Undoing Obama has been a force that has lent meaning to the Republican party. The ACA is only a symbol of what Obama means to them--a big-government program for a Big-Government style Democrat. Although the Tea Party seemed to rise up as a reaction against the bank bailout and the "porkulus", opposition to the health care reform plan became a huge focus of the movement, which was credited with the massive Republican gains in the 2010 elections. Perhaps the IRS could be a little forgiven for supposing, then, that Tea Party orgs were political?
Well, maybe not if House Republicans have their way (with the narrative, like they often do). But it does seem like there may be details that suggest there was nothing retaliatory or sinister in the closer inspection that such groups received--
"You say it was not targeting, but why was only one side of the political spectrum singled out on this?" Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) asked.
Miller insisted the IRS evaluators merely "triaged" the situation in trying to deal with thousands of applications. He noted that only 70 of 300 applications that the inspector general flagged were actually tea party groups.
Several Republicans additionally demanded explanations for why donor records were demanded from groups.
Miller said that while sometimes it makes sense to seek such information -- for instance, if a conflict of interest is suspected -- the requests were too broad and were rescinded, or the records were destroyed.
George said there were 27 such requests, although only 13 were from tea party groups.
But that can't be the end of that, can it? Also,per my last post, I am certain that I will be greeted by the dawn on the morrow, followed by Republican talking heads continuing to beat the drum regarding Benghazi on Sunday morning chat shows, even despite the revelation that the GOP talking points about the Benghazi talking points were themselves, spun...a lot. It looks a bit pointless and familiar to me. It reminds me not a little of the Clintonmania of yesteryear, but no. It reminds me a whole lot more of the Obamamania that surrounds us all the time.
But what can we make of it? The Benghazi scandal looks like former Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton is a particular target, and for the likes of, say, possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Rand, son of Ron, Paul, that's pretty apparent. But I'm thinking that laying the State Department talking points issue as particularly a way to take down Hillary in 2016 may be missing the mark--and the reason I'm saying that is because I recall 9/12. 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney wasted no time in trying to politically capitalize on a tragedy to imply that President Obama was "soft on terror". If, seven or eight months later, the GOP message has now been massaged down to "talking points were altered to cover the State Department's ass" (although cover their ass over what, exactly, is hard to say by this late stage in what is becoming an increasingly meta-scandal), it remains a commentary on Obama's foreign policy. If this cover-up that isn't lures creatures of the Bush Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld) to poke their heads out and invite comparisons...sigh. But I won't. I just...fucking...won't.
Instead, I'll reveal my own suspicions about the never-ending outrage factory emanating from their fascinatingly bent corner (obtuse, I believe). It seems to me that the Republican House that has voted 37 times to repeal Obamacare, and has by no means succeeded in doing it, that has, as a body, exceptionally low approval ratings, and, in their opposition to every form of progress, become a congress so inefficient that watching them is not unlike watching a porcupine trying to get it on with a water balloon--is barking at shadows because really, what else is there? What was it that Sen. McConnell admitted in the momentous Tea Partying year of 2010?
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.What is it that influential conservative group, Heritage Action, counseling now?
"Rather than scheduling such legislation for consideration, we urge you to keep the attention focused squarely on the Obama administration," Needham wrote in summation.And maybe that will do them some good in 2014--making Obama look bad, and themselves look okay to their base by avoiding difficult votes and instead, making empty ones, but I really hope it doesn't. We don't need scandal-drunk zombies in office who can do nothing productive. I also wonder if it will escape the notice of their consituents in just under two years that this is exactly what the GOP-led congress has become.
Also, one notices that the Senate is made just as constipated by inaction due to the filibuster, so much so that Harry Reid might even consider doing something about it. It's appalling that a Senate minority can disrupt lawful government by blocking crucial appointments on so many generally non-offensive nominees on the simple principle of "They don't wanna."
But it isn't surprising anymore, is it? They are scandal-drunk to forget what they should be doing because they dare not do it. And that, without a doubt, is the real scandal.