ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [257] -- Wedgies For All!

[ Posted Friday, May 10th, 2013 – 16:25 PDT ]

Being a student of the political lexicon, I would like to propose a new definition for an old term -- a term we've all used since roughly the second grade. I refer, of course, to the "wedgie." For those who are astoundingly unaware of what this term literally means, I would refer you to your local second-grader (pick any boy age 7 or 8 and ask him... and after he rolls around the floor screaming with laughter for awhile, he'll explain and even demonstrate the "wedgie" for you, I'm sure). Ahem.

But I propose a new definition for the wedgie, one in the adult political realm which has nothing to do with underwear (to clarify: the definition has nothing to do with underwear -- the adult political realm often has all too much to do with underwear). My new proposed definition:

Wedgie: When a political party's "wedge" issue turns on them and instead of dividing the other party, begins to divide their own.

Usage: "Boy, the Republicans are really getting a giant wedgie on immigration, aren't they?"

You'll have to forgive my irreverence, but we've been waiting for this fight to be joined for a long time. The immigration bill was supposed to be debated in February, and has been slipping ever since, but we're now finally in the thick of it. Patrick Leahy's Senate committee is voting on proposed amendments to the bill, and they'll be doing so for weeks to come, because there are 300 of them so far (77 by Chuck Grassley alone!).

This has intensified the struggle within the Republican Party between the nativists and the realists who can read demographic data. More on that in a bit. But what's amusing is that the wedge has turned so quickly, in historic terms. Starting in the 1990s, Republicans have scapegoated Latinos mercilessly on the immigration issue, and have won many elections because they have successfully driven a wedge between Democratic voters (in the same way they used "tough on crime" in the 1980s).

Now, however, Latinos have truly come into their own as a political force in American politics, and Republicans are on the brink of losing this entire bloc for another generation or so. Which is why there's a comprehensive immigration bill even being discussed, right now. Unfortunately for those trying to drag the Republican Party into coming to some kind of terms with the new reality, there are still quite a few Republican politicians (and -- more importantly -- a whale of a lot of Republican primary voters) who are still echoing the old party line and will not budge one inch. Listen for the cries of "Amnesty!" to identify them.

And so the wedge turns. Republicans are giving themselves a wedgie. And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving group, could it?

To be scrupulously fair, however, we must also point out that Democrats have their own immigration wedgie in their near future. Sooner or later, an amendment will be proposed to allow gays to sponsor their spouses for immigration. This will be kind of a double-reverse wedgie, as two Democratic goals come into contention. But for this week, it's been mostly Republican-on-Republican infighting.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Senator Elizabeth Warren is making all kinds of sense with the first bill she's introduced as a senator. Here are the facts, in a nutshell. The federal government loans money to students for their education. The interest rate currently charged is 3.4%. If Congress doesn't act, this will go up to 6.8%. The federal government also loans money to large corporate banks. It charges them 0.75% interest. So why should students pay up to 800% more on their loans than giant Wall Street banks?

Senator Warren's bill would fix this disparity, by charging students the exact same rate as we charge the banks. Here's what she had to say about her bill: "As a country, every time we advance money to the big banks at low interest rates, we invest in those banks. We should be making at least that same kind of investment in our students."

This is exactly why Democrats across the land cheered Warren's victory in her Senate race. This is exactly the kind of thing we had all hoped for from Senator Warren. For making her very first bill such a commonsense measure, and for stripping away all the governmental nonsense to make a very salient point, we are happy to award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Senator Warren.

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts, and you can show support for her bill by becoming a citizen co-sponsor of the legislation.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Well, if we had a "Democrat Who Disappointed The Most Other Democrats" award to hand out, it would have to go to Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who did better in the vote than Obama (in the district) by five percent, but who also still lost a South Carolina special House race to Mark Sanford. Our only consolation is that we now will be able to make Sanford jokes for the next year and a half, my favorite so far being: "Mark Sanford (R-Appalachian Trail)."

Don't like that one? Feel free to make your own. The most historic joke about South Carolina was when it was notably described by one of its own sons as "too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum."

