- Who We Are
- Speak Up!
- Take Action
Somehow the concept of bipartisanship has been spun into something that is a social, or socio-political good. MWP would like all to really think about this for a moment. Think about what bipartisanship has truly effected, empirically, and then decide whether it is a public good.
If I put my "Whig Zen-see" X-ray goggles on, I seem to be pushed to the following conclusion:
While the LINOs ( leaders in name only) and MSM ( main stream media) have convinced themselves and the public that being "bipartisan" is somehow good, by looking at its outputs one might conclude that bipartisanship is simply the two heavily entrenched corporate entities called Democrats and Republicans playing a simple "give and take" game, the definition of political compromise. Compromise, NOT collaboration. This appears to have the net effect of causing any such policy output to be overly complicated and obfuscated, or in the case of finances - much too simplsitic, watering down effectiveness to the point of uselessness, while typcially building another layer of bureacracy to administer same. Simultaneously, this type of low level give and take truly precludes any bold ideas from ever getting traction. Leadership and innovation is squashed. So we get retread ideas, on jobs, on deficits, on national security. Bold leadership and innovation utterly disappears. This is what bipartisanship brings you - utterly mediocre results while never really getting the job done.
Let me see if we can find any examples of this!
Yes, compromise is an essential in politics. Yet bipartisanship trumps the real engine of excellence in policy output and that is COLLABORATION employing fact, scientifc reasoning and logic. Exploring new policy options is shunted out of the process altogether. Therefore if someone utters or prints the phrase, " bipartisan leadership", you better look really closely at whether there is any true leadership at all.
The French have a saying that roughly translates into " every day rolls past like the last". Indeed.
Bipartisanship got us here. Why should we think it will lead us out of this inhospitable jungle?
What did Einstein say about insanity? Let's get sane brothers and sisters. Let us all call bipartisanship what it really is - a path to mediocracy, a nation "stuck in neutral" and rolling downhill. More of the same. Lots of noise and no real action.
A corporation would never survive such helsmanship. Its shareholders would cry for the ouster of management. And if a change wasn't effected, its global competitors would eat it alive.
In case you still haven't framed "bipartisanship" in the proper global competitive environment. It means LOSING.
Doesn't compromise mean winning too? That is what it has to mean, by it's own definition, win a little, not always losing something, but both sides getting something beneficial. Isn't it a fact that we visualize a more centrist view? Therefore we are by nature the party of bipartisan unrest, and frustration with the inability of those currently in power to govern effectively, because they have reached a point where party ideas have trumped the public good, stopped compromise, and thereby the effective functioning of a democratic government. We must focus on this aspect, because it has the most potential for good, and the greatest potential of large scale support, and influence with the vote.
Compromise for Compromise sake is silly.
Compromise for the sake of compromise has us 16 trillion dollars in debt.
Let me point out some sad truths. I do not think we should be spending so much money, but they compromised their way to it. If the Democrats had gotten their way all along, higher taxes and spending:
a) Their experiment may have already been proven a failure, and
b) We would not be in 16 Trillion dollars in debt proving that.
On the other hand, if Republicans had not compromised on spending, we would not be 16 trillion dollars in debt.
And One more , every body in that compromise won, the Democrats got the spending, the Republicans got the Tax cuts, and the American people got screwed, and most have yet to figure that out.
One of the things the Modern Whig Party needs to do is remember the History of the old Whig Party.
Henry Clay was a master at compromise, yet from the Missouri Compromise to the Compromise of 1850, the best that can be said is that Clay managed to hold it together long enough to insure that when the Civil War Came, the Union would be able to win it.
And what was Clay compromising about?
Compromise must have a positive goal for the nation, or it may be one of the biggest threats to it.
All true point but, why settle for compromise when what we really need is insightful collaboration?
Compromise wont solve the structural problems we face today and which those that call themselves "leaders" dont seem to have the guts to tackle.
Compromise doesnt spur innovation in ideas or bring new light to policy issues.
