DescentBB

MSNBC host Chris Matthews criticized President Obama for his mishandling of recent scandals, including the IRS targeting conservative groups.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: He does run the IRS. He runs the Treasury Department. He runs the United States government, and he is accountable for it, and this is nonsensical.

if he lost Chris Matthews he be in deep doodoo
It looks like Matthews might be putting away his pompoms

Yeah, just so you know Cuda, there are plenty of people (myself included) that don't support breaking the law. If it gets to the point of some kind of criminal investigation, well then we'll all get to see where it goes, but it hasn't yet. Seems weird to me that the President would sit in the oval office and tell people some grandiose scheme where they flag conservative pacs at a 25% higher rate than everyone else and it was going to be a big deal. If I remember correctly, there were a ★■◆●-ton of pacs in the last election.

Well the thing that bugs me, is the president saying he found out about this like everyone else did. when it broke in the news. Funny how his chief of staff knew, and his personal attorney knew long before it broke in the news, and we know the WH, IRS, and the treasury got together to plan on how to spin this before the IG report went public. But he didn't know? SERIOUSLY?

Is he that inept a leader?

If thats the case that his staff knew and didnt tell him, they should be terminated immediately. But do you think that will happen?

Neither do I.

And there is some evidence that suggests the Whitehouse knew about this immediately after the affordable care act became law in 2010, we shall see.

Nixon part deux anyone?


Oh and thank you Lois Lerner by pleading the 5th she opened the door for a criminal investigation and a special prosecutor. Not to mention it appears she screwed herself by making an opening statement then pleading the 5th, it seems there is precedent that you cannot do that. She might be forced to testify

CobGobbler wrote:Yeah, just so you know Cuda, there are plenty of people (myself included) that don't support breaking the law. If it gets to the point of some kind of criminal investigation, well then we'll all get to see where it goes, but it hasn't yet. Seems weird to me that the President would sit in the oval office and tell people some grandiose scheme where they flag conservative pacs at a 25% higher rate than everyone else and it was going to be a big deal. If I remember correctly, there were a **** of pacs in the last election.

The ratio of conservative vs other groups being audited isn't the heart of the problem.

Sure it is a bad thing to target them more than others but it was more partisan than just picking extra conservatives out for audit.
like making up long lists of requirements for them to have to fulfill that include questions regarding 'what they pray' about...personal information about family members not affiliated with the group....donor information that goes beyond the the usual needed data and then that data goes to a liberal activist group so they can target the donors (a felony offense by the way)...stalling the conservative applications for years while other groups get approved in the usual time frame.....Obama's brother's group approved in less than the usual time frame...etc.

The political nature of what happened, and that it happened from multiple offices, not just the Cinncinatti office, was obvious. The IRS internal investigation was completed 6 months before the election. That would be very bad timing for Obama's election run. So they tell Treasury to look into it...convenient because that gives them a plausible excuse for not going public with it until after the election. Then right before the Treasury report is made public they send Lois Lerner out to a public event where they have a person planted there to ask a question about the targeting complaints so she can appear to be on top of the problem before the media gets the report (they have admitted they planted the person and told them what to ask).

This whole thing is a managed from the top scandal and covered up for protecting the reelection campaign.

There are key obvious questions that Obama has not been asked by the media and there is no way in hell they wouldnt be screaming those questions out at a conservative president under the same circumstances.
A few examples: Who planted the person to ask the question of Lois Lerner and why not just hold a press conference to deliver the news of the problem?
When did Obama first learn about IRS abuse? (He dodged that question in an obvious Clintonian move and no one has tried to get him to answer it since)
Who told the assets to stand down instead of try to rescue the people in Benghazi?
Why have the survivors of that compound been isolated from the media since the attack?
Who decided to create the story about the video causing the riot that you knew didn't happen?

These and other questions would never go unasked if it was GW Bush at the helm!

Until the media decides to hold him to the same standard they hold the other party to he will continue to act with arrogance and impunity and his actions and attitude are inspiration and example for his administration to act the same way. The way the media has given him special treatment has shaped the character of this administration from top to bottom. They behave like true elites who find themselves elevated to a position above reproach.

Neither scenario looks very good for Obama. If he DIDN'T know what the IRS was doing, which I find very hard to believe frankly, he's an inept president and undeserving of the office we gave him. If he DID know, he's a crooked president who should be impeached.

I felt the same way about the DOJ. Everyone knows that all this reflects badly on a President. He is always the one that will take the heat. Either he is in charge of several rogue agencies, or he is complicit to the very details.

EDIT: Benghazi is a given, he's the Commander in Chief for God's sake. Those decisions always fall at his feet.

Yep. He picked the people to run his cabinet, he's responsible. Never did like Eric Holder, or Larry Summers either. He chose too many from the Clinton or Chicago pot.

tunnelcat wrote:Yep. He picked the people to run his cabinet, he's responsible. Never did like Eric Holder, or Larry Summers either. He chose too many from the Clinton or Chicago pot.