Kidding aside, we've got a pretty revolting Democrat in our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week category. The story starts nine years ago, when the mayor of Jersey City, Jerry Healy, got drunk and wound up naked on his front porch, where a photo was snapped of him, wallowing in his own crapulence. As if this weren't bad enough, this week Healy offered an explanation for how the photo happened which just defies comment:

A nude photo of Jersey City Mayor Jerry Healy that surfaced years ago is making headlines again following Healy's new explanation behind it. The photo, which shows Healy sitting naked on his front porch, was first published nine years ago. However, in a newspaper interview this weekend, Healy said a group of Hispanic girls drew his attention by making noise outside his home. Then, he said, they touched him and did "filthy" things.

It's rare that a story strikes us speechless here, but this one certainly qualifies. There's nothing in the way of chastisement which can even be offered up, as the story indeed speaks for itself. Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is the mildest way we can put our own feelings towards Healy, in fact.

[Contact Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy on his official city contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 257 (5/10/13)

There's a lot going on in the political world this week, so our talking points will be all over the map. I'm not going to talk about Benghazi, because Bob Cesca already wrote such an excellent article (which adds some much-needed perspective) that there's nothing really more for me to say on the subject.

I got a helpful suggestion a few weeks ago to shorten the talking points themselves, so I tried to do so, as an experiment. I didn't have much in the way of noticeable success, because some of these need some supporting info before getting to the real soundbite, but I did manage to trim a few of them down, so see what you think.

 

1
   Whoops, there goes another...

A monumental thing happened this week in both Rhode Island and Delaware. The same monumental thing may happen in Illinois next, or perhaps some other heartland state. And it's barely even national news, anymore. While some might be disappointed in this lack of attention, in itself this is actually very good news. The future is coming, folks, faster than many Republicans ever would have believed. And the public largely sees it as ho-hum and almost inevitable, at this point.

"This week, two state legislatures legalized gay marriage, and it barely made the news. That right there is a powerful statement -- it's becoming such a normal thing that even two states voting to legalize gay marriage in the same week barely raises an eyebrow."

 

2
   War On Women (continued...)

The Republicans just can't help themselves, it seems. The newest battleground in the War On Women is North Carolina, where a bill has been introduced to require a notarized statement from a minor's parent before any STD testing can occur. Boy, that'll solve the whole problem, right?

"I see that North Carolina Republicans want to require not just parental consent, but a notarized signature before a young person can even get tested for a sexually-transmitted disease. I fully expect to see skyrocketing numbers of STDs in North Carolina if Republicans pass this bill. No word yet on whether the teens would have to wear a scarlet letter in public..."

 

3
   Demote a general or two, and the problem will stop

A pretty horrifying report on sexual assaults in the military came out, mere days after the officer responsible for combating sexual assault in the Air Force was charged with sexually assaulting a woman. Fortunately, there's a very easy way to deal with the problem.

"The military has had years to address sexual assaults within their ranks, and they have utterly failed to do so. Instead of giving the chain of command over an accused soldier, sailor, or airman the power to overturn verdicts for those under their command, I've got a different idea. Let's take the entire legal process out of the hands of any commanders except judge advocates, let's make sexual assault a 'one strike and you automatically get a dishonorable discharge' offense, and for every conviction under any officer's direct command, place a black mark in that officer's record which will interfere with their future military career. Once an officer has five such black marks, automatically demote him or her one grade. I bet the problem would quickly be solved if officers were made responsible for their troops' actions."

 

4
   Heads should roll

I really hate it when I am forced to agree with Republicans, but on this one they're right. Imagine how the Left would feel if it had happened to their side.

"If the reports are true that IRS agents specifically singled out Tea Party groups for special scrutiny solely because they were Tea Party groups, then I would fully expect some heads to roll. Anyone responsible for doing such a thing should be fired on the spot, and any supervisor even aware of such activities should also be cashiered immediately. The IRS should not be used as a political weapon -- ever, by anyone, for any reason. Period."

 

5
   Sooner or later, they'll notice

I wrote about this yesterday after reading one lone story about the issue in the Washington Post. Sooner or later the chattering classes inside the Beltway will have to pick up on this idea, likely while noshing on finger food at a cocktail party.

