I meant to post this over the weekend, but the question still bears examining, I think.
Late last week, Andrew Sullivan wrote the following, under the headline, “The ‘Scandals’ Go Up In Smoke:”
There was always something desperate about them: an attempt somehow, after five years of remarkably scandal-free governance, to try once again and prove Michelle Malkin’s fantasies (and Peggy Noonan’s feelings) correct. Darrell Issa was the perfect charlatan for the purpose; and Roger Ailes desperately needed a new narrative in the post-election doldrums. But there really was no there there … and you can feel the air escaping from the hysteria balloons…
Here’s an excerpt from the Jonathan Chait piece that inspired him:
Do you remember how all-consuming the “Obama scandals” once were? This was a turn of events so dramatic it defined Obama’s entire second term — he was “waylaid by controversies,” or at least “seriously off track,” “beset by scandals,” enduring a “second-term curse,” the prospect of “endless scandals,” Republicans “beginning to write his legislative obituary,” and Washington had “turned on Obama.” A ritualistic media grilling of Jay Carney, featuring the ritualistic comparisons of him to Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler, sanctified the impression of guilt.
It has come and gone, having left barely a trace. To be sure, the Obama scandals live on in the conservative world, where the evidence of deep corruption and venality grows stronger and stronger. But that is merely the confirmation of suspicions of “Chicago politics,” ACORN and so on, that predate recent events and don’t require any particular facts to survive…
Not one to sit still for that, Peggy Noonan responded:
‘Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet,” read the New York Times headline. “Dem: ‘Progressive’ Groups Were Also Targeted by IRS,” said U.S. News. The scandal has “evaporated into thin air,” bayed the excitable Andrew Sullivan. A breathlessly exonerative narrative swept the news media this week: that liberal groups had been singled out and, by implication, abused by the IRS, just as conservative groups had been. Therefore, the scandal wasn’t a scandal but a mere bungle—a nonpolitical series of unhelpful but innocent mistakes.
The problem with this story is that liberals were not caught in the IRS dragnet. Progressive groups were not targeted.
The claim that they had been rested mostly on an unclear, undated, highly redacted and not at all dispositive few pages from a “historical” BOLO (“be on the lookout”) list that apparently wasn’t even in use between May 2010 and May 2012, when most of the IRS harassment of conservative groups occurred.
The case isn’t closed, no matter how many people try to slam it shut….
But the truth is, I haven’t heard much lately about the IRS thing, or Benghazi. And the “scandal” that Edward Snowden supposedly revealed never was a scandal, and his own saga has become the kind of farce that reminds us of Father Drobney, who has been hiding in an embassy for years in Woody Allen’s play, “Don’t Drink the Water.”
But according to Ms. Noonan, this is all a matter of the liberal media trying to wish the scandals away. She gets particularly indignant about the IRS one:
No one has gotten near the bottom of this scandal. Journalists shouldn’t be trying to make the story disappear. The revenue-gathering arm of the federal government appears to be politically biased, corrupt in its actions, and unable to reform itself.
The only way to make that story go away is to get to the bottom of it and fully reveal it. It’s not a bungle, it’s a scandal.
What do y’all think?
Related Posts
I’m not normally the dog-whistle kind of guy, but do you suppose that “the excitable Andrew Sullivan” is a euphemism for something?
By the way, a bit of trivia here…
Our own Burl Burlingame was one of the stars of the Radford High School production of “Don’t Drink the Water” in 1971. He played the secret police heavy, Krojack.
The director, Jeff Boyle, had tried to get me to audition for one of the roles, but I declined. After I saw the play, I regretted that. They all did a great job, and were obviously having a lot of fun. Which I missed out on, being a stick in the mud. I think my excuse was that I was busy with track or something.
The part of Father Drobney was played by our class valedictorian, Doug Capozzalo. Pick a card, any card…
See the ridiculous stuff I remember?
Which is in reference to what?
To this paragraph up in the main post:
Close reading of italic text required for that one…..
Of course, maybe that was a bad example, since the comical Father Drobney character, if I remember correctly, was based loosely on a serious refugee of conscience:
The last thing I want to do is suggest that Edward Snowden is in any way comparable to Bishop Mindszenty.
