What IRS scandal?

By Frank Moraes

I hate to find myself in the position of being an apologist for the government. But there is an important issue: by focusing on minor and even meaningless stories, we distract from very real issues. We have yet more news about our government's attempts to keep the public ignorant and intimidate government whistleblowers. But what do we get?More coverage on the Inspector General's report on the IRS: what did the president know and when did he know it?! Truly, the way the media are dealing with these scandals makes me think that the only training they're received was a screening of All the President's Men. 

Think about this IRS scandal. Imagine that you were in charge of deciding which 501(c)(4) applications were approved. In order to be approved, the group must be primarily concerned with social welfare. And one year, you get deluged with applications with "Republican" in the names of the groups. "Republicans for Tax Fairness." And "Republicans Against the Estate Tax." And "Republicans for Barefoot and Pregnant Women." You might think, maybe I should pay a little extra attention to these "Republican" groups. 

As I wrote in "Tea Party Myth," there is no Tea Party. There is just the Republican base that has managed to get the entire media system to accept its branding as though it were something distinct from the Republican Party. Everyone knows that the Democratic Party has a left wing. But no one goes around calling it the "Progressive Party." Because that would be wrong: it isn't the Progressive Party; it is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Just the same, there is no Tea Party, there is just the Republican Party. (It isn't the conservative wing; the Republican Party is the Tea Party.) 

So until I get far more information on the IRS scandal, I'm assuming there is nothing there. As Norm Scheiber brilliantly noted, "The only real sin the IRS committed in its ostensible targeting of conservatives is the sin of political incorrectness—that is, of not pretending it needed to vet all the new groups that wanted tax-exempt status, even though it mostly just needed to vet right-wing groups." It is certainly possible that these IRS agents were thinking, "Let's get those conservatives!" But it seems unlikely. 

Meanwhile, there is no surveillance scandal. That's because the Democrats and Republicans are on the same side. There are no Republican operatives to funnel Jonathan Karl misinformation against the president. Since both parties want to ship the Constitution down the river, the Fourth Estate will just allow it. After all, pushing back would require real investigation. And all these bozos know about that is what they learned watching Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.
 

Afterword

There is a bit of a paradox. Supposedly, a group with "tea party" in its name isn't necessarily just a conservative political group. If that's the case -- if Tea Party groups really do have Democrats and Republicans -- then they aren't conservative groups. Thus, the IRS wasn't targeting "conservative" groups. On the other hand, if groups with "tea party" in their names are in general conservative political groups, then they shouldn't be applying for 501(c)(4) status. I'm sure the IRS agents must have confronted this paradox. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Benghazi again

By Mustang Bobby

Republicans never run out of dead horses to whip: 

Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.

Three State Department officials are scheduled to testify before a House committee on Wednesday about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

"I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “...We're going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton."

On Monday, a Fox News anchor asked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) how damaging the issue is for Clinton. "I think it's damaging because it happened under her watch," replied Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding Wednesday's hearing.

It's pretty obvious that this is a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and the Republicans are going all in on it; Mike Huckabee said this will be worse than Watergate. (Note: Watergate is the Godwin's Law of scandals: the longer the discussion goes on, the chances that someone will compare a scandal to Watergate increase to a factor of dead certainty.)

It was terrible that people were killed in the attack in Libya last September. But it's worse that the Republicans are exploiting it for no other reason than politics, and their crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Stevens wouldn't seem so craven if they had bothered to look into the lies and deceptions that killed and wounded several thousand American soldiers in Iraq.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Steve King

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Quite a few Republicans are still suffering from Benghazi fever, and wingnutjob extraordinaire Steve King of Iowa has it worse than most: 

I believe that it's a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're going to get in the zone where Benghazi is," Mr. King said. "I don't think the public has any idea, and I tell you, I don't either, of the chronology of the events — what took place, and who was where doing what and why. And all the way down through — we still haven't seen an autopsy report on the ambassador yet. Simple questions that you would ask in the first 24 hours have not been asked yet. 

So... he doesn't have a fucking clue what happened -- he admits as much -- but he's sure it was really, really, really bad. Like, the worst scandal ever. By far.

As ThinkProgress notes, "mainstream media outlets have extensively reported emerging details about the assault, many of which have undercut Repubican attempts to create a faux-scandal out of the events, over the past three months." (Have a look at TP's extensive timeline.) 

I've also written about it here, here, and here.

Read more »

Woodward and Bernstein meet Deep Throat

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you're like me and you're fascinated by all things Watergate, and even if you're not, check out this article from The Press Democrat on a recent visit by Woodward and Bernstein to Mark "Deep Throat" Felt at his home in Santa Rosa, California.

Felt, 95, is in poor health and "has lost most of his long-term memory," but it's pretty amazing to see the three of them together at long last (in the photo, the man in the back is John O'Connor, co-author of Felt's biography -- if you don't know what they look like, that's Bernstein on the left and Woodward on the right), and it seems to have been a wonderful reunion.

Amazingly enough, Bernstein had never even met him before. Felt was Woodward's contact, after all, and Deep Throat's identity was only revealed publicly in 2005. If I'm not mistaken, only the two of them, along with WaPo executive editor Ben Bradlee, knew his identity.

A further embellishment on the appropriately named CREEP

By J. Thomas Duffy

Boy, we all know what Nixon was, and the people around him ...

But man, it is a little jarring, thanks to some old, archived film, to realize just how much of the cream of the scum they had ...

Joan Walsh of Salon has a doozy ...

Young Karl Rove

And to see the full report, from the CBS Evening News of January 18th, 1972, you can check out Karl Rove, GOP College Director of the Republican National Committee, third pillar of the Nixon Campaign tripod (the other two being the White House and the Campaign for Re-Election of the President).

Rove-Nixon

To twist an old adage, the apple, with the razor blades in it, doesn't fall far from the tree

Or, as Joan writes;

"Yes, it reminded me why (many readers are too young to remember) the Committee to Re-elect the President was routinely referred to as "CREEP."

Bonus Links

The Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP)

The Watergate Story

Watergate Plumber Chief Passes Away; E. Howard Hunt, Watergate Figure, Dead At 88; Nixon's Chief of Dirty Tricks Was Ex-CIA; Hand In Everything From Guatemala To Bay of Pigs

















What lessons do you think the Young Karl Rove learned while working for Nixon's CREEP? How to turn out the vote, or how to run a scandal?

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Fred Thompson, Nixon flack

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Forget his one-note TV and movie persona -- you know, the same character he plays time and time again. Who is the real Fred Thompson, the man who has so many Republicans swooning with delight? The second coming of Ronald Reagan? A McCain-like maverick? A mainline conservative through and through, the Republican savior for '08? Er, maybe not. Let's peer back into the mists of time...

Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.

Thompson, now preparing a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, won fame in 1973 for asking a committee witness the bombshell question that revealed Nixon had installed hidden listening devices and taping equipment in the Oval Office.

Those tapes show Thompson played a behind-the-scenes role that was very different from his public image three decades ago. He comes across as a partisan willing to cooperate with the Nixon White House's effort to discredit the committee's star witness.

Ah, well then. He may have asked the right question, but he seems to have been something of a Nixon loyalist even late in the game -- which hardly speaks to solid character credentials.

For his part, Nixon thought Thompson was "dumb as hell". Thompson may have been a partisan loyalist looking to protect Nixon, but the White House obviously thought he wasn't up to the task. (And, as it turns out, they may have been right.)

Make sure to read this piece for exchanges between Nixon and his cronies, including this one:

"Oh shit, that kid," Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson's appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.

"Well, we're stuck with him," Haldeman said.

If only that could be put into a campaign ad by one of his opponents. (Maybe Anthony Hopkins could play Nixon again.)

Nixon thought Thompson was "friendly". Awesome. Let more -- much more -- about the real Fred Thompson come out. It's time for the balloon to be burst.