Obama is too hot on the trigger to fire people at the least but of controversy before finding out the details. Why does he act so quickly on the GOP stink bombs and take forever on the truly important issues? His lack of loyalty for those in office is demoralizing.

Accommodation is not always best policy. Tho Obama seems a supremely confident, his admin acts very insecure. He reminds of a manager that gets a complaint about an underling and takes it at face value and throws underling under bus before even hearing their side of incident. Personally, as a mamager, I always give the benefit of the doubt to my employees, while certainly being concerned about customer service and team plat with other departments. Sometimes I'm dissappointment by employees, but usually the complaint turns out to be a misplaced understanding. Sometimes my employees did nothing wrong except not oresenting their case in a diplomatic, comvincing manner. Once I get whole story from employee, I can often mediate with the complaining party, giving them a fuller understanding, give them perspective why we did what we did, making them feel taken seriously while less upset.

Of course, the complainer isn't necessarily purposefully trying to make me look bad, but that happens sometimes also...and my position is never helped by caving to hysteric claims before I get full story.

Personally, I think this comes with confidence and principled ideals. I see other managers that cave all the time, it doesn't help them long-term and it seems to come from an insecure perspective.

I sort of get it, they are in this weird DC bubble where every sniffle is jumped on, it starts to get to you. I remember once working for a black community organization in Oakland in the 80s. Being as I was white, they asked me to work in white neighborhoods, fundraising and informing. After a few days of talking to white people about police brutality in black community, making case war on drugs was essentially a war on black community because of its horrible racial-bias and getting almost uniform rejection or conte station of my every point, I started to feel crazy, even though I was confident in the facts and analysis I was making and none if the folks arguing with me had anything in facts or analysis that refuted my claims. Then occasionally a black person, working class or well-educate professional, and they would just agree and often add all kinds of extra information, analysis and anecdotes to back the claims I was making. Then I wouldn't feel so crazy, knew reality in black community was as I represented it. But still, all the adamant and often hostile push back on basic irrefutable facts I got from so many white people did make me feel crazy. Of course now, these views are much more mainstream.

I'm glad the IRS is in the docket...Don't care who is going after them.
And of course there is bias here. It's probably not systemic and the GOP is over the top as usual... but "progressives" have been screeching inanities about the tea party since it began. Julian Bond being the most recent when he stated that the TP was "admittedly racist"... huh? Too many progressives tend to simply make things up about groups they dislike. I'm sure Obama cultists at the IRS took cues and chose words they knew would disfavor the Right. Choosing the words "tea party" is both streamlining AND bias. They didn't choose "occupy" or "progressive".
Regardless, I promise you if Bush was president and his IRS did this to the left they would be apoplectic. MSNBC would be foaming just like Fox is now.
I'm really sick of one side acting like they don't do the exact same thing when the shoe is on the other foot. Meantime, I'm fine with the IRS getting hammered and if Obama is taken down a few notches I'm good with that too. The Left needs to stop being so snotty about the Tea Party. In fact, the real Left ought to be forming alliances with the Tea Party.

John Smart @ 3 said:

They didn't choose "occupy" or "progressive".

Really? And you know that how, exactly? (Didn't read the article you're commenting on, didja?)

I'm really sick of one side acting like they don't do the exact same thing when the shoe is on the other foot.

Me too. Thanks for helping demonstrate that.

The MSM is the "scandal"!

Great work, again, Brad!

Yes, until there is some sort of larger group awakening to the reality that this sort of fake scandal, all with all the fake outrage in response to it, along with the hapless Obama Administration bending over forever backwards so that they will somehow mollify an opposition that will never be mollified is ALL the result of a shift in cultural consciousness expertly manipulated by the rightwing noise machine, we're gonna be spending a helluva lot of time on a merry-go-round to nowhere.

Like we got time for this bullshit.

So, we have our answer. Brad is suitably outraged at an invasion of the rights of journalists. The rest is just a Fox/Drudge/GOP drummed up "scandal". Thanks for clearing that up Brad!

Steve @7, if you could respond to the actual, specific points(or even a single one) being made by Brad in his article above, that'd be great.

David I responded yesterday twice to Brads "point" that in the IG's report there is no indication that the increased scrutiny of conservative groups was politically motivated. I very nicely pointed out that the IG's report specifically states "policy positions" were one of the criteria for increased scrutiny. I've now pointed it out again. Brad chooses to ignore a fact that directly contridicts him.

