Senate The 2nd Term of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions, and Discussions

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Treasury officials were told of the investigation by the IG as early as June 2012.

    Yet they said nothing until it broke a week ago in a Q&A Session.
  2. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    I'm well aware of what happened in Watergate. All The President's Men is a great book! But so far there is nothing resembling a Nixon-style involvement in the IRS scandal. Again, you're getting way ahead of yourself in your excitement to impeach Obama.
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, May 17, 2013
  3. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    It wasn't Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break-in, but the cover up that doomed his presidency. So in your rush to say "this isn't as bad as Watergate!", remember it wasn't about the break-in itself, but what happened in response to it by the President.

    We will see how this president handles it.
    Last edited by ShaneP, May 17, 2013
  4. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    Because the investigation was ongoing.
  5. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Yes, I'm well aware. I did not say break-in...that was you.
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, May 17, 2013
  6. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Speaking of the Obama admin, their new Energy secretary's hair............yeah, only a crazy smart guy like him could get away with rocking that 18th-century powdered wig-ish style. That is the king of all comb overs.
  7. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Then how do you know it isn't as bad as Watergate then if his response to this whole thing is still ongoing? And to think Clinton was impeached over what is--is. That's chump change.
    Last edited by ShaneP, May 17, 2013
  8. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Because, contrary to the Republicans' belief in conspiracies, not everything turns out to be a Watergate-sized cover up.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  9. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Yeah but you're jumping to conclusions as they are in your rush to spin this as "no big deal". Why don't you just sit back and see what happens of rushing out saying "this isn't that big of a scandal!"? Makes you sound the polar opposite of the wing nut...a left nut.
    Last edited by ShaneP, May 17, 2013
  10. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Wrong. What Romney said about Benghazi was false, hence the moderator smackdown. Once again, this isn't a matter of opinion. It's not my word against someone else's word. Obama's comments the day after on national television were videotaped and reported by the media. At this point they are part of the historical record. Anyone can inspect them for themselves. You can't throw out facts just because they get in the way of your agenda.

    "When you wish upon a star..."
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, May 17, 2013
    shinjo_jedi likes this.
  11. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    I'm not saying it's "no big deal" - I said it's the only one of the 3 issues that has any merit. But I said it's a non-story if Obama was not involved, which we know he wasn't involved in the initial probing and it appears (I think) he isn't involved in some conspiracy cover-up. They're also comparing it to Iran-Contra, which Reagan was directly responsible for.

    I just think it's nauseating that Republicans are screaming for impeachment and comparing it to Iran-Contra and Watergate before we even know anything. And I also said that, contrary to conventional wisdom in the GOP, not every wrongdoing is the size and depth of Watergate.
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, May 17, 2013
  12. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    No, that part I agree is transparent on their part. They do themselves no favors in their rush to jump to conclusions. Undercuts and can obfuscate real-wrongdoing. Making it all about Obama so soon could actually keep the real facts from being discovered if the GOP tries and realizes "oh this didn't stick! Onto the next one!".

    It was like Rove with his stupid ad last week about Benghazi. Can he just go away already? I don't like Bill Kristol either but he was right to criticize Rove for that ad.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  13. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    That's all the GOP's been doing since Obama was elected in 2008. Why should we expect them to change? They're just a bunch of right-wing Chavistas.
  14. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Neither wing has changed. They're both playing games.
  15. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    We agree! I posted in a couple of pages ago, but Krauthammer says the same thing. He (contrary to my opinion) thinks Benghazi is a huge deal, but they're not going to get anywhere by releasing attack ads at Hillary and comparing it to Watergate/Iran-Contra before the facts are in. As he said, let the committee investigate and use the facts to bring down Obama. But they're sabotaging their own efforts, I think. PPP had a poll that showed Independents don't think there was any wrongdoing and are tired of Benghazi (but are angry over the IRS probe) which is usually a good way to tell if you're on the right path or not...
  16. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    See Shinjo, during prior discussions, you asked for examples for what I was illustrating within them. This is a perfect example. No where did Shane mention anything about impeaching the President, let alone being "excited" about the prospect. But yet again, it appears as though you simply break people down into being either for or against Obama, and by default, continuing the republican vs democrat "battle." In a nutshell, you never seem to actually address what is being discussed, choosing to default to a "don't criticize the President, it's really the GOP's fault" form of response. But one can discuss things without being concerned over upholding one party over the other.

    Because I think Shane's point about how things are handled is very appropriate, because so far, Obama is coming off as being a complete jerk. I think at least 50% of the continuation of these scandals is because of the administration's mishandling of them beyond the initial story. For the past week, this has been how any press conference has gone:

    Jay Carney- "The President doesn't know anything about what is going on, nor was he a part of it..."
    Any of numerous reporters- "Which story are you referring to?"
    Jay Carney- "Any and all of them which has the potential to look bad.."
    -collective eye roll of the various reporters, who then dig deeper...