"We've all been expecting a gigantic budgetary showdown over the debt ceiling, but a funny thing happened on the way to that fight -- the budget deficit seems to be getting a lot better. The numbers are so good, in fact, that the debt ceiling may not have to be raised at all until the next fiscal year. I know lots of people are still calling for brutal austerity measures, but it turns out such drastic action wasn't necessary."

 

6
   It's a think tank and a lobbying shop!

Yes, that subheading was indeed an ancient Saturday Night Live reference. Just to be clear. I've saved the final two talking points for the Republican immigration conundrum. This internecine warfare is going to get a lot more lively in the coming weeks, folks. So pop some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the spectacle!

"I see the Heritage Foundation is under fire, for getting a man who once wrote that Latinos have lower IQs than whites to write a report attempting to show how immigration reform is going to cost society eleventy-gazillion dollars. Or something, I confess I didn't bother to read it. Here are some other people's reactions to Heritage's report, though: 'deeply flawed' says Marco Rubio; not 'serious analysis' says Haley Barbour; 'too much activism... not enough thinking' says Bill Kristol. Former members of Heritage are actually more scathing, calling Heritage 'not really a think tank at all... just a lobbying organization,' and another alum who took his former employer to task: 'The pileup of outlandish Heritage estimates presents a credibility hurdle.' You'll note that each and every one of those quotes is from a Republican or a conservative, not even from Democrats or liberals."

 

7
   As long as they know their place, they can stay

This one is one of those "you just can't make this stuff up, folks" items. Or to put it another way (in a Monty Pythonesque "upper-class twit" accent, of course): "I say, Jeeves, can you pass me a serviette? My face seems to be covered with egg...."

"Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced an amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill which would exempt undocumented immigrants working as, quote, 'cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governesses, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, care-takers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use,' unquote, from prohibitions against 'unlawful employment.' Lee's office tried to explain by saying they didn't want to penalize anyone for giving twenty dollars to the kid down the street to mow the lawn. Funny, I've never heard anyone in a suburban neighborhood saying 'Hey, kid, you want to make twenty bucks? I need an extra footman.' Or valet. Or butler. Maybe things are different in Mike Lee's neighborhood in Utah, who knows? I guess the Downton Abbey set won't have to worry about pesky regulations when hiring 'the help' at substandard wages if Mike Lee has anything to say about it, eh?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

28 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [257] -- Wedgies For All!”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rare that a story strikes us speechless here, but this one certainly qualifies. There's nothing in the way of chastisement which can even be offered up, as the story indeed speaks for itself. Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is the mildest way we can put our own feelings towards Healy, in fact.

    Wouldn't these actions constitute a war on women AND a war on immigrants???

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    There's a lot going on in the political world this week, so our talking points will be all over the map. I'm not going to talk about Benghazi, because Bob Cesca already wrote such an excellent article (which adds some much-needed perspective) that there's nothing really more for me to say on the subject.

    Really??

    Ignoring for the moment that Cesca is a complete and utter political bigot and moron who couldn't debate a REAL knowledgeable opponent w/o resorting to dictatorial censorship, the simply fact is his trash is nothing but the old "Yea, but" defense...

    Did Bush lie to the American people over those attacks for almost 2 weeks solely and completely because of an up-coming election??

    No???

    Then those acts don't even come CLOSE to what Obama has pulled on Benghazi..

    Com'on!! Be FAIR here...

    If this debacle and it's total BS aftermath had occurred under a GOP administration, ya'all would be leading the call for blood..

    One only has to look at the circus that was the Iraq and 9/11 witch hunts to know that THIS is a fact...

    Obama, Clinton et al won't be able to hide from Benghazi..

    Ya'all claimed that nothing would ever come from Benghazi..

    I said ya'all were wrong...

    Looks like we're seeing who called it and who didn't...

    "This week, two state legislatures legalized gay marriage, and it barely made the news. That right there is a powerful statement -- it's becoming such a normal thing that even two states voting to legalize gay marriage in the same week barely raises an eyebrow."

    This is kinda like the old dig, "How can we miss ya if you never go away??"

    How can we accept gay as "normal" when every time something "gay" happens, it's treated as the second coming???

