General Political Thread

[Hixter]

So now we are doing revisionist history?  I am reminded of the saying, "if wishes were assholes.." I am not sure what your point it.  

It's very simple: lies, coverups and the abuse of power by our politicians should never be tolerated and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

no matter what the right wing media wants you to believe

I get my news from places like the BBC, NYT and the Washington Post: are those right-wing media outlets?

 

EDIT: You know it's bad when they've even lost Piers Morgan:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKO8A285Rr0

 

 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Lies, coverups, and abuses of power should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Like taking a country to war based on faulty intelligence, thereby sending tens of thousands of men, women and children to an early grave. Which is why George Bush and Dick Cheney should be in prison for war crimes, or at least treason. Right?

[Hixter]

Yes, they should be in prison if they started a war despite knowing that the intelligence was wrong, but there's no proof that they did so.

[IRememberDBoon]

reminds of the whitewater garbage during President Clintons term.

is there anything in any of these "scandals" that has anything to do with President Obama?

well............except UmbrellaGate of course!



 

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

 You can ignore this, scoff at it, belittle those who are concerned; but you are engaging if a fool's game. This administration is showing the same signs of paranoia that made Richard Nixon the most villified man in America for a generation.

 

 

 

By Peggy Noonan

 

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.

As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.

The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.

The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that opposed ObamaCare or advanced the Second Amendment—the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the U.S. Constitution.

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."

Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they're afraid of saying they were audited.

All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit.

It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved.

Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of "frontline people" in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party's foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting.

The White House is reported to be shellshocked at public reaction to the scandal. But why? Were they so highhanded, so essentially ignorant, that they didn't understand what it would mean to the American people when their IRS—the revenue-collecting arm of the U.S. government—is revealed as a low, ugly and bullying tool of the reigning powers? If they didn't know how Americans would react to that, what did they know? I mean beyond Harvey Weinstein's cellphone number.

And why—in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too—does no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it on his plate.

We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life. Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S. government from its essential business.

But that bias does not fit these circumstances.

What happened at the IRS is the government's essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again.

And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function.

 

[lost highway]

I think that was more than a little hyperbolic.  To me the most curious part is what was the Justice Department looking for when they dug in to the AP's records?  That's the curious part, but it will probably remain a secret since they seem to be worried about keeping intelligence a secret.

[KevinG]

It's very simple: lies, coverups and the abuse of power by our politicians should never be tolerated and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

Absolutely.  But since the GOP has not actually proven any lies, coverups and abuse of power, shouldn't we be more concerned with how the GOP is abusing their power?

 

 

 

 You can ignore this, scoff at it, belittle those who are concerned; but you are engaging if a fool's game. This administration is showing the same signs of paranoia that made Richard Nixon the most villified man in America for a generation.

 

I will not ignore this this, but I will scoff and belittle.  Peggy Noonan is pretty much a right wing hack.  It is a fool's game to by into this Obama is like Nixon line of thinking.  It just goes into trying to make PBO and these "scandals" a lot more than they really are.

 

 

From the Washington Post Editorial dated 5/16/13

Nixon, in a series of crimes that collectively came to be known as Watergate, directed from the White House and Justice Department a concerted campaign against those he perceived as political enemies, in the process subverting the FBI, the IRS, other government agencies and the electoral process to his nefarious purposes. Mr. Obama has done nothing of the kind. Nor is there much to support a lesser “unifying theory” of this week’s scandals, which is that together they prove Mr. Obama guilty of a grand overreach of federal power.

[IRememberDBoon]

There is nothing worse on PLANET EARTH than watching Peggy Noonan SIGH on Sun talk shows.

She is the master of groaning and sighing and if you know anything about Washington or the sunday talk shows you'll know exactly what im talking about
 

[uncool2pillow]

I agree, her personal style is very grating. Of course, one only attacks style if they can't or won't attack substance.