So Steve, please explain to me why it is inappropriate for the IRS to consider the "policy positions" of applicants for 501(c)(3) status when the applicant for such status is claiming to be a non-partisan, charitable organization?

Specifically [emphasis added],

"Tea Party" groups are the very essence of "action organizations" that devote "a substantial part of their activities" to political campaigns.

The American hard right is a piece of work. It violates the law by illegally claiming tax-exempt status and then, in a manner reminiscent to the little boy who murdered his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he's an orphan, cries "foul" when the IRS uses "policy positions" to determine whether they are qualified for tax exempt status.

Nice job changing the subject Ernie, but there's a point here. Brad says there is no indication of any political reason for the increased scrutiny of certain groups. Clearly that is "misinformation" as he loves to accuse me of spreading. Because the IG report specifically states policy positions, which sounds pretty political.

It's not inappropriate. It becomes inappropriate when the consideration is one sided based on political ideology. So far we've heard the IRS apologize to conservative groups, I've not yet heard them apologize to progressive groups. I'm betting that the reason for the lack of that apology is because there are no progressive groups who are owed an apology. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

By Brad's pie chart on Thursday, there are 202 groups that are the unknown. He of course gave an example of some poor progressive group who finds and trains women to run for office (decidedly political) and were denied the tax exempt status. My bet is those 202 will have a handful of progressive groups like the one mentioned above, and the rest will have been found by keywords such as: family, life, marriage, etc.

Steve,
You conveniently completely ignore one of Brad's main points. There have been very real persecutions of progressives(as he detailed). There is barely a peep out of Washington in objection. There is primarily complicity in the persecution. How does that figure into your equation?

Also, where were all the hearings in Washington over the persecution of Occupy?

Also, how is Ernie directly responding to your question "changing the subject"?

According to your reasoning, since we never heard any apologizing for any of the well-documented politically motivated persecution mentioned above, it didn't happen.

ACORN - The Takeover of America by Chuck Morse
http://amzn.com/B00BI237SG

Oh Christ, now you have Morse pimping his lunatic rantings here...

This is not even a new story. The former Bush appointed Commisioner of the IRS, Douglas Shulmanm, was questioned about this exact information in March of 2012.
Link

Steve, policy positions can be political or not. The IRS cannot know unless the org gives them the bylaws, mission statements, and other paperwork detailing the purpose of the org. All orgs get scrutinized. I had to go through it in 1978-79 for my 501(c)3 educational org, and it took the IRS about a year to give us the go. There is no scandal here.

But it sure seems from what I'm reading and hearing that overtly political action groups want a free pass. I say NO tax exempt status for any political group whatsoever, whether progressive or regressive.

Steve Snyder's claim @11 that I had "changed the subject" in my comment @10 deserves a classic "WTF?"

In his initial article, Brad wrote [emphasis added]:

Steve, who uses the self-described label of "wingnut," expressed the belief, @9, repeated @11, that the fact that the IG report said that "policy positions" were utilized by the IRS as a criteria to determine whether an applicant qualifies for 501(c)(3) status somehow refuted Brad's point.

Obviously, Steve lacks the sophistication to appreciate the subtle, yet fundamental distinctions that both Brad and the Inspector General applied to their respective analyses of this pseudo "scandal."

1. Because the question of whether an applicant actually qualifies for 501(c)(3) status is dependent upon whether the applicant is a genuine, non-partisan charitable organization --- as opposed to "action organization" that devotes a substantial part of its activity to political campaigning --- it is indeed appropriate for the IRS to examine the "policy positions" of the applicant, irrespective of whether those policy positions are left, right or center.

If it labels itself as a political "action organization," if it devotes a substantial part of its activities to carrying out the policies of a political "action organization," there's a very good chance that the applicant is a political "action organization" and not a genuine, non-partisan charitable organization.

2. So long as the IRS bases its determination to grant or deny 501(c)(3) status on the basis of whether the applicant is or is not an "action organization," irrespective of whether the applicant's policy positions are left, right or center, the IRS decision comports with its legal obligation to enforce the law.

3. Brad was correct when he wrote that the IG report does not state that the IRS had scrutinized applications "for political reasons."

It is the essence of a good propagandist to never admit they are wrong. I'm sure Wingnut Steve won't disappoint in that regard with his next WTF reply.

Oh, and as to that portion of Steve's high and mighty comment @11: " It becomes inappropriate when the consideration is one sided based on political ideology."

