. Most of those on the "Obama side" argue that there is no evidence tying this to the President; furthermore, there is no evidence that this was even a deliberate act of targeting. Most of those on "your side" argue that we should use common sense and connect the dots anyhow, that there's no way Obama couldn't have known about this, etc. At this point nobody knows which side is right. But given the history of these sorts of scandals, given how partisans always seem to build them up way beyond what they actually turn out, I'd say the odds strongly favor the "Obama side".

Do you have some evidence that this was a deliberate act of targeting? Anything at all besides supposition? If you do, I am eager to hear it, honestly.

 

[Buckfast 1]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues. But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing. Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

 

[Zegras11]

Anonymous Cincinnati IRS official: “Everything comes from the top.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/anonymous-cincinnati-irs-official-everything-comes-from-the-top./article/2530001

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

The staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that the determinations unit is competent and without bias, that it grouped together conservative applications “for consistency’s sake” — so one application did not sail through while a similar one was held up in review. This consistency is paramount in the review of all applications, according to Ronald Ran, an estate-tax lawyer who worked for 37 years in the IRS’s Cincinnati office.

This pretty plainly contradicts the story coming out of the IRS that rogue agents in Cincinnati were responsible:

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

Sure there is. Its a label. Move along.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

Sure there is. Its a label. Move along.

Do you get paid to hang from Obama's nutsack? Or is it totally voluntary?

 

[drummer]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

Sure there is. Its a label. Move along.

Do you get paid to hang from Obama's nutsack? Or is it totally voluntary?

Do you get paid to be afraid of Obama's nutsack?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

Sure there is. Its a label. Move along.

I don't know what you mean by "it's a label." He mentioned terrorism in a few places here an there, but he and his speechwriters bent over backwards not to directly refer to the Libya embassy attacks at terrorism for the first few days after the attack. If you understand how to read between the lines on these sorts of things, you'd understand why it's just wrong to make it sound like Obama was completely forthright on this one. These kinds of speeches are worded very carefully, and when a President goes out of his way not to tie X to Y, that's on purpose.

I'm fine with moving along. It's a non-issue now, but I wish you guys would quit distorting the record on it.

 

[pantagrapher]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

Sure there is. Its a label. Move along.

I don't know what you mean by "it's a label." He mentioned terrorism in a few places here an there, but he and his speechwriters bent over backwards not to directly refer to the Libya embassy attacks at terrorism for the first few days after the attack. If you understand how to read between the lines on these sorts of things, you'd understand why it's just wrong to make it sound like Obama was completely forthright on this one. These kinds of speeches are worded very carefully, and when a President goes out of his way not to tie X to Y, that's on purpose.

I'm fine with moving along. It's a non-issue now, but I wish you guys would quit distorting the record on it.

Stop hitting yourself!

 

[MaxThreshold]

I am not particularly partisan. I'm neither a D nor a R, didn't vote for either last go around, and agree with D's on certain issues and R's on other issues.

But for pete's sake, some of our Republican denizens need to go read "the boy that cried wolf" a couple times. When you spend all your time arguing that "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism", someday when there actually is a legitimate complaint against the administration nobody will pay attention to you because you've been screaming about dumb stuff for years. Stop screaming about dumb stuff, and those of us who aren't blindly partisan on the other side might actually pay attention to you. But there's so much noise that nobody takes you seriously because you're always foaming at the mouth about some stupid thing.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled foaming.

I agree with the general spirit of this post, but there's really no getting around the fact that the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid referring to the Benghazi attack as terrorism. There's no reason why people on different sides of the aisle shouldn't be able to agree on that one, considering that it's such an insignificant misstep.

Sure there is. Its a label. Move along.

Do you get paid to hang from Obama's nutsack? Or is it totally voluntary?

I hang from Obama's nutsack too!

Congratulations.

 

[General Malaise]

I think for all of you that are defending the Administration on this one

Anyone want to clue me in why political groups should have tax exempt status at all? Who are they helping?

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You're trying to throw up a smoke screen to distract from the main point which is the IRS should NOT be an arm of the Democratic Party.