    The Republicans just can't help themselves, it seems. The newest battleground in the War On Women is North Carolina, where a bill has been introduced to require a notarized statement from a minor's parent before any STD testing can occur. Boy, that'll solve the whole problem, right?

    Yea.. Gods forbid we should actually do something that would get parents INVOLVED in their kids' lives...

    Better that kids enlist the help of the government against their own parents.

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong there, eh???

    "If the reports are true that IRS agents specifically singled out Tea Party groups for special scrutiny solely because they were Tea Party groups, then I would fully expect some heads to roll. Anyone responsible for doing such a thing should be fired on the spot, and any supervisor even aware of such activities should also be cashiered immediately. The IRS should not be used as a political weapon -- ever, by anyone, for any reason. Period."

    Oooorraaaaaaaa...

    I bet NO Weigantian will chime in and agree with this one...

    But you call it dead on ballz accurate, CW..

    This is wrong no matter what..

    But the vast majority of the Left will look at this as perfectly justified. Republicans are evil, after all. They deserve what they get...

    That's why I like it here.. By and large with you CW, politics takes a back seat to the right thing...

    I wish your attitude wore off on others of the Left..

    This country would be a LOT better off if it did...

    We'll see how many Weigantians chime in with #4...

    I bet ONE.... POSSIBLY two...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    LewDan wrote:

    CW,

    Wedgie?!

    lol I love it!!

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I notice you didn't contradict any of Cesca's facts. So much for that "no attacks on American soil under Bush (after the big one on 9/11)" line, eh?

    Yea.. Gods forbid we should actually do something that would get parents INVOLVED in their kids' lives...

    Better that kids enlist the help of the government against their own parents.

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong there, eh???

    So, you're saying that the government should FORCE parents to be involved with their kids? Um, yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea, either.

    Kids have sex. You can either pretend that that's not true, or deal with it in productive ways. Forcing a notarized signature is not a productive way, unless you consider hiking STD rates among teens "productive" in any way.

    LewDan -

    Yeah, I even crack myself up at times...

    Heh.

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I'm interested... what do you think of the feasibility of #3? One strike/DD? Bump a general one grade lower? Do tell, I'd be interested to hear your take on these suggestions...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I notice you didn't contradict any of Cesca's facts. So much for that "no attacks on American soil under Bush (after the big one on 9/11)" line, eh?

    Of course I haven't..

    That's because A> I haven't had the time to research them. I am sure they are all blown out of proportion in an attempt to make them seem comparable to Benghazi and B> they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the Benghazi situation..

    Did Bush, in those instances, lie to the American people in an attempt to sway an election??

    No..

    Ergo, NONE OF THOSE instances, even if they DID occur as stated, are relevant to Obama's bonehead moves on Benghazi..

    If you like me to research those incidents and see if they actually compare to Benghazi, I'll be happy to do so.

    But it's ancillary and not relevant to the main point..

    So, you're saying that the government should FORCE parents to be involved with their kids? Um, yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea, either.

    Nope, not what I am saying at all..

    But I think you would agree that giving kids wedge issues to use against their parents is the worst of a whole slew of bad ideas...

    Kids have sex. You can either pretend that that's not true, or deal with it in productive ways.

    Interesting choice of words.. :D

    I'm interested... what do you think of the feasibility of #3? One strike/DD? Bump a general one grade lower? Do tell, I'd be interested to hear your take on these suggestions...

    Well, let me clear up a few myths right now..

    Any General officer caught in such positions, their career is over. If they have risen to General rank, then it's likely they're lifers so, when their career is over, their lives are over as well..

    Taking the legal system out of the hands of commanding officers is a bonehead move. It is trying to civilian-ize the military.

    We can only guess what would happen if the government tried to militarize the civilian legal system...

    Oh wait, we don't HAVE to guess. We know EXACTLY what happened. Democrats and the Left went apeshit...

    Commanding officers make decisions such as those based on ONE consideration and one consideration only.

    The needs of the service..

    Political considerations should NEVER become part of those deliberations.

    You can't run a military by committee...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know what amazes me about the whole IRS targeting Conservatives issue??

    That someone in the IRS actually ADMITTED it!!

    Wonder what brought that all about...