Did you miss that portion of Brad's article, which recites:

The fact that the "IRS apologized to conservative groups" does not establish that it did anything wrong. Neither does the fact that Obama threw the head of the IRS under the bus.

I recall similar apologies and reactions from the Obama administration surrounding Shirley Sherrod, all of which had to be later be retracted once even the corporate owned MSM came to realize they'd been scammed by a right wing canard.

Did you ever consider that the failure to apologize to progressive organizations, like the church which came under IRS scrutiny because a pastor gave an anti-war sermon just prior to the 2004 election, flows from the fact that progressive groups lack the political clout that comes with the wealth of the right wing billionaires who fund and control the so-called "Tea Party"?

Regarding this non-scandal, I also found out that this issue was raised in Congress in early 2012 and W-appointed IRS Commish Schulman made it clear that submitting an app for official 501(c)3 or 4 status is VOLUNTARY; people submit to questions so their org gets official approval by the IRS. He said that tax law is clear that if they want, they can just submit a Form 990 at the end of the year claiming that status.

So an org doesn't even need to submit to this kind of scrutiny, as long as their behavior conforms to 501(c)4 status during the tax year covered by Form 990. If not, they won't get to claim tax exempt status which would affect donations received that tax year.

This kerfluffle is ridiculous.

Oh yes - Pushed submit before putting this in. Tip of the hat to Madeleine above for the link to what the IRS actually stated is the tax law on this subject.

Ernie makes excellent points. I stand corrected and apologize for the inaccurate statements I have made here, and for not understanding the "subtle yet fundamental distinctions" which must be applied.

Ernie, my changing the subject was in thinking that you are trying to turn the issue into a 501 debate rather than a debate of what all the news agencies and networks are erroneously reporting is the real problem.

Steve Snyder @22 wrote:

Ernie makes excellent points. I stand corrected and apologize for the inaccurate statements I have made here, and for not understanding the "subtle yet fundamental distinctions" which must be applied.

Wow! Your much welcome candor is both refreshing and a bit embarrassing, for me. Now I'll have to reconsider everything I've said about you being an unapologetic, right wing propagandist.

This is one instance in which I am delighted to have someone demonstrate that I've perhaps been misinformed about the content of their character.

Steve Snyder said @ 9:

I responded yesterday twice to Brads "point" that in the IG's report there is no indication that the increased scrutiny of conservative groups was politically motivated. I very nicely pointed out that the IG's report specifically states "policy positions" were one of the criteria for increased scrutiny. I've now pointed it out again. Brad chooses to ignore a fact that directly contridicts him.

Huh? A) I didn't "ignore" anything. You'll be shocked to learn that I can't read and/or respond to all comments here (and hadn't noticed that one until you just pointed it out.) and B) That comment doesn't "contridict" anything that I've asserted.

As you helpfully cited in your previous comment on this in another thread, you are referring to the following IG report's [PDF] finding: [emphasis yours]:

In that previous comment, you asserted that the IG text above was evidence of "political motivation" within the IRS. Specifically, you wrote:

If there was no political motivation, why would the IG report clearly state that one of the criteria for increased scrutiny was "policy positions". That kinda sounds political doesn't it?

Well, what I actually said in the article you were responding to, was that the IG's report did not find "Any evidence that 'Tea Party' related groups were identified during this process for nefarious reasons" and that they found "No evidence that 'Tea Party' groups were targeted for political reasons" and "there is no evidence offered in the report that those words were chosen to target or disadvantage such groups for political reasons" and while "it was inappropriate and unfair to use words in the titles of the organizations as a way of identifying groups that might be participating in illegal campaign activity, the report makes no charge that they were doing so for political reasons" and that "the IG's report offers no evidence that any of it was done in order to knowingly disadvantage 'Tea Party' related groups in a political fashion."

So, hopefully what I actually was arguing there is now quite clear.

With that said, using "policy positions" to determine if they are political groups that deserve closer scrutiny, doesn't seem to "contridict" my argument in any way, shape or form.

If a stated "policy position" on an application says, for example, "We believe ObamaCare should be repealed" or "We support Republican policies" or "We want to see Republicans/Democrats elected to office" or "We believe Wall Street bankers should be prosecuted" or "We believe the government should spend money on stimulus programs to put people back to work", those statements of "policy position" might be an indication that the group might be doing political work that is in violation of tax code law and requires closer scrutiny before bestowing taxpayer subsidized tax-exempt status.