Instead of finding ways to defend the Administration, you should be VERY, VERY concerned that a department of the Government YOU'RE GUY just handed a boatload of power to (thru Obamacare) is targeting political enemies.

Doesn't that bother you the least bit?

I was more outraged at the Bush Administration stacking the Dept. of Justice with religious fundies. I'm guessing this outraged you too, right?

A report issued jointly by the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, both of the US Justice Department, lifts the lid on one of the numerous efforts by the Bush administration to fill the American government with right-wing ideologues.

Political appointees in the Justice Department in 2002 and especially in 2006 screened candidates for its Honors Program, the only means by which the department hires law school graduates and judicial law clerks without prior legal experience, and its Summer Law Intern Program (SLIP), on the basis of political and ideological criteria, in violation of department rules and federal law. Alleged “leftists” and liberals were routinely excluded by two members of the screening committee in 2006, one of whom attended a fanatical Christian college in Florida.

The “politicization” of these hiring practices is entirely in line with Bush administration policy as a whole, and, specifically, the firing of eight US attorneys and the forced resignation of numerous others in 2005-2006 in what was clearly a politically motivated purge. The eight were dismissed because they prosecuted Republicans or failed to pursue charges against Democrats on various corruption charges. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and a number of subordinates were forced to resign in part because of this episode.

In fact, the Bush administration attempted, and succeeded in large measure, in transforming a major federal government department into an instrument for the pursuit of extreme right-wing policies.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I think for all of you that are defending the Administration on this one

Anyone want to clue me in why political groups should have tax exempt status at all? Who are they helping?

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You're trying to throw up a smoke screen to distract from the main point which is the IRS should NOT be an arm of the Democratic Party.

Instead of finding ways to defend the Administration, you should be VERY, VERY concerned that a department of the Government YOU'RE GUY just handed a boatload of power to (thru Obamacare) is targeting political enemies.

Doesn't that bother you the least bit?

I was more outraged at the Bush Administration stacking the Dept. of Justice with religious fundies. I'm guessing this outraged you too, right?

>>>

A report issued jointly by the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, both of the US Justice Department, lifts the lid on one of the numerous efforts by the Bush administration to fill the American government with right-wing ideologues.

Political appointees in the Justice Department in 2002 and especially in 2006 screened candidates for its Honors Program, the only means by which the department hires law school graduates and judicial law clerks without prior legal experience, and its Summer Law Intern Program (SLIP), on the basis of political and ideological criteria, in violation of department rules and federal law. Alleged “leftists” and liberals were routinely excluded by two members of the screening committee in 2006, one of whom attended a fanatical Christian college in Florida.

The “politicization” of these hiring practices is entirely in line with Bush administration policy as a whole, and, specifically, the firing of eight US attorneys and the forced resignation of numerous others in 2005-2006 in what was clearly a politically motivated purge. The eight were dismissed because they prosecuted Republicans or failed to pursue charges against Democrats on various corruption charges. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and a number of subordinates were forced to resign in part because of this episode.

In fact, the Bush administration attempted, and succeeded in large measure, in transforming a major federal government department into an instrument for the pursuit of extreme right-wing policies.

Define EXTREME. I think there is a bit of over-exaggeration going on here. You have a link to this article?

I'll let you know about any outrage I may have once I read the source.

 

[General Malaise]

Are you disputing the facts that Bush stacked the Dept of Justice with Fundies?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Are you disputing the facts that Bush stacked the Dept of Justice with Fundies?

Can you show me the source of your article? I'm neither disputing nor agreeing with anything.

 

[General Malaise]

Are you disputing the facts that Bush stacked the Dept of Justice with Fundies?

Can you show me the source of your article? I'm neither disputing nor agreeing with anything.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/06/just-j27.html

 

[General Malaise]

Are you disputing the facts that Bush stacked the Dept of Justice with Fundies?

Can you show me the source of your article? I'm neither disputing nor agreeing with anything.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/06/just-j27.html

You probably won't like this source.