    It doesn't help matters that Carney just gave a speech which said his office was actually having a good week, because that comes off as being in denial, and now there's the interview from yesterday where Obama himself indicated he is fed up with all the tough questions, and that he wishes he could "go Bullworth" on the press, which comes off as arrogant:

    ONSET OF WOES

    I mean, how dare the press actually hold him to scandal for the first time in his political career, instead of just running stories about where he has his suits made. The nerve... The point is that it is going to matter how the administration reacts to these ongoing topics, because arrogance coupled with a lack of accountability is what drives people onward to find the smoking gun and at least seek out the blame. Moreso that perhaps the actual scandals, and certainly more than if the executive owned up to them. So far, Obama has both of these in spades, ala Nixon.These are still ongoing, and it's not too late in the least, but the President is going to have to do something or he is going to end up with a stagnant, distracted second term at best, vs having to be subject to some sort of administration damning revelation/result at worst.
  17. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    It seems like a classic means, motive and opportunity problem. Is it conceivable that the executive branch would seek to address, through covert means, some of the really serious problems created by Citizens United as well as contain the political damage that Citizens United might do if democratic candidates were faced with an endless supply of secret donor organizations funneling money against them? Would the IRS take this problem on by itself if not directed to do so or supported in the effort by political operatives in the executive branch? Personally, I don't completely understand the IRS's alleged motives for going it alone.
    Last edited by Jabbadabbado, May 17, 2013
  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Personally, at least with the IRS scandal, I think its a classic case of hero worship, or what happens when the line of celebrity blurs the line of politics. I don't think Obama had any knowledge of the improper IRS scrutiny. However, I think that Sarah Ingram had everything to do with it. Not on any direct orders from the President, but out of an extreme sense of loyalty and misguided revenge syndrome.

    However, Obama's current perception problem with this is because he hasn't yet addressed the root causes of the IRS issue. Sure, he accepted Steve Miller's resignation, but Miller's interim contract was up in June anyway. It's not much of a consequence, nor does it send a strong message, to accept the resignation of anyone who only has 3 weeks left in their job. Again, the President moved Ingram from overseeing the IRS's non-profit review section-that is the very same division in the middle of the scandal- to putting her in charge of the IRS's Affordable Care Audit section, which would seem to be the last thing that should happen. In essence, the administration itself linked the 2 most controversial items that the opposition party is concerned about. It's still early, but Obama would increase his standing in my eyes at least if he actually held those accountable in a meaningful sense. I suppose in a strange way, this could be part of a plan that would force a showdown, but realistically, I see it as a serious miscalculation that is going to need to be addressed.
  19. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I find the suggestion that Obama micromanages the behavior of the Cincinatti IRS office to be flat-out barking insane.
  20. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    For once, I'm glad Va's Governor's race seems to be kicking into full - swing, because I've seen ads for that race, but thankfully none of the Hilary attack ads.
  21. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Because the Inspector General already issued a formal report on the issue, and his office is completely independent in its oversight of the IRS?

    There's never been any evidence that there was influence from outside the IRS on this issue.

    One can always raise the possibility that that's not actually what happened. But there's simply no evidence of any kind to support that, and thus no reason to think it except the fact that you so desperately want it to be true. One might similarly opine that it's always still possible that the world is flat, or that 9/11 was a false flag attack organized by the CIA, or that no human beings have ever been to the moon after the fall of the space-faring people of Atlantis.
    Arawn_Fenn likes this.
  22. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Also, for the record, Nixon was directly involved in the criminal activity of Watergate (not the break-in, but stuff around it). Not just the cover up.

    Carl Bernstein this week said that the IRS scandal shouldn't compared to Watergate (from what we know). He said “In the Nixon White House, we heard the president of the United States on tape saying ‘Use the IRS to get back on our enemies ... We know a lot about President Obama, and I think the idea that he would want the IRS used for retribution — we have no evidence of any such thing."
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, May 17, 2013
  23. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Sure, except that's not the claim and it's not realistic. What is flat-out barking insane is the suggestion that low level Cincinatti employees would take this upon themselves because they wouldn't have the authority on their own. The paper trail goes like this. Obama, as President-any President- appointed the acting director of the IRS. The acting director then oversaw the non-profit appeal section (which has a section chief) which controlled which groups/ 501(4)(c)'s were given extra scrutiny by the IRS. Almost exclusively, the appeal section flagged conservative-themed 501's simply based on politics, not on set criteria. (which is why it's a scandal.) Worst case, the appeals section chief and/or IRS director gave the direct order to do so. Best case, the section chief and/or IRS director ignored what was going on, which is only slightly less damaging. So it has to be determined at what level it stops at. It's not going to be Obama, but there's a saying that says "the buck stops with the President," as it falls to the head of the executive to make things right.

    Where Obama did screw up is that he moved the non-profit section chief from there, over to leading the IRS division which is going to handle "Obamacare" compliance. So, the head of the very section which is under fire for being solely partisan is now going to lead the section which decides which organizations are in compliance with the affordable care act, and which get fined by the IRS.

    It's kind of like coming upon a house fire and throwing gasoline on it in an attempt to put it out.
    Last edited by Mr44, May 17, 2013
  24. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Evidence. Facts. Reality.

    A Republican knows not these things.
  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    What exactly is Bernstein trying to say though? Unless I'm forgetting large swaths of Watergate history, I don't think Nixon himself was ever directly tied to the break-in or or ordering the same. I guess it depends on what "stuff around it means." IIRC, the highest it went was Nixon's Attorney General, who controlled the "slush fund" of money given to the famous Watergate players. Nixon's role was limited to after the fact involving the cover-up and trying to use CIA/government resources to hide the events that occurred. Nixon resigned not because he was directly tied to the break-in, but because he lied to Congress regarding his role in the cover-up and when he found out what happened.