You say that as if he is some innocent hero from the outer regions who came to us with the best intentions and has been compromised by his peers.

That is far from he truth. He is the next generation of Chicago politics personified. He is taking Clintons example and building on it. He is their prodigy.

I believe there's hope for TC yet

unlike other members of this forum

Heh, if TC is using the impeachment word then truly Obama's ass is grass

A crooked politician is a crooked politician. Aren't they all? I also find it hard to believe Obama is stupid however, so that either leaves clueless, or crooked. But I can't fault him totally. His done nothing but battle Republicans that outright refuse to even work with him, so out came the Chicago and Clinton politics. Bad move on Obama's part.

Will Robinson wrote:You say that as if he is some innocent hero from the outer regions who came to us with the best intentions and has been compromised by his peers.

That is far from he truth. He is the next generation of Chicago politics personified. He is taking Clintons example and building on it. He is their prodigy.

That's what I didn't like about his choice of Cabinet members from the start. More Clinton cronyism right back in the White House. Stupid. And I did gripe about it after he was elected and starting building his cabinet. Lack of leadership and a reliance on another administration's old guard. If he'd wanted to change Washington, he would have had to get in fresh people without the Washington, or Chicago, taint. But realistically, don't you think that would have been hard to do? A president can't get anything done if he doesn't have people under him that know the ropes or can take names and kiss ass from the start.

tunnelcat wrote:A crooked politician is a crooked politician. Aren't they all? I also find it hard to believe Obama is stupid however, so that either leaves clueless, or crooked. But I can't fault him totally. His done nothing but battle Republicans that outright refuse to even work with him, so out came the Chicago and Clinton politics. Bad move on Obama's part.

Will Robinson wrote:You say that as if he is some innocent hero from the outer regions who came to us with the best intentions and has been compromised by his peers.

That is far from he truth. He is the next generation of Chicago politics personified. He is taking Clintons example and building on it. He is their prodigy.

That's what I didn't like about his choice of Cabinet members from the start. More Clinton cronyism right back in the White House. Stupid. And I did gripe about it after he was elected and starting building his cabinet. Lack of leadership and a reliance on another administration's old guard. If he'd wanted to change Washington, he would have had to get in fresh people without the Washington, or Chicago, taint. But realistically, don't you think that would have been hard to do? A president can't get anything done if he doesn't have people under him that know the ropes or can take names and kiss ass from the start.

I don't think he wanted to change Washington, he just wanted to use it.

He talked in platitudes about nonspecific hope and change because that allowed people to attach their specific desires to him. You were thinking 'change' meant the kind of change you would make....your neighbor was thinking it was what he would make...the guy across the state yet something else....all across america people rallied behind the guy that they thought was offering exactly the kind of change they wanted.
And when the difference between peoples expectations and his true agenda manifested itself you helped him deflect his role in the problem by dogmatically supporting his assertion that it was someone else's fault.....Bush....TeaParty....'insert scapegoat here'...

Of course none of that would have worked as well as it has if the media had examined him objectively.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:A crooked politician is a crooked politician. Aren't they all? I also find it hard to believe Obama is stupid however, so that either leaves clueless, or crooked. But I can't fault him totally. His done nothing but battle Republicans that outright refuse to even work with him, so out came the Chicago and Clinton politics. Bad move on Obama's part.

Will Robinson wrote:You say that as if he is some innocent hero from the outer regions who came to us with the best intentions and has been compromised by his peers.

That is far from he truth. He is the next generation of Chicago politics personified. He is taking Clintons example and building on it. He is their prodigy.

That's what I didn't like about his choice of Cabinet members from the start. More Clinton cronyism right back in the White House. Stupid. And I did gripe about it after he was elected and starting building his cabinet. Lack of leadership and a reliance on another administration's old guard. If he'd wanted to change Washington, he would have had to get in fresh people without the Washington, or Chicago, taint. But realistically, don't you think that would have been hard to do? A president can't get anything done if he doesn't have people under him that know the ropes or can take names and kiss ass from the start.

I don't think he wanted to change Washington, he just wanted to use it.

He talked in platitudes about nonspecific hope and change because that allowed people to attach their specific desires to him. You were thinking 'change' meant the kind of change you would make....your neighbor was thinking it was what he would make...the guy across the state yet something else....all across america people rallied behind the guy that they thought was offering exactly the kind of change they wanted.
And when the difference between peoples expectations and his true agenda manifested itself you helped him deflect his role in the problem by dogmatically supporting his assertion that it was someone else's fault.....Bush....TeaParty....'insert scapegoat here'...

Of course none of that would have worked as well as it has if the media had examined him objectively.

But...but....but... That's subversion!