DONT COMPROMISE LEADERSHIP!!!!
You have to agree on a goal to collaborate.
Do you really believe that the Leaders of the two major parties agree on the Goals they wish to reach for this nation?
The leaders do not lack the guts to address the issues, it is, actually, understandable that they don’t….look at what happened when George W. Bush tried to address the impending Social Security collapse and the Mortgage Finance mess before the “Great Recession”. It was not popular with the public to hear these things, the Democrat Leadership took advantage the fact the public did not want to hear the truth, and George Bush, and the Republicans, got creamed.
In a Republic with Democratic forms, even one as badly damaged as ours is becoming, politicians win by telling folks what they want to hear.
Let us not be too hard on our leadership, all too often, they are exactly what we ask for.
They are indeed exactly what we ask for. Having 15-20-30-40 year Congressional incumbents despite their having <20% approval rating says a lot about the deafness and greed of the voting public.
Collaboration occurs when honor is foremost in the attitude and actions of the parties. Compromise occurs when acquisition is foremost in the attitude and actions of the parties.
The major parties' leadership seem to see us all as "resources" which can be bartered between them to achieve their personal goals. Whether that achievement strips us all bare is of little matter, as long as "party life" still consists of black tie affairs, pampered lifestyle and personal glory.
What we get for leaders determines whether we vote with collaboration or compromise as our intention. What we got now is pretty obvious what has happened.
I cant disagree with either of you, as much as I want to. The old aadage "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" comes to mind,
So how do you all recommend the chain be broken before the next economic crises implodes the Republic? I realize that it is alot like investment sales, truth does not always win the client, saying the right things does.
How, ladies and gentlemen, how do we convince the electorate to take a chance on something new before the old paradigm ruins us completely?
Depends on which segment(s) of the electorate one wants to convert. There are several voter "markets" out there. Each one has different wants/needs, and so is motivated differently. As a result, the "message" needs to be packaged and delivered differently for each voter segment. That marketing truism has been applied by the major parties and all successful businesses for many years.
Perhaps, the MWP should consider having a "marketing committee" whose responsibilities could include the identification of the various voter segments that may find MWP appealing and of the various marketing strategies which would promote the MWP to each group. Then the party leadership can decide which voter segments are worth the effort/assets to attract, and which won't lean toward the MWP no matter what. If there is such an existing committee, then shouldn't it be active on this forum and using this forum as a marketing beta site?
The "field of dreams" marketing approach is rarely effective. While a lot of thought and sweat seems to have gone into establishing a platform and a party hierarchical structure, it still seems to be that voters must be both seriously on the hunt for a logical alternative to the major parties and willing (and have the time) to sift through many pages of concept to both find the MWP and understand who and what the MWP is. As one of those who is still sifting through it all (and lucky to have the time to do so), I find this investigative process requiring a lot of endurance. If that's the marketing expectation for others as well, it's a tough one.
Well, we might not be able to fix it. We may have to wait for the inevitable correction to be applied by the Universe. And hope we can piece together something better afterwards.
It might well take a tree of liberty being nurtured event.
The obvious answers will not go over easily in the country today.
The first and obvious answer is simple, if you cannot take care of yourself; you have no business being involved in deciding who will conduct the business of the nation.
This is not a new concept, it used to be called a poll tax, and a poll tax served exactly that purpose, it was proof that you were responsible enough to take care of yourself and thus could be expected to be responsible enough when selecting the political leadership of the nation. Not a perfect system, but better for the long term health of a nation than Democracy as it currently operates. That is unfair? We do not let everyone vote now. We do not let adolescents vote, we do not let children vote.
Why not, are they not people and citizens as well, with a vested interest in the future?
They are not allowed to vote because all you have to do is deliver Sponge Bob and candy you have that critical 4-11 Year old group. Deliver on a promise to subsidize the Justin Beiber Concert tickets and you have the critical 12-17 year old young woman’s demographic. You can keep going all day long.