At one point, for example, the IRS unit had decided to flag "Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement."

Those are, of course, all "policy positions". So how does using any of those criteria, as they did, prove that the unit was "politically motivated", as you charge??? And how does that "contridict" (as you misspelled) my original assertions, quoted at length above???

Again, we may learn, at some point, that some of the folks in the unit had nefarious partisan political motivations for what they did. But, as of now --- based on all that we know (the IGs report, the (inappropriately fired) acting IRS Commissioner's testimony before Congress yesterday, all other reporting on this that I am familiar with) --- no such evidence or proof has been offered. Sorry.

To me, the most surprising part of this whole thing was when Obama said he only heard of any of this a few days ago through the same news reports we had.

This may explain why Obama is so quick to have knee jerk reactions.

Sorry, Gus, but I believe "cowardice" is the source of Obama's repeated "knee jerk reactions" starting with Rev. Wright, continuing through Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN and now the IRS.

Rather than standing with those who speak truth to power, and exposing the right wing smears in the process, our President seeks to distance himself from the fall out brought on by the libelous canards by throwing the smeared under the bus.

"You see," he appears to be saying, "if something was done that is inappropriate, it was them, not me." Thus, he swiftly joined in condemning Shirley Sherrod before he had any idea what really happened.

The one truth revealed by these contrived "scandals" is that our President's character is flawed.

Thank you for pointing out my misspelling Brad, and for going the extra mile to point it out several times for everyone else. I think the lesson we've learned here is that you will stoop to any level imaginable to disparage whomever may disagree with you. But, a spelling error? For real? I think you're being a little ridiculous.

Steve, we all make spelling errors. No big deal.

But I have to say again, it's a little hard to take you complaining about Brad supposedly "stooping to any level imaginable to disparage whomever may disagree with (him)" after his rather mild poking at you. If that's stooping to any level, how would you characterize your recent gratuitously insulting suggestion that I "sober up"?

Are you aware of how attitudinal many of your comments sound/are to Brad, Ernie, and others? If you're gonna sling attitude around, how can you expect some attitude not to come back at you?

You manifest different standards for how you like to be treated and how you treat others.

While I certainly don't disagree with any of the substantive points Brad made @24 and understand why David Lasagna would, @28, post a retort to Steve's terse reply to Brad @27, I think all should give recognition to what amounts to a major positive concession that Steve made @22.

He has honestly acknowledged that he was wrong about this pseudo-"scandal". Maybe, just maybe, if we put away the slings and arrows, Steve will be more open to continuing an honest dialogue in the future.

Looking back at some of my old comments, I have to agree with you David. Guilty as charged of sometimes being a little too aggressive, and often getting frustrated at not having the level of eloquence others have to make my point.

And I didn't win the $700 million powerball lottery either, fuck me.

Peace

This may sound a little weird, but after all we've all been through here, after reading Ernie and Steve's heartfelt back to back comments, I actually got choked up. Yes, if we can find some peace after all we've been at each other's throats, maybe there is hope.
love,
Dave

The TEA Party is a front for white supremacists who masquerade as a protest group but has given the game away with the bizarre imagery of Obama on their variously insulting placards. They hate the idea that a black man sits atop the Executive Branch of the US Government. They and their close allies and chorts in the US Congress are determined to make him pay for his audacity in running and being re-elected for the office of the Presidency. So, as a political group the tea-baggers have no stand as tax exempt organizations and their applications were rightfully scrutinized by the IRS.

READY, FIRE, AIM. It's all about getting more scalps and Obama is more than ready to serve them up. So what will they do next? More scalps, more diversions.

Steve Snyder said @ 27:

Thank you for pointing out my misspelling Brad, and for going the extra mile to point it out several times for everyone else. I think the lesson we've learned here is that you will stoop to any level imaginable to disparage whomever may disagree with you. But, a spelling error? For real? I think you're being a little ridiculous.

Well, that's a very nice way to NOT have to respond to a single point in the very detailed response that I took the time to put together in response to your very serious assertions.

Sorry you were unable to have thick enough skin to overlook the incredible minimal ribbing I threw in there (largely because I needed to quote you, but didn't want to misquote you by spelling it the way you didn't). Incredibly lame, Steve.

As to those who fell for your either half-hearted or incredibly sarcastic "apologies"? I didn't.

You did make excellent points Brad, I already acknowledged the same to Ernie which are many of the same points, I'm willing to accept that I jumped the shark too quickly in my comment to you, and I'm willing to wait and see what actually happened vice jumping on a bandwagon.

