Remember the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups?? Remember how the IRS Official took the Fifth???

Turns out there is a reason why she took the Fifth..

Newly released emails show that Lois G. Lerner, the woman at the center of the IRS scandal over special scrutiny of conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, specifically targeted tea party applications and directed they be held up in 2011 in order to come up with an agency policy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/emails-ois-lerner-specifically-targeted-tea-party/#ixzz2ehvCZwqA

She was hip deep in it..

It's amazing that there is no outcry from the Left..

Oh, that's right.. Can't go against the Exalted One, the Great And Powerful Emperor Barack The First....

I will check the article out, I do have access to JSTOR, thanks. Polling on support for anything is tricky, because "I don't like it" can mean "the current policy doesn't go far enough" or it can mean "the current policy goes too far." The questions asked are indeed crucial.

Speak2 -

Hoo boy. There's a can of worms.

The actions of the GOP are just laughable -- "Obamacare will be a train wreck... but, just to be sure, we're putting some dynamite on the rails." They just don't have the courage of their own convictions -- they are terrified that Obamacare WILL work, in fact (a subject I addressed months ago).

I don't think federalizing the navigators is a politically feasable option (don't know about legally feasible, but it'd be a stretch, I would guess).

I'm sure this is a short-term problem, however it plays out. Once the exchanges get up and running, the GOP is going to have to shift tactics somehow. My guess is that within a year, they'll be bragging about how they "fixed" Obamacare, which is why it's working so well. Don't believe me? I refer you to Paul Ryan saying "Obama is stealing $715 billion from Medicare!" on the campaign trail... after using the same savings in HIS OWN BUDGET.

2014... the year the GOP tries to rename "Obamacare" as "GOPcare"... watch for it...

Heh.

-CW

All of Weigantia cheered Obama for this...

Consumer agency threatens independence of bankruptcy office
Serious allegations are being raised in the legal community that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recruited the U.S. Trustee Program to collect bankruptcy data on its behalf to aid a controversial data-mining program.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2535482

To paraphrase Toby Keith...

"HOW DO YOU LIKE {IT} NOW???"

Actually, the point is that WE draw the line or someone else does...

As has happened with Syria...

Now the US is dancing to Russia's tune...

Iddn't it funny how Administration officials are falling all over themselves to claim that Obama can strike Syria w/o US or UN authorization..

It's funny because those SAME officials fell all over themselves to claim JUST the opposite when the POTUS had a '-R' after his name...

The hypocrisy is BLINDING.....

Michale

Since the GOP is attempting to obstruct the Health Care Navigators, both in Congress and in some of the States, could the DOJ "deputize" individual navigators?

Doing so would essentially make them immune to state laws and regulations requiring them to get state licenses and the like. It would also make them immune to lawbreaking charges based on recently passed laws in several states. It would also put them under the feds, allowing the DOJ to respond to all Congressional attempts at investigating or harassing the navigator's employer groups.

The rationale for deputizing would be something along the lines of "they are being charged with carrying out the ACA, which is the Law of the Land," and thus, within the authority of the administration and the DOJ to deputize.

Au Contraire....

What IS it about our leaders that they just CAN'T stop giving bone-headed and totally moronic ultimatums..

Kerry said that Assad can avoid American air strkes by giving up his CWMDs...

The State Dept IMMEDIATELY walked that statement back, dismissing it as diplomatic rhetoric...

Of course, now Putin has jumped on the "offer" and used it to further obfuscate the situation..

Great job, Lurch....

Jeeezus, it's amateur hour in the Obama Administration....

Michale

I really don't have a problem with Grayson per se...

I jut think it's hilarious how ya'all think that he is the cat's meow for opposing Obama's actions, yet ya'all totally support Obama when he commits the actions that Grayson is opposing..

Could you explain that. Because the logic (such as it is) sure escapes me..

Once again, I ask you to consider what your reaction would have been if, back in 2006, I had told you that in 7 short years, you would be utterly and unequivocally supporting a POTUS who had assassinated American citizens w/o due process, had engaged in torture and rendition and had expanded domestic wire-tapping and surveillance to unprecedented heights.

You would have told me that I am nucking futz...

And yet....

Here we are... :D

First, this is a minefield. I mean I knew that, but a simple google search will have you stumbling over positions ranging from "Vietnam was a war crime!" to "We won the Vietnam war!" It's basically the original flame war not to belittle the debate (or to de-emphasize it's dug in craziness)

So I go off the internet and went to JSTOR which is an online repository of academic journals. There I found this:

The Western Political Quarterly Vol. 32, No. 1, Mar., 1979 American Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam William L. Lunch and Peter W. Sperlich
(you should be able to find the original)

Now this is an historical article that breaks down opinion polls from the Vietnam War. He also addresses the Gallup poll which I talked about above. Basically the Gallup poll isn't very useful, because it doesn't ask about actual policy. When you do ask about policy that simple, mistake not a mistake, dynamic can be re-calibrated in terms of what to actually do about the Vietnam war.

This is what I think I was remembering. If you categorize anti-war protesters as those who favor immediate withdrawal, then that doesn't gain favor until the tail end of the war in the 70s (You are right Chris, sorry to get all, someone is wrong on the internet!) but just because you thought the war was a mistake, doesn't mean you oppose the war, it meant that you thought the war was being waged in the wrong way, and that maybe the way to correct the war was to escalate.

Further I'm pretty sure I conflated anti-war sentiment with the anti-war protesters, the sentiment was undeniable by 1972-3, but war protesters were always a minority group. That's pretty much undeniable. Also if one looks at the period between 1967 and 1969 there is definitely a majority pro-war sentiment, albeit rapidly declining.

Now as far as demographic information goes, this article does not support my assertion. (ugh, being wrong in public) but it is interesting in what it does assert. Here are its breakdowns, war supporters tended to be younger, white, male and middle class, the opposition tended to be older, black, female, and lower class. So I was right in that draft eligible people supported the war, but according to this article, my blue collar assertion is bunk.

So I'm not done just yet, this article is the most reliable piece of information I've found so far, but it's thirty-four years old. Not exactly up to date (More research required essentially). But I would hope that it shows that the Vietnam situation and the current situation is far more nuanced than at first glance.

Also I would hope that this shows the Schrodinger's Cat problem of polling. How a poll frames the question inherently frames the debate and the result of the poll. Which is inherently fascinating when one considers that the rationale for most political actions is polling data.

I would be interested in seeing that, as my impression was that by the end of the Vietnam War, the American people were just as war-weary as they seem to be now.

Maybe you're thinking of polls taken earlier in the war? It wasn't until the very end that the tide of public opinion truly shifted in a major way...

-CW

Actually, this time, he "pre-bleated." I do wish he'd use better shorthand, as I keep thinking "Eric Holder" when he says "AG"...

Heh.

:-)

-CW

This is mainly irrelevant these days, as the historical narrative of the period has been set. But it's incredibly interesting (in my opinion), to dig past that a bit and look at the facts that challenge those narratives.