So it is (or still is) a given that we do not let children vote, because we believe most are not responsible enough to vote.
Yet we let adults who have proven themselves irresponsible to vote. And what do they vote for?
Free Cell phones, Free (to them) health care, Free Contraceptives. They vote for the goodies, exactly what we would expect children and adolescents do, and exactly why we do not let them vote.
Again, not a new problem, it was even addressed in Science Fiction, Robert Heinlein, who was so Libertarian even Libertarians though he was wacky, wrote about reserving the franchise, the vote, only to those who had completed a term of Federal (Military) service. The reasoning was sound, these were people who had already demonstrated a commitment to their society that was greater than the commitment to their own comfort and security. Again, not a perfect plan but it would probably serve better than Democracy without qualification.
Bluntly, Democracy, and a Representative republic remain healthy only as long as a majority of the electorate remain responsible. They collapse under the weight of the Demand for free stuff when those who are responsible become a minority. This has happened before. This is where the term Bread and Circuses comes from.
But, within the system we have now? I can only think of one thing. One house in the National Legislature buying votes with the Public Treasury (and state treasury, see unfunded mandates) is quite enough. Repeal the 17th Amendment and end the direct election of US Senators, and return the control of the selection of Senators to the state legislatures and Governors. And require them to report the statehouses on why they voted the way they did.
So Duffy, if this Yanqui rebel, aka Modern Whig, told you that when I squint my eyes I see a bunch of moneywhores fostering a class of dependent children, someone like you might actually understand where I am coming from? Because if I water it down to its most "cosmic core", that is what I see.
Your solution is interesting. I canot comment on its efficacy, but I might posit that clearly we must break our dependency model if we are to advance as a species as far as the precepts of the U.S. Constitution would have allowed us to. As you mention, the other way to break depedency is through a cathartic event. Unfortunately as the myopic LINOS keep focusing on re-election and their own personal wealth, true solutions seem so far away as to lead many of our fellow citizens to hope and pray for a catharsis.
Which, oddly, brings us back to four NCOs in a hooch somewhere in Iraq watching CNN between patrols and uttering WTF!, i.e, our inception as a politcal movement back in 2007.
Non-partisanship will win the day. Bi-partisanship will only keep us on our current trajectory.
I would love to hear more of any solutions that would, directly or tangentially, step us away from the role of dependent child and run the moneywhores off the Hill once and for all.
Only Vets being allowed to vote!? Man, while impossible and illegal, that would be a interesting subset of citizens choosing our representatives. Would we be able to step up the nature of leadership in this country? :o)
Which is why this Yanqui reb feels the other legal solution, is to run more Vets for public office. And while it may not seem like much, if that Vet runs as a Whig, and becomes a moneywhore, at the least we will strip them of their "unit designation" so that we as a unit stay clean and contiunue to foster true and ethical leaders.
You're a Vet, you know the deal, BS dont cut it at the moment of truth. Our moment may be around the corner, and all we got is BS and "bipartisanship". It wont get it done.
Steve, I cannot speak to national, but here in NY we are doing exactly that, bracketing our target demographic. What we are finding is that it is diverse, from students to vets to housewives.What we are also finding is that without folks running for office and serving as our messengers and "Paul Reveres", it does indeed take too much time to wade through.
So while we feel woefully unprepared to do so, we must step up and run for any of this to have effect. Which is why I am spending much less time on a keyboard, and much more time pressing live flesh.
I am a numbers guy and a former intel analyst, not a marketer. My counterpart is a Columbia trained political scientist who is working for the SEC now. Again, NOT a marketing person. So if any marketing pros want to pitch in ------ Please!
The model cited for restricting the franchise, the vote, was not one I was advocating.