    Iddn't it funny that NO ONE in the Leftiest blogosphere is commenting on how the IRS targeted conservative groups??

    CW.COM is the ONLY place I have seen them called out on it..

    Which is why CW.COM is THE premier political site in the world.. :D

    Now, pardon me while I rub this brown stuff off my nose..

    I have ta say, it's a bad time to be a Democrat/Leftie these days.. :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The one thing that is hilarious about the IRS scandal is that, once again, Obama blames BUSH for it!!! :D

    It's amazing how NOTHING is ever Obama's fault..

    It's always "Bush's fault"....

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ignoring for the moment that Cesca is a complete and utter political bigot and moron who couldn't debate a REAL knowledgeable opponent w/o resorting to dictatorial censorship, the simply fact is his trash is nothing but the old "Yea, but" defense...

    OK, that was un-called for..

    Cesca IS a political bigot. Of that there is no doubt..

    But it was uncalled for to refer to him as a "moron"...

    Personal attacks should NEVER be part of debates or discussions.

    If he reads here, he has my sincerest apologies...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    db wrote:

    Chris,

    Reluctant to say this out loud, but among friends,

    As I understand it the IRS was targeting Tea Party, Non-Profit Organizations. I have seen almost nothing on this & I'm chalking it up to the "media" can't get a legal issue right.

    Non-profits are not allowed to engage in politics. This makes sense. We're using tax payer funds to support those organizations (by not having them pay taxes otherwise due) The causes ought to be those generally agreed upon, feeding homeless, fighting cancer, battered women, you name it. Politics is a divisive issue & we generally split on the issue. Most recently fairly closely 52% vs 48%. So no non-profit politics.

    But the Tea Party is a political group. Its' purpose is politics. So when a Tea Party group claims non-profit status; there's a problem.

    So the IRS is well within its' mandate, & in fact should, target Tea Party Organizations to insure they comply with & conform to non-profit requirements.

    All of which you can't say out loud.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the IRS is well within its' mandate, & in fact should, target Tea Party Organizations to insure they comply with & conform to non-profit requirements.

    The IRS targeted ONLY Tea-Party groups..

    If the IRS had targeted groups based on non-profit requirements, you would have a case..

    But they didn't so you don't..

    The IRS targeted the groups that had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in it's name...

    That is as wrong as wrong can be, no matter HOW ya spin it..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Consider how ya'all would react if, under Bush, the IRS targeted Groups that had "Progressive" or "Liberal" in it..

    Ya'all would go ape-shit...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:
  13. [13] 
    db wrote:

    Michale, #10 et. seq.

    You miss the point.

    "The IRS targeted ONLY Tea-Party groups..
    If the IRS had targeted groups based on non-profit requirements, you would have a case.."

    The IRS is targeting groups that are both "Tea Party" AND non-profit.That is the key fact that most news services ignore. Since "Tea Party" is essentially political and non-profit status precludes political activity; the scrutiny seems warranted.

    I'd like to think that I'd approve of the Bush Administration going after tax cheats; regardless of political affiliation.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the response to date from #4.....?????

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    {{{yaaaawwwwnnnnnn}}}

    I wish I could say I was surprised...

    Sadly, I am not...

    I can't wait til we have a GOP Administration and the IRS starts targeting groups that have "Progressive" or "Liberal" about them...

    THEN we can compare and contrast the reactions from the so-called "enlightened" Left...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks to the #ACA, 1 in 3 women under 65 gained access to preventive care—like birth control—with no out-of-pocket costs. #HappyMothersDay
    -Obama Tweet...

    So, let me see if I understand this...

    Obama is wishing every mother a "Happy Mother's Day" and is telling them they get free shit that will PREVENT them from being mothers.....

    Did I sum that up right???

    W.T.F. passes for LOGIC amongst the Left these days??

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maureen Dowd sums up the Obama White House's reaction to Benghazi perfectly..

    "It's not true. It's not true. It's not true. It's not true....... It's old news"

    Even Obama's stalwart allies in the MSM are being forced to cover Benghazi and ask, "What's going on here??"