In Allen’s play, by contrast, Father Drobney was a sympathetic but silly character, who whiled away his days trying to learn card tricks. That’s what I was thinking of…
I was terrible in DDTW.
The “scandals” were over before they started, because Issa announced his conclusions before they heard evidence.
I’d like to know how much money the House has spent on this fishing expedition. The Clinton scandal cost taxpayers something like $70 million to investigate.
Delaying implementation of employer mandates for Obamacare is a bigger scandal. He decided to own the term Obamacare and now he’s going to be stuck with a massive bureaucratic train wreck.
You know things are bad when you can’t even successfully implement your own bad ideas.
What was the bad idea? Specifically.
Ha. It’s my opinion (not yours, I know) that the entire ACA is a “bad idea”. But we’ve had that debate. I lost. The issue now is that the President has unilaterally decided to ignore part of the law that is unquestionably the law of the land.
The law says that employers of a certain size have to provide monthly reports to the Federal Government. It’s not a requirement to provide insurance (that would be unconstitutional, of course) it’s merely a requirement to report on whether they are doing so (or not) and then be assessed a tax. Remember, the ACA is a tax.
The President has somehow simply told the Federal government “Hey….ummmm, don’t actually require anyone to file their reports. I know there’s a law requiring them to do so and all, but….just don’t require it. Thanks.”
He’s telling federal agents to ignore the law because it’s not working out the way they wanted, or it’s too complex, or they’re not capable of doing it, or I don’t know.
What’s the point of even negotiating border security with the Democrats if the President now has the power to simply ignore a law passed by Congress?
I guess some animals are more equal than others.
Well, there is considerable irony in that, as desperate as some Republicans have been to repeal Obamacare, the president just goes ahead and repeals part of it himself. For now.
There’s a fallacy, though, in this question: “What’s the point of even negotiating border security with the Democrats if the President now has the power to simply ignore a law passed by Congress?”
This isn’t a debate between Republicans and Democrats. It’s between certain types of Republicans and Democrats (from nativists to labor union types), who don’t want those people here, to Republicans and Democrats (from big business types to hopes and dreams types) who want an orderly process whereby people can come into this country and remain to work without being outside the law.
It’s not about an orderly process, it’s about whether people who broke multiple laws get off the hook for their crimes.
Repeal isn’t going to happen. The law (for good or for ill) needs to go forward. I would like for the law to go forward so it can be shown to be an unworkable mechanism. The President doesn’t want that, because he wants to take back the House in 2014, which will be difficult if the ACA is an ongoing train-wreck.
The lawyer in me sees that it sets bad precedent for the Executive Branch to waive a law (or portion thereof) that cannot be waived. That’s my concern, even if I have no feeling one way or the other towards the ACA.
I no longer have a healthy skepticism of the print and broadcast media along with pundits from both sides, instead, I have developed a total distrust of all when it comes to politics and a level playing field.
The media wagons have been circled around Obama and will remain circled until all danger has passed. He will never be held accountable by any member of the so-called mainstream media, never. So, yes, the “scandals” have gone up in smoke because no one bothered to do an in-depth investigation of them if one has to rely on what is printed or reported by the majority of our faux news media outlets. While it is fashionable to refer to Fox News as Faux News because of their more conservative or critical reporting of the news, the supporters of MSNBC, CNN, and the other networks do not see any bias because of an ideological identification with them. And this is the reason it is my practice to get information from as many sources as possible; attempt to separate the pepper from the fly poop and get to the truth – if possible.
I learn more from discussions between the regulars on this blog than anywhere else.
MSNBC has an acknowledged bias.
I do avoid most punditry, since they are so often wrong! Just the facts, please!
Issa spent huge amounts of time, amply covered in all media outlets, but none of the “scandals” had much traction!
I’m gonna have to disagree with Kathryn here.
Don’t avoid punditry. That’s where you’ll get something to stimulate thought. I think Bart has it right when he says, “I learn more from discussions between the regulars on this blog than anywhere else.”
One of the reasons I made the transition from news to editorial because only through opinion can you TELL THE TRUTH.
That’s counterintuitive for most people, but here’s what I mean by that…
In news, you’re not supposed to inject opinion, so you edit yourself. You limit yourself to things no one can argue with — this person said this; that person said that. If one source says the sky is white, and the other says the sky is black, that’s your story. And it’s balanced and fair.