I was citing a possible solution to what I perceive as a problem, one that that might destroy the Republic, to help illustrate the problem A solution that would work to address that specific problem. Like I said Heinlein was kind of nuts in a lot of ways. But the solution he proposed to the inherent problem was penned in 1959, and he accurately described the trajectory we are now on with dependency in the US in 21st Century. He accurately described the problems we face, and made strong arguments, with evidence, about how we got here before these problems were so apparent. Robert Heinlein was not the only person to recognize the problem, see F.A. Hayak’s “Road to Serfdom”. Again, written in the 40’s and it accurately describes where we are now and where it leads.
Because it has happened before.
As a postscript, and maybe to make what Heinlein described more relevant, the events which led to the franchise being controlled and limited to veterans was very simple. The whole social and economic structure collapsed after a worldwide war when the parties in the War; Eastern Authoritarian Communism and Western Liberal Democracies, finally lost the ability to placate, feed, their populations because they could no longer afford to care for the population they had led to dependency. They ran out of money. The social order collapsed. The only people with organization and capability to reestablish order were the veterans on all sides. They made a decision to prevent a similar collapse. But they included in the system something which many find reprehensible. A guaranteed right to individual liberty for everyone, not just franchise voters, a strong measure of rights regarding personal and economic freedom, and an attendant expectation of personal responsibility. You were responsible for yourself. Heinlein argues the point far better than I do in Starship Troopers. Tom Kratman does it as well in his “Desert called Peace” series of books.
Again, not one I am essentially advocating, but both clarify the nature of the problem we face. How in the world do you expect people who are not responsible enough to take care of themselves to handle the responsibility of helping to decide the nature of the National leadership. The question has to be answered, because the result of the system makes a dictatorship look desirable to a lot of people.
Oh, and remember my point about allowing children to vote, this position has been advocated by the usual suspects, to include a possible candidate for the President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. It is also heavily advocated in the newly adopted CSCOPE national curriculum standards.
Gee Duffy, I just realized that you're a smart dude, likely much smarter than I - which, well.....
I like that Heinlen stuff, which I totally forgot about. A guaranteed piece of liberty eh? Hey, that's one of those "be careful what you wish for" things it would seem, as some of us simply couldn't handle that truth.
Which, to me, is a rifleshot into the heart of what ails us as a collective of souls. We're not strong enough individually anymore for the collective to flourish. Its not unlike individual psycho-analysis. SOMETHING is cannabalizing our strength. We most assuredly need another point of view. SOMEONE has to admit we have a problem and define it, right?
We've allowed the moneywhores to usurp a democracy. While history has a few examples of benevolent dictators, no way would one show up to this party, not in this culture. Folks seem to be OK with LINOS serving as engineers on a train that is clearly derailing under their feet. Maybe the solutions simply arent clear enough to them yet?
And I'm picking up Starship Troopers to peer into that mind of Heinlen's you speak of.
In the meantime we're gearing up here in New York to try and put King Andrew's ego back up his royal arse with unflappable logic and reason. He's given us NY SAFE and a new election reform initiative that's teats on a bull hog useless. But it has all the looks of an initiative. I can clearly see it'll keep the old boys and new liberals firmly entrenched. CLARITY!
So far the only two "crooks" that NY Safe "caught" were a recent Veteran down on his luck and his money looking to sell some hardware, and a guy with no criminal record but a perscription for anti-anxiety meds years ago whom the state police deemed unsuitable.
Yeah, I feel safer.
As I told my wife, " I hate it when I'm right about such things, but like the knife debacle yesterday, you'll see the insane cowards dive into their anarchists cookbooks for their next "assault rifle like" showdown. The word fougasse might become part of our lexicon, and IAD might be entrenched forever. "
Yeah, I feel safer and better represented thanks to these two bipartisan efforts.
George Orwell would be proud.
Gene - I would not only agree with you as for your demographics, but say it is nation wide. But not only is it students to vets to housewives, but also unemployed and under employed.
The two party's always say to many taxes, not enough jobs. Well everybody know that. The question becomes "EXACTLY" (not yelling - just bring to your attention) what are you going to do to fix the problem. And a whole lot of double talk and momboo moomboo later they have said nothing.