Here's an op-ed from the LA Times

 

[Statorama]

March Madness junkies will love this http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Introducing-the-Obama-Scandal-Bracket]Obama Scandal Bracket

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The IRS scandal:

Among overall Americans, 61 percent say what Obama has said about the matter is mostly or completely true

moderates believe this by 71-25

Benghazi:

Among overall Americans, 50 percent believe early statements about the attacks by Obama officials reflected what the administration believed at the time

Moderates believe the statements reflected the administration’s beliefs by 60-35

These two stories are presidential scandals only in the minds of majorities of Republicans. This helps explain why Obama’s approval is holding.

Interesting to see that the difference between 'moderates' and 'independents' remains so divergent. Seems we still have a lot of embarrassed Republicans claiming to be independent.

FWIW, Obama's approval rating is in the low 50s -- at his highest level in two years and near his high for the last four years.

This is true. Obama's going nowhere, short of some magic email or tape recording emerges and after Nixon we will never ever see another president caught at that again.

We also have 3/4's of all House committees absorbed in one investigation or another, and if people recall Clinton got jammed into a corner several times in his second term. I don't know if it was because of his scandals or not but he did such things as sign the Glass-Steagal repeal which ended up potentially affecting our economy down the road, more specifically the September 2008 crash which we have still not receivered from.

Besides immigration reform, which both parties seem to finally want (and even that will be credited as an Obama OR Rubio bill, and they will fight over that), I'm not sure what really productive gets done before 2016.

And this may just keep happening. Personally I think this is the only way the two congressional parties out of power have found to chip away at presidential power. Our presidents are turning into having just one term to really do anything.

 

[timschochet]

The IRS scandal:

Among overall Americans, 61 percent say what Obama has said about the matter is mostly or completely true

moderates believe this by 71-25

Benghazi:

Among overall Americans, 50 percent believe early statements about the attacks by Obama officials reflected what the administration believed at the time

Moderates believe the statements reflected the administration’s beliefs by 60-35

These two stories are presidential scandals only in the minds of majorities of Republicans. This helps explain why Obama’s approval is holding.

Interesting to see that the difference between 'moderates' and 'independents' remains so divergent. Seems we still have a lot of embarrassed Republicans claiming to be independent.

FWIW, Obama's approval rating is in the low 50s -- at his highest level in two years and near his high for the last four years.

This is true. Obama's going nowhere, short of some magic email or tape recording emerges and after Nixon we will never ever see another president caught at that again.

We also have 3/4's of all House committees absorbed in one investigation or another, and if people recall Clinton got jammed into a corner several times in his second term. I don't know if it was because of his scandals or not but he did such things as sign the Glass-Steagal repeal which ended up potentially affecting our economy down the road, more specifically the September 2008 crash which we have still not receivered from.

Besides immigration reform, which parties seem to finally want (and even that will be credited as an Obama OR Rubio bill, and they will fight over that), I'm not sure what really productive gets done before 2016.

And this may just keep happening. Personally I think this is the only way the two congressional parties out of power have found to chip away at presidential power. Our presidents are turning into having just one term to really do anything.

I think you raise an interesting point about the effectiveness of the President in the second term. Usually, second terms are devoted to foreign policy and other concerns rather than legislative. Key legislative issues are always done within the first few months of the first term of office. If immigration reform happens (and IMO, that's still a huge "if" at this point") it will be one of the great exceptions ever. Don't forget that George W. Bush also attempted immigration reform in the second term, and failed. (He also attempted reforming Social Security in the second term, and failed.)

That being said, if Obama is unable to compromise with Congress on some sort of economic stabilizing plan, that is very bad news. We haven't come close to dealing with debt and taxes and spending.

 

[General Malaise]

Are you disputing the facts that Bush stacked the Dept of Justice with Fundies?

What does this have to do with the story at hand?



What's the correlation?

I said I was more outraged at this than I am with the IRS thingee....try to read the whole thread, GB. Helps in context.

 

[17seconds]

CrossEyed, on 18 May 2013 - 22:15, said:Ok, I'm done talking about abortion, that's not what this thread is for.

Yep. It is place instead to show that you and the rest of the right wing crazies have learned nothing from the Ashley Todd experience.

