Why it’s a scandal, but the IRS targeting isn’t:
you know what is also something everybody would find “relatable”? Politicians who sic the tax man on others for political gain. Everybody has to deal with the IRS and fears it. Last year, we learned from the Internal Revenue Service itself that it had targeted ideological opponents of the president for special scrutiny and investigation — because they were ideological opponents.
That’s juicy, just as Bridgegate is juicy. It’s something we can all understand, it speaks to our greatest fears, and it’s the sort of thing TV newspeople could gab about for days on end without needing a fresh piece of news to keep it going.
And yet, according to Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center, “In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.”
Why? Oh, come on, you know why. Christie belongs to one political party. Obama belongs to the other. You know which ones they belong to. And you know which ones the people at the three networks belong to, too: In surveys going back decades, anywhere from 80% to 90% of Washington’s journalists say they vote Democratic.
Scandals are not just about themselves; they are about the media atmosphere that surrounds them. They are perpetuated and deepened by the attention of journalists, whose relentless pursuit of every angle keeps the story going. That is exactly what has been missing from the IRS scandal from its outset; Republicans in Congress have been the dogged pursuers, not the press.
…in the end, [it’s] because Christie is a Republican. Christie isn’t them.
Yup.
[Update a few minutes later]
What’s also relatable is closing down national monuments, parks and roads to inflict maximum inconvenience during the budget showdown last year in the name of political expediency.
When the parks were closed it was done in plain view. You can disagree with the action, but everyone knew who was doing it, and why. That’s a far cry from jamming up traffic under the cover of a bogus “traffic study.”
Oh hell no! Jim, this is a bald faced lie. The parks were not “closed in plain view”, and at no point did Obama admit he was doing so for petty political reasons. Actually, closing the parks was far worse. The traffic study needed to happen, as opposed to closing the parks, which violated property law and the laws covering land held in trust. If you’re going to lie, try and event that we didn’t all just live through……
at no point did Obama admit he was doing so for petty political reasons
Um, because he wasn’t? Closing national parks is SOP for government shutdowns.
Closing national parks is SOP for government shutdowns.
Spending money to put up barricades to open-air monuments was unprecedented.
There aren’t enough government shutdowns to create precedent.
Jim responding to the claim Obama acted with political intent to harm or inconvenience the populace, “Of course he did!”
“When the parks were closed it was done in plain view. You can disagree with the action, but everyone knew who was doing it, and why.”
When someone else points out the political motivation Jim’s stance morphs to, “Um, because he wasn’t?”
You contradicted yourself from one reply to the next and contradicted your prior posts made here months ago as well.
Spending money to put up barricades to open-air monuments was unprecedented.
The barricades in front of the Lincoln Memorial in 1995 paid for themselves?
And really, why the focus on open-air monuments? Why is closing an open-air memorial a scandalous abuse of power, while closing the Holocaust museum (or a thousand Head Start classrooms) is unworthy of comment?
“Why is closing an open-air memorial a scandalous abuse of power, while closing the Holocaust museum (or a thousand Head Start classrooms) is unworthy of comment?”
Closing those things also reflects poorly on Obama. All those little kids didn’t get daycare because Obama got his butt handed to him by Syria and his ego wouldn’t let him “lose” by delaying Obamacare a year even though it was in his best interest.
The fact that Obama’s administration went out of its way to close open air monuments so as to impose maximum inconvenience was a disgusting political maneuver. The fact that Christie’s administration went out of its way to close lanes on what is described as the busiest bridge in America was a disgusting political maneuver. It does not matter in the least whether something was done in the open (Obama) or clandestinely (Christie).
The government shutdown also cost tens of thousands of children access to Head Start. Was that “a disgusting political maneuver” meant to “maximize inconvenience”? Or just standard operating procedure for a government shutdown? And why would you be so much more worked up about monuments than about the hundreds of thousands of furloughed government employees, the tens of thousands of laid-off contractors, the billions in lost economic activity, etc.?
“The government shutdown also cost tens of thousands of children access to Head Start. Was that “a disgusting political maneuver” meant to “maximize inconvenience”?”
Knowing Obama, probably.
“And why would you be so much more worked up about monuments than about the hundreds of thousands of furloughed government employees, the tens of thousands of laid-off contractors, the billions in lost economic activity, etc.?”
Why not ask Obama, the guy who refused to delay the individual mandate a year to work out the kinks so shut down the government instead. That worked out fantastic.
to delay the individual mandate a year to work out the kinks
I bet Obama would be happy to delay the individual mandate for a year “to work out the kinks”. But that was never on the table. The GOP demanded a delay as a first step towards getting rid of the law entirely.
To put it another way: would the GOP have agreed to drop its opposition to Obamacare, in return for a one year delay in the rollout? Of course not. They only wanted a delay to weaken the law.
“I bet Obama would be happy to delay the individual mandate for a year “to work out the kinks”. But that was never on the table.”
It was literally on the table. But Obama, who chairs weekly Obamacare meetings so he knows what is going on, didn’t have a clue what the status of his own program was much less the effects it would have on real people. Who is the stupidest, the Republicans that offered the delay or Obama who didn’t take it?
“The GOP demanded a delay as a first step towards getting rid of the law entirely.”
So? That is the status quo. Republicans are still trying to get rid of the law and they will still be trying a year from now. The difference is Obama would look like less of a jackhole idiot.
“They only wanted a delay to weaken the law.”
Lol like it wasn’t weakened by the rollout and people losing their doctors and insurance.
Obama also ordered private businesses to close if they leased land from the feds.
In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.
News shows talk about what’s new. There’s been lots of new information about the bridge scandal, and there hasn’t been anything new on the IRS front.
That is exactly what has been missing from the IRS scandal from its outset; Republicans in Congress have been the dogged pursuers, not the press.
Is he kidding? There was a huge amount of coverage at the outset. If journalists had kept finding new information that implicated new people in new ways, they’d have kept up that intensity. The story petered out because the evidence petered out. Even the dogged pursuit of House Republicans with subpoena power hasn’t found evidence to keep the story going.
The press is happy to go after anyone if it’s a good story. Christie was a media darling, but that didn’t keep them from belatedly covering Ft. Lee. If the IRS was still as good a story, it’d still be getting as much airtime.
Jim, you are “winning” on this one. Sometimes when one is on the winning side, the best approach is to “keep one’s head down” and not gloat about the IRS deal.
You know how you can lose by winning?
I happen to believe that Bridgegate is really, really bad. I happen to think that the unauthorized and clandestine tampering with a public works (lanes to the bridge) for pure political purposes is just short of an act of terrorism.
I don’t think that Park Gate is quite as bad because there was a Government Shutdown, people were open about the closing of government services, and there is this game of “shutdown theatre”, but I also thought Mr. Obama’s “beanball” style of play stinks.
I don’t know that IRS Gate is that bad, but we don’t have the “data dump of incriminating e-mails” that we do on Bridgegate.
So here I am, I think that Bridgegate is really, really bad, but I also think that Park Gate is pretty bad and the IRS gate could be really, really bad — absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
So Rand says, “Why are people picking on Christie when they don’t pick on Obama”, and yes, our esteemed host who is paying for the bandwidth around here says things like that. And the predictable response is “the Obama scandals are overblown.”
No, they are not overblown. No one has hit the motherlode of e-mails as they did with the Christie thing. And someone dismissing the Obama scandals as overblown is causing me to rethink my criticism of Christie. All these politicians engage in “dirty tricks”, only Governor Christie is (closer) to getting caught whereas the President has people around here better at “damage control.”
Jim, you are “winning” on this one.
I didn’t think it was a game. I’m sorry that Christie turns out to be corrupt — that isn’t a good thing for New Jersey, or the country.
I don’t think the GWB Bridge thing is a corruption deal in the traditional sense of the term. The real issue is “Is the Governor of NJ, vindictive and petty enough to seek vengeance
on a small town official for a minor issue as to block access to major piece of public infra-structure.
Most corruption deals get you sent to jail, in this case, I think it’s a career limiting move for
Christie.
” that isn’t a good thing for New Jersey, or the country.”
But Obama’s corrupt actions are good for the country?
If Obama was corrupt, that would be bad for the country. Fortunately for us, he’s run the least corrupt administration since Carter, at least measured by the number of top administration officials who’ve faced criminal charges.
That’s hilarious.
It can’t possibly be because the man in charge of making criminal charges is corrupt.
“If Obama was corrupt, that would be bad for the country.”
Glad we agree Obama is bad for the country. You know he is corrupt even if your ego wont let you post so here. It would be nice if you held the President to the same standards you hold a governor.
You don’t have to do it on the internet but you should pass on your feelings to your former employer. You worked on his campaign. I can’t imagine how betrayed you must feel. All the ideals you hold so dear have been shown to be insincere cynical positions.
You probably never thought you would see the day a Democrat President would act like a Hugo Chavez or Putin.
I am sorry this happened to you but mostly I am sorry for the rest of the country. I am sorry for the millions of people who lost their insurance and their doctors only to see their health insurance and care costs go up. I am sorry for the businesses being attacked by Obama’s policies and his militant activist groups. I am sorry for the millions of people who are unemployed because Obama puts his crackerjack box ideology before country. I am sorry for the Tea Party people who tried to engaged in public discourse only to meet the iron fist of tyranny. And I am sorry that Obama turned his back on our old allies like England and Israel as well as our new ones like Iraq and Afghanistan.