So you want the MWP to be the party of choice for the American People, then say this is the problem and this is what we will do to fix it.
Example we are going to stop giving Congressional members an allowance of $1,195,672,160 dollars of tax free money (which is paid for by American tax dollars), so know the Federal Budget has a $1.195 billion dollar less of an outlay.
Then use this "marketing committee" TV, radio, internet, newspapers to tell the American public the MWP Plan.
Lee, the US government has never been able to create sustainable job growth ( other than it's own largese ) so the first thing is, how do we tell the people that Uncle Sam has NO ABILITY to create jobs, on a sustainable basis, and never has?
That is a lie that continues to get propagated by pols.
And no one party can ever have all the answers. Again, that comes from years of political indoctrination and contains not a shred of truth.
This party, the Whig one, is trying to harness the power of a million minds set to task without prejudice, to get it done. No more dogma, no more historical precedent, but problem solving action that is measureble and driven by The People under Constitutional guidance, not another elite-minded political party.
What, you thnk its impossible to create a new paradigm, harness the mind of the masses for new innovative solutions of governance all the while attempting to crush the dependency mentality bad government has formented, with one shot? :)
Which brings us back to full circle. There is no collaboration in "bipartisanship". Its hurbis, as they cannot remove their prejudices against one another as those prejudices have become their raison d'etre.
Once folks truly get that the two entrenched parties are in it for no one's future but their own, it ought be an easier task to envicerate them once and for all and open the ballot to true representation.
I never said that the U.S. Government "able to create sustainable job growth". All I said was your demographics is not only locale but it is nation wide, but you also have two more large demographics, "unemployed and under employed". ANd from what I have been told Buffalo was moved from the third poorest city to the eighth.
An earlier post said "identification of the various voter segments". All I am saying is to go after all the voter segments.
And I never once mention "collaboration in bipartisanship" and I am sure that my posting do NOT show any support for the current two party system that they are Corrupted and Greedy.
What are the two items I am pushing for reform and budget control. STOP giving Congresspersons a 5 million dollar a year tax free allowances. Second cut the salary in half.
Now back yo jobs for a minute. Back in the day pen and paper in econ they taught for every DIRECT job you create in manufacturing, in indiectly create seven more.
As I said congressional members are corrupted and greedy right alone with the major corporations. Congress will award a contract to a corporation where there headquarter is located off shore and the jobs go overseas. I also recommended that the party platform states that any and all Federal work must be done within the United States of America. I would also recommend now as it was stated in earlier post give the Federal contracts to same and medium here in the states
Lee, I wasnt debating you on government's ability to grow jobs, only asking how best to inform our fellow citizens that its utter BULLSHIRT and they need to look well beyond politicians' words to see reality.
The multiplier effect ( published by the Commerce folks?) are greatest for agriculture and manufacturing to be sure I dont know about seven times but the sidepayments are over well over $2 for every $1 in the industry.
I was glad I found this party because I think it really gets to the core of how many pragmatic and reasonable people think. (This is by the way my first posting here).
I hate to say it but I think we have a couple of problems here.
The first is that we have developed into a very competitive society, not unlike our sports culture. I am not saying being competitive is bad, but when it falls out of regulation it is--and folks that's where we are right now.
The second problem is that the majority of people in power today have grown up in a time when they didn't want for anything, thus making compromise an unknown thing for them.
I think what is in order here is a re-education on how things were in the "good old days". If the Tea Party can glom onto things from the distant past -- why now the rest of us?
Gene – I am not sure what you mean by “sidepayments”
As for the multiplier factor that came from my economics courses I took in college back in the 70’s. Back when economist recognized how important the manufacturing industry is in the economy. For each manufacturing job DIRECTLY created, it INDIRECTLY created seven jobs. The Service industry indirectly created three jobs.
