Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

markpkessinger

(8,899 posts)

5. Well, I'll quibble with that a bit. . .

Reply to Logical (Reply #3)

Thu May 16, 2013, 09:25 AM

May 2013

. . . Firing the acting Commissioner was part of Washington, D.C.'s "accountability theater." They do it all the time: some scandal erupts in some agency, the opposing party demands "accountability," and the sitting administration "proves" its commitment to accountability by a high-profile firing (whether or not the person fired actually had anything at all to do with the particular scandal).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Folks, it just won't do to say "the IRS did nothing wrong" when it has already admitted that it DID [View all] markpkessinger May 2013 OP

But the main point of the Tea Party was to endorse Tea Party candidates! CJCRANE May 2013 #1

They had the right idea, but did it the wrong way. backscatter712 May 2013 #2

Also, Obama does not fire the IRS head unless they did something wrong. n-t Logical May 2013 #3

Well, I'll quibble with that a bit. . . markpkessinger May 2013 #5

I see your point. But I would hope Obama would not fire someone for no reason. Maybe I am.... Logical May 2013 #11

Here is an example of the White House reacting instead of finding out what the facts are.... xocet May 2013 #16

As much as I like Obama, in all faireness you are right! I was so furious over the whole Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #19

Actually I think he felt that had to fire someone. This guy was the Fall Guy. I don't believe Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #18

IRS should do more than target these political groups. Life Long Dem May 2013 #4

I agree, so long as that denial applies across the board to political groups n/t markpkessinger May 2013 #6

They haven't denied a single TeaBagger 501(c)4. Not. A. One. BlueCaliDem May 2013 #9

I read on here yesterday that 79 groups, or 82% of the total investigated, were denied. ieoeja May 2013 #13

It targeted the NAMES, not the political persuasion. n/t magellan May 2013 #7

The IRS should admit they wrote law and THAT is the wrong that they've done. BlueCaliDem May 2013 #8

+1 uponit7771 May 2013 #12

Inappropriate, sure. Misguided, yes. 'Wrong'... redqueen May 2013 #10

Would the people defending it do the same if it was Bush targeting liberal type names? Marrah_G May 2013 #14

The Bush administration DID target liberal groups. Going after the NAACP was legendary. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #21

do you suppose "peace" and"anti war" and "equal" or "community" or "democratic" librechik May 2013 #15

It would be wrong if they not only targeted the Teabagger groups, but also DENIED them 501(c)(4) Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #17

That does not mean we have to agree treestar May 2013 #20

...and yet they did. Not one of those groups were denied special tax-exempt status. Not one! Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #22

Which makes the "scandal" all the more ridiculous treestar May 2013 #23

They are so desperate and obsessed with destroying Obama and finally they got Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #24