The Obama Administration has been relatively scandal-free for most of its run, unless you're a fan of conspiracy theories. But true to most two-term presidencies, there is seemingly a flood of potential scandals and scandal-ettes this week. As an Obama voter and a lefty liberal moonbat, my inclination is to
not get too energized by whatever is driving right wing world crazy at any given moment. For one thing, they cry wolf too often, and their faux outrage is often over absolutely nothing. For another, they hate the president with a passion (and have since before he took office), and blame absolutely everything on him, regardless of reality. This is known as Obama Derangement Syndrome, and is the latest of its kind. George W. Bush caused a similar affliction on liberals, and before him, Bill and Hillary Clinton were the cause of the original strain in conservatives.
But is this latest batch of problems more akin to the ridiculousness inspired by Clinton Derangement Syndrome, like Socks the Cat's Christmas card list or the
suicide murder! of Vince Foster? Or is it more like torture, and lying us into war, and shooting a guy in the face? Unknown at this time, but my take is thus, so far:
- IRS/Tea Party-gate - I think the real scandal is that the IRS didn't rule negatively against any of the tea party offshoots. They are primarily or exclusively political organizations, and shouldn't have tax exempt status. These groups sprang up by the thousands after Obama's inauguration, and after the Citizens United decision. They held anti-tax animus as their
core concept. I know that President Obama and other Democrats are falling over themselves to both distance themselves from and condemn the actions of the IRS, but I don't see anything wrong with what the IRS did. Only the conclusions they came to. Ultimately, this could drag 5013 c regulations out into the sunlight, and start taxing the obviously political organizations. I mean
Karl Rove's? C'mon. . .
- Justice Department/AP-gate - I don't think we know enough about this one yet. It may have been completely legal, and possibly justified. Maybe not. I think it may lead to a re-examining of post 9/11 government overreach, and that could be a
good thing. The funny thing about this one is, having conservatives upset about the rights of the
mainstream media.
- Benghazi-gate - This one is the most obvious partisan witch-hunt. As the prez said, there's no "there" there. It was an attack
on us, not a conspiracy/cover-up
by us. I find the obsessive/compulsive focus on Susan Rice's later disproved talking points on Sunday shows to be puzzling, and pointless. And this one has the
opposite problem the first two have. The IRS and Justice Department potential scandals deal with overly powerful, overstepping, secretive government entities. And with Benghazi, the focus seems to be on why the government wasn't all-powerful, working behind the scenes to stop every potential attack, send in troops anywhere on a moment's notice, get the bad guys instantly, and not only know, but be willing to say publicly,
instantly, exactly what happened.
Of these three, none--so far--leads obviously "all the way to the top." You've got the State Department, Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service, any of which could have been operating under their own authority. I wonder, if in addition to all of the other issues these "scandals" bring up, if there will ever be a discussion about how
many divisions of government we have, and whether or not they are too autonomous, and too powerful. Ultimately, I'd like to see us get to the truth on all of them without ridiculous conspiracy theories and political theater obscuring everything.