[Moss]

There is nothing worse on PLANET EARTH than watching Peggy Noonan SIGH on Sun talk shows.

 

She is the master of groaning and sighing and if you know anything about Washington or the sunday talk shows you'll know exactly what im talking about

 

Yep, my wife gets so annoyed with her I can't hear anything anybody else is saying.

[KevinG]

I agree, her personal style is very grating. Of course, one only attacks style if they can't or won't attack substance.

 

There are many many things beyond style that make Peggy Noonan a bad journalist.  I really don't want to take the time listing them hear as it would be pointless.  Though I would site the op-ed quoted by Cornbread Crow Magnus as a prime example of why she is a poor writer and a hack of a journalist.   

 

But would also like to offer this up as an another example, from her op-ed, Obama has a good day, Liberty has a bad one.  The op-ed is a mess all over the place out of many of the head scratchers there is this particular one: 

 

 

To the presidential politics of it: For the first time in months, the president looks like he’s on the Uppalator, not the Downalator.

 

First off what does that mean?  And why does she feel the need to make up words for no apparent reason.  Really terrible.  

[uncool2pillow]

Kevin, I have no doubt that you and many others could comment on Noonan's substance. My post was more a criticism of IRDB's usual lack of substance than a defense of Noonan.

[KevinG]

Kevin, I have no doubt that you and many others could comment on Noonan's substance. My post was more a criticism of IRDB's usual lack of substance than a defense of Noonan.

 

 

 

I just really dislike Peggy Noonan and wanted it to be made clear.  

[lost highway]

 My post was more a criticism of IRDB's usual lack of substance than a defense of Noonan.

 

I'm not sure if a Sunday talk show host is the best battleground for keeping the criticism of journalism substantive.  It's kind of like saying someone gave Chucky Cheese a cheap shot, when the real discussion should focus on culinary arts.

[KevinG]

I'm not sure if a Sunday talk show host is the best battleground for keeping the criticism of journalism substantive.  It's kind of like saying someone gave Chucky Cheese a cheap shot, when the real discussion should focus on culinary arts.

 

The Sunday shows used to be, I pine for the days of Tim Russert.  Now it is just partisan bickering, with no real moderation or tough questions.  Sigh.  

[bleedorange]

The Sunday shows used to be, I pine for the days of Tim Russert.  Now it is just partisan bickering, with no real moderation or tough questions.  Sigh.  

 

That's what everything is now.  It's what the masses want to see.

[KevinG]

That's what everything is now.  It's what the masses want to see.

 

They should get all of us to appear on the Sunday shows, that would be high quality TV.  

[IRememberDBoon]

oh please tell me where you guys get your higher level political discussion from?? I watch Brian Lamb too. Ive read all the Woodward books. any political books short of Beck and Limbaugh for that matter. Been to tons of live political happenings. just let me know what im not seeing. 
having lived in the district for most of the last 20 years or so my friends work on both sides of the hill and we talk day and night about politics.
bleedorange you can give me a break smart boy. you probably like the roundabout on The Five.
I just happen to be a proud Democrat and proud of my party and my President.
these are the same old crap they tried with President Clinton.
The Republicans better start trying to govern and come up with some POLICIES and stop just trying to pin something on The President over and over and over.
See the problem is when people in their party came out about birth certificates and other such garbage they never once said it was BS. (im talking about the leaders of the party)
so now no one is gonna take them seriously. their fault.
I don't think the president had anything to do with any of this anyway



 
 

[Hixter]

we talk day and night about politics.

I'd go full Kaczynski and spend the rest of my days in a cabin in the wilderness if my friends wanted to talk about politics day in and day out.

[lost highway]

I'd go full Kaczynski and spend the rest of my days in a cabin in the wilderness if my friends wanted to talk about politics day in and day out.

 

Totally.  This place is a good outlet, but I couldn't think in those terms constantly.  The idea reminds me of some of my more tedious friends in college.

