Comments on: This is the way it’s done: Noam Scheiber on the IRS scandal

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Mon, 27 May 2013 02:45:21 +0000

Richard Aubrey: I certainly don’t disagree with you. I’ve written a lot of pieces on the criteria Obama uses for making appointments, and they’re certainly not the usual ones.

But I was just making the point that I actually don’t think he’ll nudge Holder out, unless Holder were found with a literal smoking gun, standing over a dead body.

Maybe not even then.

By: Tom the Redhunter

Tom the Redhunter — Mon, 27 May 2013 01:01:36 +0000

” Noam’s theory, in a nutshell, is that the IRS overreach was the fault of the Republicans for cutting resources to government agencies, and the poor beleaguered IRS agents were just overwhelmed.”

So because they were understaffed and overworked they created more work for themselves through endless inquiries to conservative groups? You’re right, this is Onion material.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Mon, 27 May 2013 00:16:19 +0000

neo.
Obama is different, different from our worst presidents, some of whom may have actually wanted the best for the country along with whatever corruption or incompetence they brought with them.
If, and I say if, Holder goes, the usual American president would feel impelled to appoint a straight arrow.
Obama isn’t going to dump Holder absent considerably more pressure. My point is that, if Holder goes, Obama will appoint somebody equally partisan and corrupt, knowing that we know it and knowing there isn’t anything we can do about it.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sun, 26 May 2013 20:28:51 +0000

Richard Aubrey:

Unless I missed something, Obama has not even criticized him, much less asked for his resignation. He praised him and expressed solidarity with him, even after this broke.

As I said way way back, Holder is his proxy, his alter ego. I see no evidence this has changed. He trusts Holder to do his bidding about as much as he trusts anyone. Holder is second only to Jarrett in his estimation, IMHO. I suppose it’s possible he might someday dump him, but I sure don’t see it happening so far. Holder does his bidding; doesn’t even need to hear his bidding because Holder knows his bidding. And Holder can be trusted to take the fall and be loyal, even afterward. At least, that’s my hunch about it.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Sun, 26 May 2013 20:20:35 +0000

In ordinary times, a president in Obama’s position would, if dumping Holder, appoint an apolitical, hard-charging replacement, probably a careerist.
Obama does not see the need, nor does he see any mechanism forcing him to appoint an honest man.

By: RigelDog

RigelDog — Sun, 26 May 2013 18:18:58 +0000

An important premise of the spin on the IRS scandal(s) is going without note or challenge, even by those on our side. It goes like this: “There was no political animus behind the fact that an over-representative sample of conservative groups was subjected to extra scrutiny and delay. This is because the IRS was under pressure and therefore just using an arguably-defensible short-cut.”
The discussion then centers around whether there was actually a need for the short-cut—was there truly a flood of applications/shortage of agents/funding shortfall?
The underlying premise is just skipped right over; that is: that groups who identify themselves as Tea Party (and the assorted variations of conservative groups just get lumped in along with the Tea Party as another unspoken assumption) are MORE LIKELY TO BE TAX CHEATS. So of course if you have to use some profiling shortcuts, you are going to look at groups who can be logically assumed to be more prone to cheating and to the filing of fraudulent documents.
How do you go from identifying a group as being for limited government/the Constitution/lessening the tax burden/rights of the unborn/patriotism et al, to an ipso-facto assertion that of COURSE these types of groups are riddled with criminal fraud?? To the extent that one might resort to profiling and stereotype, those who identify as Tea Party and Conservative and Patriot are likely to be MORE law-abiding than not.
This post is just a comment on a (fantastic) blog, but it’s my little push-back at this calumny.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 26 May 2013 16:43:53 +0000

The Democrats have more control over Republicans than the Left has over Jews and the IRS.

By: Lorenz Gude

Lorenz Gude — Sun, 26 May 2013 13:27:13 +0000

I’ve just been rereading Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and remembering the great patience with which the Fuehrer endured the endless provocations of the Poles, the Czechs and the Jews. I don’t know how these Democrats manage to tolerate Republicans, who when the get elected, seem to do pretty much what the Democrats do.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 26 May 2013 12:52:23 +0000

Evil Republicans are their enemy. They are the source of all the world’s ill. Which is why they have been motivated so strongly to never, ever, listen to those people. They are the enemy.

Meanwhile, those supposedly on our side were talking about bipartisan deals, giving Democrats what they want, and compromising with the Left. That sounds strategically viable all right. How many Diversity Based Ft. Hoods do we need again for compromise?

By: Deborah

Deborah — Sun, 26 May 2013 12:14:18 +0000

That’s all they got: EVIL REPUBLICAN BUDGET CUTS caused everything from Benghazi to the IRS. I’m waiting to see how they blame budget cuts for the DOJ spying on reporters.