But if you don’t tell the reader what you, based on your own observations, know to be true — that the sky is blue — you haven’t told the truth. But in a news story, you can’t do that — you can only say that somebody said it was blue, if you can get someone to say it.
In opinion that’s labeled opinion, and everybody knows that’s what it is, you just lay out everything you’ve got, and let people decide what they think about it. No guessing what your “agenda” is, or whether you have one. Lay it all out, and let the chips fall.
I think that’s kinda what Bart is saying.
The shouting heads make me angry and/or confused….I have been around too long, hanging on their every word, and then finding out they had no better idea about what it all meant. Too much noise, not enough light.
To reiterate:
The Attorney General had no idea what was going on with the DOJ providing guns to Mexican drug cartels. THAT’S THE SCANDAL.
The Attorney General had no idea that the DOJ put an overbroad dragnet over the AP journalists.
THAT’S THE SCANDAL.
The Secretary of Homeland Security had no idea that federal prison officials and ICE released convicted felons in an effort to save money. THAT’S THE SCANDAL.
The head of the IRS had no idea that the IRS was targeting groups based on political affiliation.
THAT’S THE SCANDAL.
The IRS office in Ohio was giving groups whose names seemed overtly political extra scrutiny when they sought a status that prohibited that.
Seems reasonable to most of us.
Actually, no it doesn’t.
“The Quinnipiac poll found 76 percent of voters would prefer a special prosecutor to take over for Holder on the IRS investigation”
American voters disapprove 66 – 24 percent of the job the IRS is doing.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1899
How about Gallup?
59 percent of adults, including 57 percent of independents and 43 percent of Democrats, believe that high-ranking IRS officials in Washington, D.C. were aware of the scandal. Overall, 50 percent believe that high-ranking Obama officials were aware, including 26 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents.
When it comes to dealing with the IRS scandal, the American people are deeply unhappy with the Obama administration. Just 32 percent of adults approve of the way Barack Obama is handling the IRS scandal. While 58 percent of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling, 56 percent of Democrats approve.
Some 77 percent of Americans believe that the IRS scandal is either very or somewhat serious, including 71 percent of Democrats. However, just 54 percent of Americans say they are following the scandal very or somewhat closely.
52 percent of independents believe that the Obama administration officials’ ethics are either poor or not good.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162962/americans-think-officials-knew-irs-political-targeting.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics%20-%20Presidential%20Job%20Approval
But Bryan, aren’t you aware that according to Sullivan, it is all smoke and has disappeared? Just move on, nothing to see here folks. It’s all in your imagination. These poll numbers are skewered by a vast conspiracy of the right wing contingent.
The idea that a majority of Americans would be right on almost any complicated issue is strange. That’s like assigning credibility to a news station based on ratings. Many of us are not only uninformed, we are misinformed – deliberately misled and satisfied with not seeking out the complexities of difficult situations.
Low information responses…..
Not low information, just a little snark to add flavor.
I meant the survey responders. Should we base our governing decisions on the opinions of the barely informed?
Agreed. Yet the barely informed vote and can make the difference in an election. All too many voters never know or understand the issues but will cast their vote based on perception without the benefit of knowledge. Some people vote Democrat because their parents and grandparents were or are Democrats, same with Republicans. The list goes on and on.
The NYT has an article today about the IRS “scandal” and offers some additional information about the practice of looking for a lack of a better description, “code words” contained in the application for tax exempt status. Apparently, some other groups who are not Tea Party, conservative, or other groups associated with conservative causes were denied status or had their applications sent to a higher level of scrutiny. One was a Palestine group, another was a group whose purpose is to provide free software for musicians, and other applicants where the potential for fraud has a higher degreee of possibility.
While the accuracy of the information is not at question, the timing is somewhat suspect IMHO. Once the information about the enhanced review of BOLO flags in applications was made public and at the time, most of the applications targeted were Tea Party and conservative groups, is it not a logical conclusion to expect the IRS to have brought forward more information about other groups and the percentages involved based on the total number held for review? If 500 applications were sent for further review, how many were from Tea Party and conservative groups vs. others?
If the administration and the IRS wants to avoid further scrutiny and continuing lack of confidence in their ability to remain impartial, wouldn’t it be reasonable to provide the information to the public and congress? And if anyone thinks for one moment this is not an easy task and can be accomplished in a very short time period, just ask Doug how long it would take to write a few lines of code to accomplish the task. Based on my experience, a short routine using the applicants pulled would take less than an hour to write the code and another hour to process it into a report.
Just saying.
The IRS is not a single-minded monolith. It is how many individuals?
Like most organizations, especially governmental ones, information exchange is hardly seamless!
Kathryn,
The IRS has been around for how many decades now? Given the history of the agency and its longevity, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect it to have been constantly improving information process and handling and working toward a more centralized data bank so the large number of offices across the country would be able to share information and data at an advanced access capability?
If the argument is that it is not a single-minded monolith, then what is the other purpose or purposes for its existence? Again, I will defer to Doug to provide a more up-to-date response other than my experience in IT. Based on first person knowledge, IRS offices are not individual branches that operate independently of the central office in Washington, DC.
The IRS is an amalgamation of individuals, few of whom excel on the communications end of the spectrum. Numbers crunchers!
Government is annoyingly poor at information technology, as SC taxpayers found out.
The FBI still hasn’t interviewed a single targeted tea party member. Not one.
Additional scrutiny…they passed it.
We are still waiting for our refund after our honest return was subjected to additional scrutiny. Where’s Fox News?
Could this be a “scandal” or just another example of bad judgement when it comes to how the AHA is to be administered? Again, according to an article in the NYT on July 4th, a British company has been awarded a contract to implement phases of the bill.
“”WASHINGTON — Racing to meet an October deadline, Obama administration officials said Thursday that they had awarded a contract worth as much as $1.2 billion to a British company to help them sift applications for health insurance and tax credits under the new health care law.
The company, Serco, has extensive experience as a government contractor with the Defense Department and intelligence agencies, and it also manages air traffic control towers in 11 states and reviews visa applications for the State Department. But it has little experience with the Department of Health and Human Services or the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where individuals and small businesses are supposed to be able to shop for insurance.
Serco will help the Obama administration and states determine who is eligible for insurance subsidies, in the form of tax credits, and who might qualify for Medicaid. Tasks include “intake, routing, review and troubleshooting of applications,” according to the contract.”””
Now, here is the rub. The AHA is not very popular in its present form and as evidenced by delaying implementation for corporations for another year, it is coming under an ever widening cloud of more doubt. But, to award a contract to a British firm for $1.2 Billion is not a prudent move under the circumstances. To make matters worse, the firm, Serco, as stated in the article does not have much experience in performing the task they are being hired for. Why spend the money hiring a firm outside the United States when we have so many experienced ones available to do the same thing?
Once again, I will use Doug as an example. Based on his comments, etc. about his background, IMHO, Doug could put together a team and accomplish the same objective and keep the $1.2 Billion within the U.S. borders where it is needed.
This move is just another indication of the incompetence at the highest levels of government and politics in America today.
@Bart
I’ll do it for $1.1 billion. 🙂
A private company would probably budget 1/10 of that amount. But since there isn’t anyone accountable for how the money is spent, it is likely being passed to whichever company can pay off the most procurement officers.
We argue over the headlines and fail to examine the real issues. What does tax exempt status entail? Should Charles Koch or Karl Rove or George Soros have their political activities subsidized by taxpayers? Should I get a tax deduction for giving money to a group that claims to be a charitable educational endeavor but mainly advocates for political positions? What about a group that does mailings at election time? Should that speech be subsidized by taxpayers? I would boldly state that right wing groups like the TEA party, and for that matter the Heritage foundation are not educational. They are not doing research in the public interest. Koch Brothers funded groups have sponsored political ads and opinion writers to deny global warming (they are largely oil men). Now they are running an ad promoting loosening restrictions on businesses and calling 80% of Americans wealthy (in comparison to the rest of the world). They are political advocacy groups, just like Move On or Organizing for America, just not up front about their purpose (and aren’t tax exempt). No tax exempt status for any of them. Keep doing your job, IRS, but do it more aggressively.