You know it’s bad when fellow Democrats are saying this about Obama.
You know it’s bad when fellow Democrats are saying this about Obama.
File this one in the “Can’t Make This Stuff Up” category. MSNBC actually speculated today that because the former IRS Commissioner was a Bush appointee that he may have been targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups because he was felt that they were unpopular and a threat to the GOP:
Is it possible that the right-leaning Tea Party was being forced to reconcile onerous information requests from the Internal Revenue Service because former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush, thought the nascent conservative movement reflected poorly on the Republican Party? This is the theory that was posited on MSNBC on Monday in an effort to explain the IRS’ admission that they had singled out conservative groups for undue scrutiny.
“Is it really the interesting part here that Shulman, who was a Bush appointee, might have been looking at Tea Party groups because of what it might have done to the Republican Party at the time – in the future of what we’re seeing now; basically, splintering the foundation of the Republican side?” MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked?
Allahpundit from Hot Air adds more:
The logic is ironclad and inexorable: Doug Shulman, appointed IRS commissioner by Bush in March 2008, was so fiercely loyal to his Beltway Republican masters that he decided to risk his career to kneecap conservative insurgents’ nonprofits in 2010 … even though Bush had left office more than a year before and the GOP establishment he represented was widely loathed by pretty much everyone in America. Oh, and even though (again per Rothman) Shulman himself has donated to the DNC in the past. Say it with me, guys: This. Is. A. Republican. Scandal.
In the same spirit of half-assed spitballing/“news,” how’s this for an alternate theory: Shulman tacitly approved of the tea-party targeting because he was eager to prove himself a loyal soldier to a new Democratic administration that might have been suspicious of his Bush pedigree. After hearing tea partiers impugned a thousand timesby Dem officials and liberal media outlets — none more so than MSNBC — maybe he got it in his head that singling out these right-wing would-be domestic terrorists was the patriotic (and career-furthering) thing to do. Slightly more plausible, yes? As theories go, I’d say it’s 51-percent-assed. Soon we’ll get to hear Shulman’s side of it when he’s inevitably subpoenaed by Darrell Issa’s committee. And, almost as inevitably, his testimony won’t be carried live by MSNBC.
I guess what MSNBC is saying is that, in sort of a round-a-bout way, it’s Bush’s fault that the IRS targeted Conservative groups.
Well, I have not heard this excuse in at least ten minutes. Racism…that has to be it…why else would anyone care that the President, his administration and the IRS are involved in multiple scandals, involving intimidation, harassment, cover-ups, and deaths? Has to be because of racism.
The problem is there are people in this country, maybe ten percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe twenty percent on a bad day, who want this president to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t president. … They want to be able to say, well, he didn’t really have that batting average; he really wasn’t the first African American president; he really didn’t do health care; he really didn’t kill bin Laden. There’s an asterisk, and they have been fighting for that, the people like Donald Trump, since day one. They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country. Not all conservatives, not even all right-wingers, but it always comes through with this birther crap and these other references and somehow trying to erase ObamaCare, erase his record in history, and a big part of it is bought into by people like John Boehner, who’s not a bad guy, but he knows the only way he can talk to the hard right is talk their language.
I really wonder sometimes if people like Chris Matthews actually believe this nonsense or does he just know his role and what is expected of him if he wants to have a show on MSNBC?
“Admittedly racist”? I must have missed that admission. More like falsely accused of being racist for opposing a President (who happens to be black) with whom they fundamentally disagree (you know, kind of like how people like former NAACP Chairma Julian Bond disagreed vehemently with President Bush for 8 years). Question: were the Republicans who opposed Bill Clinton racists? How about those that oppose Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other white Democrats? Racists too?
Just watch what happens if Hillary Clinton is the nominee for the Democrat Party in 2016 (or any other white Democrat). She will be just as opposed as Obama ever was.
But, the reality is, Julian Bond knows this isn’t true. He probably just gets a kick out of calling people racists (plus he knows that he can get away with saying it).
What an embarrassment.
From Jim Geraghty at National Review: “Scarborough, Todd Wonder Why Democrats Are Shrugging at IRS Scandal”
TODD: Why aren’t there more Democrats jumping on this? This is outrageous no matter what political party you are, that an arm of the government, maybe it’s a set of people just in one office but, mind you, that one office was put in charge of dealing with these 501c4s and things like that.
SCARBOROUGH: Why didn’t the president say something on Friday afternoon?
TODD: I don’t know. Maybe they were distracted by Benghazi. Maybe they made the decision they didn’t want it to be about healthcare. I raised this question – where is the sense of outrage? And the only pushback was, Jay Carney spoke about this at the press briefing and he was pretty strong. I have to say it didn’t sound very strong to me. I don’t know if the White House realizes. I think this story has more legs politically in 2014 than Benghazi.
Of course, the more accurate title would be “Why is it ok for white liberals to denigrate black Conservatives?”
If you have seen the interview between the admitted socialist MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell and Herman Cain, you are probably asking yourself the same question. Why do white liberals get to insult Conservative blacks? Why do they get to question their commitment to the civil rights movement? Why do they get away with insinuating that they are not really black?
This is just another glaring example of how liberals are the most intolerant people in our country. They’d love for us all to believe that they are the ones that are color blind. But every chance they get, they prove otherwise. How is it that a white liberal gets to question Herman Cain’s blackness because he did not participate in the marches during the civil rights movement?
I’d like to see Lawrence O’Donnell’s reaction if a white Conservative tried to smear a liberal black running for president.
Conservative Black Chick was not impressed either:
“But it also demonstrates how completely panicked, flustered and shocked Democrats are by Cain’s candidacy because they know Cain has the REAL ability to chip away at the 96% black vote Obama enjoyed in 2008. Black support for the first black president has plummeted from 83% to 58% and even if Cain doesn’t win the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, he’s making black liberals reconsider their support of the Democrat party that dismisses them, makes promises of government salvation it doesn’t deliver on and takes their vote for granted every election cycle.
No other race but the black race gives the majority of their votes to one political party. Even if Herman Cain’s candidacy is able to compel a mere 13% of black liberals to vote for the GOP nominee in 2012 this would hurt Obama. Terrified by the reality Cain’s message is resonating with black liberals, O’Donnell tried to interrogate Cain on his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, implying that because Cain was in college at the time he“sat on the sidelines” and was a sell out.
It’s absurd to suggest if a black person in the 60’s didn’t march in Civil Rights protests they were not supportive of the movement. Cain delivered the right response: “Did you expect every black student at every black college in America to be out there in the middle of every fight? The answer is no. So for you to say why was I sitting on the sidelines, I think that was an inaccurate deduction that you are trying to make. You didn’t know Lawrence what I was doing with the rest of my life.”