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0

    On a more happy note.... I'll be leaving the country for a while tomorrow... So ya'all will likely have a week or so to show that Weigantia is NOT a ghost town when I am not posting..

    Sorry if that comes out as egotistical but it seems whenever I take a break from here, the only sound around here is the tumbleweeds blowing..

    It sure would be nice if people could support CW.COM w/o having me to kick around, eh?? :D

    I'm just saying...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW,

    A few details that seem to be missing from all of the IRS/Tea Party conspiracy stories.

    1. The Commissioner of the IRS at the time was George Shulman, a Bush appointee

    2. Who discovered this "targeting" and reported it? Looks like it was the IRS.

    3. What additional questions did they ask these Tea Party groups?

    I bring up #1 to diffuse any conspiracy theories about Obama calling the IRS to "target" the Tea Party. This is ridiculous.

    I bring up #2 because it seems like the IRS figured out they made a mistake and then raised the issue themselves. Not exactly the trademarks of a conspiracy.

    I bring up #3 because according to the IRS, they weren't actually "targeted" because of their political bias, but were trying to streamline their work.

    If the IRS was actually "targeting" conservative groups, this is wrong.

    But it looks more like some low-level officials screwed up and then tried to hide it because they feared a backlash.

    Now let's look at the Tea Party spin:

    "What would Democrats have done if the Nixon administration ordered the IRS to actively target the National Organization of Women or the American Civil Liberties Union? Nixon had his own enemies list and resigned. These activities are eerily similar, and yet Obama remains in office even in light of Fast and Furious, the Benghazi tragedy, and now the active targeting of his political opposition."

    Only problem is ... all the evidence points to a low-level boondoggle.

    There's no evidence of any Obama enemies list or Obama orders to the IRS.

    If we had a better media or a "liberal" media, they would be asking these questions and not fueling the rampant conspiracy theories.

    -David

  18. [18] 
    db wrote:

    Chris,

    Would it be arrogant to point out that "Mr. Brink" over a Bob Cesca's site at 7:56 posted an article rather splitting the difference between David & me.
    David,

    I remain convinced that this was a 501c3 issue. & the "Tea Party's" professed & actual political activities made the possibilities of misuse & fraud likely.

    In so far as that disagrees with your analysis.

    Michale:

    Read my last paragraph from quarter of 3 yesterday. Or more plainly: Tax fraud is tax fraud regardless of the perpetrator. You're going to respond: NPR & I'm going to point out that NPR does not engage in political activities. You are going to say they do & I'm going to respond that not jumping on the RW bandwagon is not engaging in politics.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. The Commissioner of the IRS at the time was George Shulman, a Bush appointee

    So..... It's Bush's fault!

    Gotcha :D

    2. Who discovered this "targeting" and reported it? Looks like it was the IRS.

    And that makes it OK???

    3. What additional questions did they ask these Tea Party groups?

    Who their donors are, which the IRS admits they had NO RIGHT nor cause to ask..

    But it looks more like some low-level officials screwed up and then tried to hide it because they feared a backlash.

    And, of course, you would think the same if it was "Progressive" or "Liberal" groups that were targeted during the Bush re-election of 2004, right??

    Pardon me, but I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night..

    This is pure, blatant political/ideological targeting..

    Nothing less...

    There's no evidence of any Obama enemies list or Obama orders to the IRS.

    The fact that it was done under Obama is sufficient..

    The buck stops there, in case you forget..

    Just as the buck would have stopped there if it had happened under the Bush administration..

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Read my last paragraph from quarter of 3 yesterday. Or more plainly: Tax fraud is tax fraud regardless of the perpetrator. You're going to respond: NPR & I'm going to point out that NPR does not engage in political activities. You are going to say they do & I'm going to respond that not jumping on the RW bandwagon is not engaging in politics.

    If "tax fraud is tax fraud" why did Obama's IRS only look for "fraud" amongst groups that were unfriendly to Obama???

    That's not looking for tax fraud..

    That's employing an enemies list..

    Now, if you want to make the case that ONLY groups unfriendly to Obama are capable of fraud, that all the Pro Obama groups are as pure as the driven snow, then by all means..

    Make that case..

    But, please.. Come with facts...

    Because the FACTS we have in the here and now are that Obama's IRS targeted conservative groups.

