Listen, it shouldn't be any trade secret that I'm a partisan Democrat and I make no bones about it. Many will say that this shows I'm "biased" or less objective and concerned with the truth rather than partisan advantage.
I get the argument but I think it's wrong. I mean how do you know that it's through my deep and abiding serach for the truth that I've come to be a partisan Democrat? As the political philosopher Garry Will argues the sharpest and most engage citizens are usualy the frankest partisans.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0140055630/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368285463&sr=1-1&keywords=garry+wills+confessions+of+a+conservative
I think in assessing my fidelity to the truth anyone asking should consider the body of work you get here over at Diary of a Republican Hater over close now to 2 years-it will be 2 in June. For a bit of levity check out my first post ever: in defense of Anthony Weiner.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html
I don't agree taht you have to somehow be "unpartisan" to get at the truth. I see the truth both morally and intellectually as being on the side of the Democrats since at least the time of FDR. Must I become a eunuch to have regard for the truth? Actually those "undecided voters" who wait supposedly till the 11th hour to decide in elections are also often what Saturday Night Live had this great spoof of last Fall coming up to the election: low information voters.
As I said yesterday I'm skeptical about this whole hubbub over the IRS supposedly targeting Tea Party groups to demonstrate they deserve their no tax status.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-irs-tea-party-scandal-one-word-of.html
Republicans are now screeching to the Heavens because their shocked at the thoguth that a particular group can be profiled. Does anyone see any irony here? Are these not the folks who till this day argue that Muslim groups shoould be profiled or that cops in inner cities have the right to profile certain ethnic or racial groups?
Can anyone deny that if the IRS were accused of targeting supposedly militant Islamic groups the GOP would be defending this very same IRS?
Listen, if the IRS did something improper-either legally or ethically-they should be called on it.Still when you have liberals jumpitng up and saying Yeah, we need a huge investigation that goes anywhere Mitch McConnell and Darrell Issa want to take it there's something unwise about this.
See, that's the problem. Call it the Darrell Issa problem. If a truly nonpartisan institituion were investigating teh IRS I'd feel a lot better. However, Darrell Issa is basically a political hack with a major axe to grind who will spin anything into a fishing expeidtion. With all the times when it was a false alarm he has built mountains out of molehills. If there is any real smsoke here to do you expect him to show restraint?
Please spare me that we shouldn't think about the political side of this. It is totally political and Issa will totally politicize it. By all means lets investigate this but dont decieve yourself that this is any inncoent nonpartisan serach for the truth.
Take a look at this piece out of Politico.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-under-siege-91206_Page2.html
Democrats are not defending the IRS and neither is anyone else. Not necesarily saying they should be defended. Yet according to this piece this will have an impact on things like how the IRS handles ObamaCare. Hello?! In other words, this will be used as yet another excuse to weaken or gut ObamaCare.
"But perhaps the biggest Republican frustration with the agency is its role in implementing the president’s Affordable Care Act. Conservatives have rejected calls to increase IRS funding so it can carry out the law while blasting the agency for being too slow in issuing guidance. In other words, this scandal will be used to further the politcal aims of the Republican party.
The GOP claims that the agency's resources are stretched out too thing but the sequester is a major thing hampering it.
I get the argument but I think it's wrong. I mean how do you know that it's through my deep and abiding serach for the truth that I've come to be a partisan Democrat? As the political philosopher Garry Will argues the sharpest and most engage citizens are usualy the frankest partisans.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0140055630/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368285463&sr=1-1&keywords=garry+wills+confessions+of+a+conservative
I think in assessing my fidelity to the truth anyone asking should consider the body of work you get here over at Diary of a Republican Hater over close now to 2 years-it will be 2 in June. For a bit of levity check out my first post ever: in defense of Anthony Weiner.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html
I don't agree taht you have to somehow be "unpartisan" to get at the truth. I see the truth both morally and intellectually as being on the side of the Democrats since at least the time of FDR. Must I become a eunuch to have regard for the truth? Actually those "undecided voters" who wait supposedly till the 11th hour to decide in elections are also often what Saturday Night Live had this great spoof of last Fall coming up to the election: low information voters.