But why am I saying I am sorry? I am not the one responsible for it.
Jim says there were no stories to write about the IRS, that everything we needed to know was laid out by the trustworthy Obama administration in the hours after Lerner planted a question in a press conference. There is no there there which is why eight months later the Obama administration finally appoints a campaign donor to run the investigation. But why does the DOJ need to do an investigation, we already know everything before the investigation has taken place…
I know what you are thinking and no, waiting so long before the DOJ investigates isn’t a story and at no point should the press have asked questions about the lack of an investigation or a person to lead it after the last eight months. It is just a local crime story out of Cincinnati when you ignore the links to DC and the President’s hand picked staff which all good Americans should ignore if they are not racists.
There are a lot of imperfect comparisons offered up. “The Right wingers are hypocrites for defending Phil Robertson when they dissed Natalie Maines for opposing the Iraq War.”
Well no. Mr. Robertson, in an interview and in response to direct questions, expressed his personal understanding of what the Bible says about persons engaged in certain modes of expression along with what the Bible says about not judging, shunning, or harassing other persons based on their conduct.
Were Ms. Maines, hypothetically speaking, have given an interview, been asked “what do you think about the Iraq War” and answered, “My reading of the Bible has a commandment ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’ I part company with my fellow Texan President George Bush on this. I am against the War. But he is the Commander-in-Chief and has to make life-and-death decisions on our national security, and the Bible tells me not to judge.
But no, that is not what happened. She expressed her anti-war view, in a concert, in front of a crowd, in a foreign country, that she was “ashamed” to be from the same state of Texas as the President. It would be roughly as if Mr. Robertson delivered his jeremiad regarding gay persons for broadcast to the Duck Dynasty TV audience, and adding, “yes, I am very much offering judgement against gay persons.”
Furthermore, the pushback against Ms. Maines came from the demographic of Country Music, from her very audience. So yes, the crushing of Dixie Chicks recordings with pickup trucks and the banning of music from radio stations is as childish as the demands to take Mr. Robertson off the air. But no, it is not anywhere near the “same thing.”
So is Bridgegate the “same thing” as “IRS gate” or “Government shutdown” gate. Maybe. We complained pretty loudly about the singling out of right-leaning groups by the IRS as going into Nixon territory of using the power of government against the opposing political party. Were anyone audited for political reasons as a result of something Mr. Obama said, I think I would be waving the banner calling for impeachment.
What is “not the same thing” is that from a political standpoint, Mr. Obama is about dispensing favors to the many, presumably at the expense of a wealthy or demonized few. You want jobs? Here is a bunch of money to junk your car and help pay for a new one. You want healthcare. Here, we will expand Medicaid or we will subsidize your purchase of a health plan. You need a phone. Here is your “Obamaphone”, and so on. How will we pay for this — there are those people in the “1 percent”, we will raise their taxes, or I would if it weren’t for those awful Republicans.
Christie was about taking favors away for the greater good. Teachers costing too much pay and benefits and the state is going broke? OK teachers, give up pay and benefits or accept layoffs (including parents who will see fewer teachers for their kids). The transportation planners say we need a new trans-Hudson tunnel? Sorry, that costs to much, even with Federal subsidies, I am going to veto this tunnel.
So Mr. Obama is about giving out goodies whereas Mr. Christie is about taking the goodies away because we cannot afford them. Of course Mr. Christie is going to get 10 times the scrutiny.
If “what you are about” is “shared sacrifice for the common good”, you have to be beyond reproach like Caeser’s wife. You cannot do all of the “stuff” that Mr. Obama gets away with.
Christie was about taking favors away
And using the money to give tax cuts to the well off.
You need a phone. Here is your “Obamaphone”, and so on.
You do know that the Lifeline phone program was created under Ronald Reagan, right? In the future you might want to leave it off your list of Obama’s greatest hits.
“And using the money to give tax cuts to the well off.”
Letting people keep their own money isn’t “giving” them something.
“You do know that the Lifeline phone program was created under Ronald Reagan, right?”
And you know Obama made changes to that program right? Why are we not permitted to speak of Obama’s actions?
Why are we not permitted to speak of Obama’s actions?
“Here is your Obamaphone” is not an Obama action.
Obama voters called it the Obamaphone. It wasn’t a term made up by Republicans.
“not an Obama action”
You really claiming Obama did nothing with the program? Or are you claiming that Obama isn’t responsible for his own actions?
Plus, in the IRS scandal, the uppity serfs had it coming.
Right, Lord Jim?