    PERIOD...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    DB

    IRS targeted groups that criticized the government, IG report says
    washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/12/irs-targeted-groups-that-criticized-the-government-ig-report-says/

    Wider Problems Found at IRS
    Probe Says Tax Agency Used Sweeping Criteria to Scrutinize Conservative Groups

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

    You were saying something about only fraud was investigated??

    Amazing how ONLY conservative groups and those groups unfriendly to Obama were investigated..

    Jeezus, people..

    They jackass hails from and earned his political chops in CHICAGO!!!

    Why is it so hard to believe that he is NOT as pure as the driven snow as ya'all make him out to be???

    Are ya'all so blinded by Left/Right partisan BS that you can't step back and view things OBJECTIVELY, as CW has done???

    I mean, com'on!!

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    2. Who discovered this "targeting" and reported it? Looks like it was the IRS.

    ANYTHING to distract the American people from Benghazi..

    Looks like it was a moronic call..

    NOW, the people are not only pissed about the incompetence of Benghazi, NOW they are also pissed about Obama's Enemies List...

    Good call!!! :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it looks more like some low-level officials screwed up and then tried to hide it because they feared a backlash.

    Really???

    The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups.

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Previous Presidents, including great ones like Roosevelt, have used the IRS against their enemies. But I don’t think Barack Obama ever wanted to be on the same page as Richard Nixon. In this specific case, he now is.
    -Joe Klein

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny how no one here condemned the IRS actions..

    Everyone (sans our host) immediately leapt to Obama's defense...

    Funny how that is, eh??

    The phrase "Me thinks thou doth protest TOO much" comes to mind..

    :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    db wrote:

    Michale,

    To get to the point.

    1. Tax exempt status forbids certain political activity.
    2. Misuse of tax-exempt status is fraud.
    3. The IRS is tasked with investigating misuse of tax-exempt status.
    4. Since 2009 "Tea Party", "Patriot", and "Constitution" groups have been formed with the express & implied purpose of attacking President Obama &/or his policies.
    5. Such groups may not be entitled to tax-exempt status.

    So why, Michale, do you object to investigation to insure that groups claiming tax-exempt status are in fact, entitled to it?

    For me, this is (yet another) example of Breibarting. The Post & WSJ articles you cite only reinforce my opinion that the MSM is missing the key issue here.

    Which is tax-exempt status.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    So why, Michale, do you object to investigation to insure that groups claiming tax-exempt status are in fact, entitled to it?

    Simple..

    *ONLY* Conservative groups were targeted..

    Put another way..

    Would you have a problem with a GOP Administration's IRS targeting black groups or hispanic groups for extra scrutiny??

    Damn skippy you would..

    So, you would have a problem with the IRS targeting groups based on race, but you have NO problem with the IRS targeting groups based on political ideology..

    Could you explain the "logic" of such an attitude because it escapes me...

    4. Since 2009 "Tea Party", "Patriot", and "Constitution" groups have been formed with the express & implied purpose of attacking President Obama &/or his policies.

    You are in error..

    The Tea Party was formed to protest excesses in the government. Tea Party has attacked GOP policies nearly as many times as it attacked Democrat policies..

    EVEN if what you say is true (which it isn't) that doesn't give Obama's IRS license to target those groups.

    Do you have evidence that the IRS targeted groups with "progressive" or "liberal" associated with them??

    If you had such evidence, then you would have a case.

    But you don't, so you don't...

    For me, this is (yet another) example of Breibarting. The Post & WSJ articles you cite only reinforce my opinion that the MSM is missing the key issue here.

    Which is tax-exempt status.

    No, the key issue is Obama's IRS targeting groups based on political ideology..

    THAT is as wrong as the IRS targeting groups based on racial ideology..

    If you could remove your ideological blinders, you would *have* to concede that I am right here..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    As more comes out about this, it doesn't look good. I haven't seen a good explanation of why these groups were questioned and some folks need to be held accountable.

    My only point is:

    1) It's very difficult to separate political attacks from actual issues in the conservative media given their tactics

    2) Conservatives still appear to be conspiracy-hyping this as much more than it actually was.

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]