As I said yesterday I'm skeptical about this whole hubbub over the IRS supposedly targeting Tea Party groups to demonstrate they deserve their no tax status.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-irs-tea-party-scandal-one-word-of.html
Republicans are now screeching to the Heavens because their shocked at the thoguth that a particular group can be profiled. Does anyone see any irony here? Are these not the folks who till this day argue that Muslim groups shoould be profiled or that cops in inner cities have the right to profile certain ethnic or racial groups?
Can anyone deny that if the IRS were accused of targeting supposedly militant Islamic groups the GOP would be defending this very same IRS?
Listen, if the IRS did something improper-either legally or ethically-they should be called on it.Still when you have liberals jumpitng up and saying Yeah, we need a huge investigation that goes anywhere Mitch McConnell and Darrell Issa want to take it there's something unwise about this.
See, that's the problem. Call it the Darrell Issa problem. If a truly nonpartisan institituion were investigating teh IRS I'd feel a lot better. However, Darrell Issa is basically a political hack with a major axe to grind who will spin anything into a fishing expeidtion. With all the times when it was a false alarm he has built mountains out of molehills. If there is any real smsoke here to do you expect him to show restraint?
Please spare me that we shouldn't think about the political side of this. It is totally political and Issa will totally politicize it. By all means lets investigate this but dont decieve yourself that this is any inncoent nonpartisan serach for the truth.
Take a look at this piece out of Politico.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-under-siege-91206_Page2.html
Democrats are not defending the IRS and neither is anyone else. Not necesarily saying they should be defended. Yet according to this piece this will have an impact on things like how the IRS handles ObamaCare. Hello?! In other words, this will be used as yet another excuse to weaken or gut ObamaCare.
"But perhaps the biggest Republican frustration with the agency is its role in implementing the president’s Affordable Care Act. Conservatives have rejected calls to increase IRS funding so it can carry out the law while blasting the agency for being too slow in issuing guidance. In other words, this scandal will be used to further the politcal aims of the Republican party.
The GOP claims that the agency's resources are stretched out too thing but the sequester is a major thing hampering it.
"Meanwhile, the agency’s workload is expanding dramatically with the implementation of the health care law and the explosion of 501(c)(4)s. The IRS said on Friday that applications for that status doubled between 2010 and 2012."
"And the ongoing budget struggles have had significant implications for the agency."
"The across-the-board sequester cuts that went into effect March 1 reduced the IRS budget by $594 million. Coupled with the sequester cuts, budget reductions in the final continuing resolution adjustment and rescission, the agency is working with $689 million less than originally budgeted, the Government Accountability Office said this week."
There are some legitimate things to question the IRS on like their role in tarageting emails:
"The American Civil Liberties Union released documents in April showing that investigators in the IRS criminal tax division believed the agency could access emails and text messages without a warrant. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee, demanded answers from acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller on how many emails were accessed and why.
The trouble is that as the GOP is so irresponsible I have no confidence whatsoever that this won't just prove to be another fishing expedition to further the party's political goals.
This is what we see in the endless Benghazi fixation, which, as Greg Sargent says, I don't see what material issue is at stake in all this fretting at the end of the day.
"Do we really have to pay attention to the Benghazi talking points? I still don’t see why it matters whether even the “worst” accusations turn out to be true. "
It all seems to turn on quibblign on whether or not Benghazi was called a "terrorist" attack early and often enough. The father of slain amabassador Chris Stevens had asked Romney during the campaign to stop trying to politicize his son's tragic murder. That they didn't heed as they're still beating this dead horse.
Yet, the payoff for the GOP is becoming clearer: what it may be used for is less to harm the President than his departed Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Maybe her reputation can be smashed by this or that's the Republican hope going into 2016.
We have these incdeniary claims that Hillary is "absolutely to blame" which is totally unproven, baseless, and so irresponsible to do.
There really is nothing to Benghazi. If there is we haven't heard about it yet. If there's anything at all in the IRS case can you doubt that this will be sued for the next 5 years poltically?
So investgiate but make sure it's an investigation and not a Breitbart operation. And be very clear in the need to separate fact from fiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment