US Politics: Even Slate is down on PotUS

[Kouran]

Well the old thread is locked so here is a new one.

Also I find it very odd that even Slate is now up the presidents backside.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/barack_obama_irs_and_associated_press_scandals_the_president_s_administration.html

The Obama administration is doing a far better job making the case for conservatism than Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner ever did. Showing is always better than telling, and when the government overreaches in so many ways it gives support to the conservative argument about the inherently rapacious nature of government.

I find it odd when one of the most hardcore defenders of the administration say things like this.

[Sci-2]

Well, in my mind many liberals don't like Obama. They just see him as a better alternative than the opposition.

I was excited when Obama won in '08.

In '12 I was glad Romney lost.

[Horza]

lol, 'hardcore defenders' like John Dickerson...

[Fragile Bird]

What do you expect, now that the news about the AP subpoena has come out?

[Inigima]

Memo to conservatives: we call this "consistency." :P

[Seli]

...

I find it odd when one of the most hardcore defenders of the administration say things like this.

Why is it odd? It is normal that you warn people you used to agree with when they stray.

[Fez]

Journalists have a habit of getting windbaggy and self-righteous when they sense a possible scandal involving one of their own. I'm not saying the AP-DOJ mess isn't a scandal, it might be, I just haven't seen enough facts to make a determination yet; but its clear that this is the one that the media cares about, far more than the IRS story (which, again, might be a scandal) or the Benghazi nonsense.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/epa-makes-information-requests-more-difficult-for-conservatives/

The EPA gets on the scandal wagon as it turns out they also treat conservative groups differently.

According to EPA records obtained by the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, since January 2012 the agency has granted fee waivers for 75 out of 82 Freedom of Information Act requests sent by major environmental groups, denying only seven of them — meaning green groups saw their fees waived 92 percent of the time.

At the same time, the EPA frequently denied fee waivers to conservative groups. EPA records show that the agency rejected or ignored 21 out of 26 fee waiver requests from such conservative groups as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, and Judicial Watch — an 81 percent rejection rate.

[Fez]

http://dailycaller.c...-conservatives/

The EPA gets on the scandal wagon as it turns out they also treat conservative groups differently.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Its the same as with the IRS story. Agencies are supposed to apply scrutiny in situations that deserve it. And its entirely possible that its mostly conservative groups that do in these cases. Particularly with the EPA; if it turns out that the environmental groups were making legitimate FOIA requests and the conservative groups were making frivolous requests to try and score political points (e.g. asking for EPA employee's personal emails), I could easily see a disparity like that emerge.

[Seli]

http://dailycaller.c...-conservatives/

The EPA gets on the scandal wagon as it turns out they also treat conservative groups differently.

We cannot say anything about this without knowing the contents of the requests.

edit: going by the types of conservative organizations mentioned and the rules of the EPA ( http://www.epa.gov/foia/waivers.html ) for the waiver the difference seems to be an expected outcome. I can see something called 'Competitive Enterprise Institute' having trouble with factors 3,4,5 and 6 but that might be my bias :)

[sologdin]

odd when one of the most hardcore defenders of the administration say things like this.

likely the criticism invalidates the assumption a priori that the criticized is a hardcore defender. it's a definitional problem, i suppose, assuming that all journalism is like fox.

[Fez]

So apparently the IRS also was questioning Democratic groups....

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

Not sure I see the scandal here anymore.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Not sure I see the scandal here anymore.

3 vs 75+ is a pretty big discrepancy worth investigating.

[awesome possum]

I don't see the scandal there at all. The Internal Revenue Service was paying extra attention to groups whose name blatantly suggests an anti-tax attitude.

That doesn't seem like a scandal, that seems like common sense.

[Fez]

3 vs 75+ is a pretty big discrepancy worth investigating.

Why? If more conservative groups are applying for the designation, then obviously more of them would end up under closer scrutiny. And even the numbers are similar, if more conservative groups seem to possibly be violating the 501c4 requirements, then more would be investigated.

And again, the only group to actually have its application rejected was a Democratic one.

[sologdin]

more conservative groups are applying for the designation

seems a reasonable assumption, as the teabaggers' raison d'etre is tax evasion.

[KSims1868]

It's fuzzy math and politics.

Look at it from a different angle. Profiling is illegal based on color, race, religion, or political affiliation (or any reason really)...so if a police officer stops a muslim in line at the airport for extra checking based only on the statistics that show he is more likely to be a threat than an 80 year old hispanic grandmother...the police officer has committed a crime and can face consequences for his actions.

But apply this same logic to the IRS (target someone based on their political beliefs and profile them based on organizations they belong to) and it's just fine and dandy with you? Really...you can see the double standard there right?

[awesome possum]

It's fuzzy math to want to look closer at groups applying for tax-exempt status when those groups proclaim in their name that they are proudly anti-tax?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Did you read the TIGTA report? I did. The findings are interesting. Relevant quotes, below:

"We reviewed a statistical sample of 94 I.R.C. § 501©(4) cases closed from May 2010²⁰ through May 2012 from a universe of 2,051 applications that the IRS determined required minimal or no additional information from the organizations (also referred to by the EO function as merit closures). We determined that two (2 percent) of 94 approved applications had indications of significant political campaign intervention and should have been forwarded to the team of specialists.²¹ Based on our statistical sample, we project an estimated 44 merit closure applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases during this time period.²²,"

"We reviewed a statistical sample of 244 I.R.C. § 501©(4) cases closed from May 2010 through May 2012 or open as of May 31, 2012, from a universe of 2,459 applications that the IRS determined required additional information from the organizations applying for tax-exempt status (also referred to by the EO function as full development applications) but were not forwarded to the team of specialists. For the applications that were available for our review, we found that 14 (6 percent)²³ of 237 applications²⁴ included indications of significant political campaign intervention and should have been processed by the team of specialists.²⁵ We project an estimated 141 full development applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases during this time period.^26"

"We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention. However, we did not identify any indications of significant political campaign intervention for 91 (31 percent) of the 296 applications²⁷ that had complete documentation.²⁸

We discussed our results with EO function officials, who disagreed with our findings. Although EO function officials provided explanations about why the applications should have been identified as potential political cases, the case files did not include the specific reason(s) the applications were selected. EO function officials also stated that applications may not literally include statements indicating significant political campaign intervention.²⁹ According to EO function officials, organizations may not understand what constitutes political campaign intervention or may provide vague descriptions of certain activities that the EO function knows from past experience potentially involve political campaign intervention. In these cases, the EO function believes it is important to review the applications to ensure that political campaign intervention is not the organizations' primary activity. To provide further assurance that Determinations Unit employees are handling tax matters in an impartial manner, it would be helpful to document specifically why applications are chosen for further review."

Anyhow, I recommend the report to everyone interested in the issue. No one on either side will like it and/or both sides will find things that support their way of thinking of the issue. At best (worst?) it looks like a case of mismanagement, stupidity and ignorance.

[Guest Raidne]

Poked around on Dickerson since I really never have before and he's one of the people who broke the story about the Bush administration's intentional leaking of Valerie Plame's identity.

"Dickersonian" describes a question that is "cleverly worded, seemingly harmless, but incisive," i.e. the kind he used to torture Bush with.

Dickerson (during April 13, 2004 press conference): “In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?”

President Bush: “I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it.

On the eve of the second inauguration, Dickerson published the piece ""Go for the Throat!: Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party."

But I do see he's written two articles that were critical of the President since May 11. Those are the only two I could find going back to January except the January 10th article criticizing the President for not having enough women in his administration. What is everyone else thinking of?