For every Ashley Todd there is a Meg Lanker-Simons.

You are so busy connecting the dots that leads to the evil Obama that you miss the point entirely that my post had nothing to do with what Ashley Todd did.

Connecting dots is not necessary. What happens in an organization starts at the top. When an administration is riddled with corruption, arrogance, and/or ineptitude, the guy at the top either fixes it, or he's responsible for it. There really are no other options.

Where are you on GWB being responsible for over 100,000 meaningless deaths including 4,000 Americans, going into Iraq looking for WMDs?

He actually ordered that - and it's a little bit of a bigger deal than the IRS looking at tea party tax status.

You take this IRS thing so seriously because of "responsibility at the top", I'd think you'd be picketing the white house every day from 2003-2008.

 

[Zegras11]

LOL at news today. Some WH guys knew, but no one told the pres.

Really? Chime in FFA gullibles.

 

[TPW]

LOL at news today. Some WH guys knew, but no one told the pres.

Really? Chime in FFA gullibles.

They're not gullible. They're complicit in a mindset that holds their fellow countrymen in far more contempt than any foreign adversary. So what if the overarching power of federal government is being roundly abused? It's only those nasty "teabaggers" so who cares?

First they came for the Tea Party and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Tea Partier...

 

[Parrothead]

LOL at news today. Some WH guys knew, but no one told the pres.

Really? Chime in FFA gullibles.

The Chief of Staff knew! are we to believe that the Chief of Staff at the White House withheld this info from the president? Don't they meet every day??

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

LOL at news today. Some WH guys knew, but no one told the pres.

Really? Chime in FFA gullibles.

The Chief of Staff knew! are we to believe that the Chief of Staff at the White House withheld this info from the president? Don't they meet every day??

When are you talking about?

I think they're talking late April 2013, not mid 2012 when the election was going on and when the IRS was first being asked about it by Congress.

Obama's saying he only found out when everyone else found out, even if he found out a few weeks before I'm not sure what the serious issue is.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

LOL at news today. Some WH guys knew, but no one told the pres.

Really? Chime in FFA gullibles.

The Chief of Staff knew! are we to believe that the Chief of Staff at the White House withheld this info from the president? Don't they meet every day??

When are you talking about?

I think they're talking late April 2013, not mid 2012 when the election was going on and when the IRS was first being asked about it by Congress.

Obama's saying he only found out when everyone else found out, even if he found out a few weeks before I'm not sure what the serious issue is.

The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=4&

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It sure is clear that the administration took full advantage of their advance knowledge of the investigation to get way out in front of the news.

 

[17seconds]

LOL at news today. Some WH guys knew, but no one told the pres.

Really? Chime in FFA gullibles.

They're not gullible. They're complicit in a mindset that holds their fellow countrymen in far more contempt than any foreign adversary. So what if the overarching power of federal government is being roundly abused? It's only those nasty "teabaggers" so who cares?

First they came for the Tea Party and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Tea Partier...

oh come on

 

[drummer]

So how did this change the election again?

 

[adonis]

So how did this change the election again?

You see...well...err....they ...umm...

IMPEACH OBAMA!

 

[drummer]

So how did this change the election again?

You see...well...err....they ...umm...

IMPEACH OBAMA!

Weird that no one is complaining that the IRS also 'targeted' progressive groups as well.

 

[timschochet]

First they came for the Tea Party and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Tea Partier...

Speak out? I ####### cheered.

j/k

 

[General Malaise]

So how did this change the election again?

You see...well...err....they ...umm...

IMPEACH OBAMA!

Weird that no one is complaining that the IRS also 'targeted' progressive groups as well.

I AM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111

 

[drummer]

So how did this change the election again?

You see...well...err....they ...umm...

IMPEACH OBAMA!

Weird that no one is complaining that the IRS also 'targeted' progressive groups as well.

I AM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111

Finally we have one.

 

[tommyboy]

Whether you like the tea party or not you should be alarmed that the IRS has been engaged in partisan politics. This is the same organization that will soon be running health care.

This is not the proper role of the IRS