The “Progressive” IRS

No, it wasn’t equal-opportunity abuse of power:

From the start, it’s been pretty clear that Tea Party, pro-life and pro-Israel groups were targeted for special treatment. Yet even as one IRS official invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, the public has been asked to believe the most ridiculous explanations: that it was a rogue operation of a few underlings; that it was all done out of Cincinnati; that even though the groups most affected were all conservative, no politics was involved; and that what took the head of the IRS to the White House was just an Easter Egg roll or two.

We’re glad to hear from Inspector General George. But the American people deserve to learn who at the IRS signed off on this targeting and hear them explain why — under oath.

But remember — the “scandal” is “fizzling out.” Just ask Baghdad Jim.

9 thoughts on “The “Progressive” IRS”

  1. Yes, it’s fizzling out. There’s still no evidence of a White House role, or even a political motive by the people in Cincinnati. The timing of the IG report, coming in the same week as the (soon to be debunked) Jon Karl Benghazi story and the NSA story, made it feel like there was something there. The passage of time has made it clear that everyone (including Democrats) overreacted.

    1. I disagree. First, we have evidence that some abuse of power happened. Second, we don’t have evidence that anyone will be punished for the abuse of power. It’s the same M.O. that’s been used before in similar scandals. There’s no serious attempt to bring anyone to justice or prevent the scandal from recurring.

      Sure, we don’t have explicit evidence that “the White House” had a direct role in this activity any more than they did in say, Fast and Furious or the Black Panther thing way back when. OTOH, it looks to me like we have another case of a slap on the wrist for the perpetrators of the scandal. For example, why aren’t we seeing culprits quickly removed from the IRS like what happened to Shirley Sherrod?

      The Obama administration does know how to and can act quickly and decisively when it chooses to. So why aren’t they in this IRS scandal? I think it’s because the perpetrators once again are being protected because they furthered Obama administration interests. The US government has a special obligation to show that it is being operated fairly and without bias. The President should not be able to play these “Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Priest?” games where somehow underlings get the idea that certain illegal political actions are desirable and then the Administration fails to punish anyone for those actions.

      I wonder who Obama will decide to pardon in the last few days of his administration. I suspect it’ll be a long list.

    2. /yawn

      You need to update your lines, they are getting stale, to get the reaction you are looking for. We all know that while you wont admit it here, you know that what the Obama administration did was not only unethical and immoral but illegal. For someone who worked for the campaign, this fall from grace must be especially hard for you.

    3. I have to agree with wodun here. Your deeply hypocritical “it’s ok when my side does it” schtick is wearing real thin and is sorely misguided. Such abuses of power don’t stay exclusive to the side you favor. The time to deal with government-caused wrongs is when they happen, not when the other side happens to get into office.

      1. “Do not listen to wodun1 He repeats the lies of Satan! This is the most ethical and Constitution-upholding administration in the history of America! Do not doubt Dear Leader! He knows what is best for us!”–Baghdad Jim

  2. In related news, the Obama administration has such a great deal of credibility that a guy on the run from US intelligence can claim stuff, like the US is spying on normal European communications, and be instantly believed by a lot of people who don’t happen to Republicans or even US citizens.

    These “fizzled” scandals have an effect, I’d say.

  3. A corrupt regime need not directly order persecution of its enemies. It can get the same benefit by letting it be known that crimes against its enemies won’t be prosecuted.

    In failing to do its duty is such cases the regime becomes complicit, but maintains a layer of deniability when dealing with useful idiots.

Comments are closed.