[uncool2pillow]

I've always loved a good political debate, but emphasis on good. Love hearing others' views. I tend to take the other side. Here, I'm fairly conservative, other place I get pretty liberal. I think it helps me sort out my own views and as a social studies teacher, I've got to do a good job of staying neutral. I once had a former student shocked to see me at some Republican event. Woulda sworn I was a lifelong dem.

[calvino]

As far as political discussion goes, my favorite segment is Brooks and Shields on Friday's PBS's NewsHour.

[KevinG]

oh please tell me where you guys get your higher level political discussion from?? I watch Brian Lamb too. Ive read all the Woodward books. any political books short of Beck and Limbaugh for that matter. Been to tons of live political happenings. just let me know what im not seeing. 

having lived in the district for most of the last 20 years or so my friends work on both sides of the hill and we talk day and night about politics.

 

I am an unabashed progressive and I agree with much of what you say, but I really wish there was just more thought put into it.  The level of the thought and discussion that you put into your posts here do not jibe with the knowledge you purport.  And I am just saying that, not to be mean or belittle, but your posts are just frustrating to read.  

 

But to get to the larger point here and I think it can be said with the utmost confidence that the following 5 things are true:

 

1.  There was no cover-up in Benghazi, it was more of a turf war between the State Dept and the CIA.  

 

2.  The IRS did not act on the orders of the Administration to target conservative groups, rather they used a method to find those 501©'s that were not "social welfare groups" but rather organizations set up for electing certain groups or people (which is not tax exempt.)  It was a stupid thing to do, but due to efficiency they had to weed out likely groups.  Yeah the IRS was profiling and it blew up in their faces, but you honestly think PBO told the IRS to go after these group, really?  That is just a foolish notion.    

 

3.  The AP thing is troubling, but the way I have overheard some conversations and listen to this described on Right Wing radio is incorrect.  The DOJ didn't just go and tap the AP's phone in some secret illegal clandestine action.  They did get the proper subpoenas and was legally in their right to do so, but I don't like the precedence it sets.  It was funny I went over to TheBlaze.com today and on the front page they had a story about the AP thing and another slamming the Obama Administration for another leak.  The conflicting message is amusing to me.  

 

4.  The Obama Administration has to have the worse PR team in history.

 

5.  These stories are going to go away with little or no consequence to the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton (and rightfully so).  By next week the media will be on to something else (winner of Powerball, shark attack, some other ginned up scandal, who knows).   

[calvino]

4.  The Obama Administration has to have the worse PR team in history.

 

Indeed! It's very frustrating.

[LouieB]

  

 

2.  The IRS did not act on the orders of the Administration to target conservative groups, rather they used a method to find those 501©'s that were not "social welfare groups" but rather organizations set up for electing certain groups or people (which is not tax exempt.)  It was a stupid thing to do, but due to efficiency they had to weed out likely groups.  Yeah the IRS was profiling and it blew up in their faces, but you honestly think PBO told the IRS to go after these group, really?  That is just a foolish notion.    

 

 

As someone who works for the government, this goes to my ongoing point that we want the government to do stuff unless we don't and then we blame them for not doing it well because government bureaus don't have the personal to get done what needs to be done.  The article about all this in the NY Times on Sunday was very illuminating.  The tax code created 501c(4) organizations and when there was a crush of applications the IRS couldn't keep up with the backlog and tried to take the easy way out by profiling some by name that might not have been eligible for a tax break.  Organizations on both the right and left got targeted.  But it seemed easier to pick out the right wing groups based on their names.  Stupid, sure. A huge scandal, probably not.  Do we really want groups who's main purpose is promoting candidates for elections to be tax exempt?  Of course the Citizens United decision doesn't help.  Do we want money to be speech, etc etc.  I don't have an answer, but ultimately some poor bureaucrat needs to try and figure out what to do with this type of mess and like any endeavor it is bound to get fucked up sometimes.

 

Loueib