And I am being sincere. I've been an ass too many times and resolve to try to be a better person. We're all americans and we all want what's best for the country. Angry dialogue arguing semantics defines stupidity. I'ma try to be a little less stupid. Happy Sunday.

That should read Ernie, who made many of the same points.

Similar points.. damn..

Well, ain't this a bitch. Ernie and I believe we are witnessing a sea change with Steve and Brad is playing the bah humbug.

Brad,
All I can say is that if you're right and this is Steve just playing with our minds again, he's doing it in such a radically different way, with such different words and tone, I feel he'd have to be given points for creativity and style, anyway.

But me, for now?, I'm choosing to believe him.

And shit, Brad you're the one who helped set this all up by reading me and Steve the riot act a couple of comment sections back. In response to that I acknowledged my part in it and said I'd change. And I think Steve did, too.

Steve Snyder said @ 35:

And I am being sincere. I've been an ass too many times and resolve to try to be a better person. We're all americans and we all want what's best for the country. Angry dialogue arguing semantics defines stupidity. I'ma try to be a little less stupid.

Fair enough. Given the speed of your turnaround on this thread, after so many months (years?), I hope you forgive my initial dubiousness. I'll take you at your word under the presumption you're sincere. I also hope that doesn't keep you from challenging, questioning, holding feet to fire (including mine). My objections have never been to that.

David Lasagna @ 38:

Given Steve's followup remarks (in response to my dubiousness and before your remarks above), I am happy to take him at his word. See my comment to that end @ 39 above.

A masterstroke by President Obama.

Firing the Acting Director Miller puts the treasonous Republiscum in the Senate on the spot to approve a full Director.

Grossly unfair to Steven Miller however.

Permanent ATF chief last approved by the Senate, NEVER: "the bureau has not had a permanent director since the position was made subject to U.S. Senate approval in 2006."

Mitch McConnell, making the work of terrorists easier.

Irwin,
I've heard the masterstroke opinion applied to Obama's actions in the past. Used to be skeptical, but hoped I was wrong. Have come to be convinced there is nothing resembling masterstrokedness in his actions/posturing. It's more like he's HAD a master stroke if he thinks caving to bullshit time and again is the answer to anything but how to be a co-dependent enabler to madness.

Right I probably should've included the key word
'potential' in front of 'masterstroke' since following up the firing with every Democrat bringing up the lack of a Director at every one of the dozen hearings to come this summer is critical.

The last masterstroke I know of was 8 years ago with President George Bush brilliantly dumping the entire Hurricane Katrina response fiasco on that jerk Micael Brown - "Brownie you are doing a heckuva job." Brown was speechless.

That prima donna inherited a mess at FEMA thanks to Bush budget cuts and reorganization under DHS and Bush neatly shifted blame.

I work at a foundation. Part of my job is doing due diligence research on 501(c)3 charities before we make donations. We are prohibited from making donations to 501(c)4 organizations (except via some very convoluted processes, and only for the true "social welfare" groups, like volunteer fire brigades). Much of this comments section has conflated the two types of groups.

This scandal really boils down to the following:
1) there is a REAL epidemic of illegitimate 501(c)4 organizations which are little more than money-laundering fronts for big money political concerns.
2) The IRS is understaffed to deal with this flood of new (legitmate and dubious) organizations.
3) Some IRS workers tried to deal with their unmanageable caseload by adopting "profiling" rules that seemed sensible from a practical perspective but were inappropriate from a fairness perspective.
4) When this sort of thing comes up, as it often does, in police, immigration and homeland security policy discussions, conservatives usually take the opposite position.

Its diversion from the real white house spying on reporters story for which holder should lose his job!

The IRS even audited conservative/outlaw author E.A. Blayre III who wrote the banned book "America Deceived II".
Last link of "America Deceived II" before it is completely censored:
http://www.amazon.com/Am...errogation/dp/1450257437

False scandals like HBgary? (sarc)

Stay frosty, not to whip up the hornets nest, I know HBGary was real, but why is it you can't see the IRS targets are real? Go ask Lee of Harborside about being a target facing execution.

To whoever in the thread said the tea party is a bunch of white supremacists, prove it. Else I hereby nullify your outrageous lie.

Authority has been removed for sending any Teflon ™coated oath breaker piece of shit to Fort Leavenworth KS, is the SCANDAL of the day.