I forget if the seven jobs comes from the manufacture to retail chain or if it comes from the need to create another widget or both. Maybe you can ask that econ professor you know.
As for the “government's ability to grow jobs”, I would say tell them straight out that …
The government does create SOME jobs. Every time it writes a contract it creates some jobs and these jobs will remain within the USA and the government under the MWP will make sure that only U.S. citizens or green card holders will get these jobs. (Not one government contact to be given to any H1-B or L1 visas) But it can’t create every job.
I also think that any government contracts should be given to small and medium size companies as it was suggested in an earlier post. To hell with the big guys.
Use this "Marketing Committee" that was mentioned earlier (TV, radio, internet, newspapers) to tell the American public the MWP Plan.
Lee, those sidepayments are indeed the multiplier effects outlined here: http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSCED6.pdf
And lastly, a discussion of the RIMS II methdology used by some govt planning departments. This shows the big regional impact of multipliers. http://www.bu.edu/esi/research-methodology/rims/
And while MWP borrows from the past, we surely cannot relive the past. That is an impossibility. HOWEVER, we can try and manage our future much, much better using some of those borrowed ideals. That's the mission. Moving forward with a "back to the future" mindset.
Gene - that's for the info. I am reading them again.
But I would like to point out that in the second link (manufacturing dot gov) it talks about generate FIVE local service jobs. These jobs are of the local service sector (or “nontradable” sector), such as teachers, doctors, landscapers, hair stylist.
So what ever the multiplier factor is: 2, 5 or 7, we need those manufacturing jobs that were lost due to corporate greed return and filled by U.S. citizens.
Even this article states that position were transplanted to lower-wage nations.
All I am saying that MWP should take the stands that any government job created from a government contract will in fact remain in the U.S. and the jobs will, be held by U.S. citizens.
And the MWP tells the U.S. citizens the truth. The U.S. government can not create a job for everyone. But because of this multiplier factor, it will create a job LOCALLY.
How un Social Progressive of you.....!
And oh yeah, on this I mostly agree with you.
It comes from the understanding that the Governments Limitation is that it cannot create wealth, it must take it from someone. Therefore any job that the Government creates, costs the economy more in jobs than what was created, for a lot reasons.
First is inefficiency of a layer of people from the Government.
Second is the pressure on the Government is not to earn a profit, but to provide a service for people, most of whom do not pay for that service.
That last little tidbit, in the form of Medicaid and Medicare, are the primary drivers of the cost of health care.
Gene – sorry I miss quoted your article: it said “had been”
article states: the “RETURN” of positions and operations that “HAD BEEN” transplanted to lower-wage nations.
Duffy - You said ”And oh yeah, on this I mostly agree with you.” I think we agree on a lot it is just we misunderstand each other on a point or two which leads… us to our conversations.
You said “It comes from the understanding that the Governments Limitation is that it cannot create wealth, it must take it from someone. Therefore any job that the Government creates, costs the economy more in jobs than what was created, for a lot reasons.”
Your right it is a lot of reasons: fiefdoms, duplicate/redundant bureaucracy poorly design procurement process, cost over runs, kickbacks, lack of congressional accountability of public monies, jobs going overseas, thousands of H1-B or L1 visas and lack of a manufacturing sector.
Gene said we need to look to the past to gain wisdom… well if you look to the 50’s, 60’s and even the 70’s; we had serious manufacturing sector, low cost of living high standard of living, low wages and companies that were loyal to the employees and employees loyal to the companies.
First is inefficiency of a layer of people from the Government.
I agree with you, which is why I like Steve’s FDAC (Federal Department and Agency Consolidation). Why I said to cut the senior executive schedule in have and cut the salary of the senior executive schedule in half on the first day that Mr. O’Hara becomes president.
Consolidate the 500 departments, agencies, administrations, authorities, and commissions in to a dozen or so by functionality. But keep their functionality, their responsibilities, until the FDAC can review them.
There are 82 programs that deal with teacher quality spread across multiple agencies. All of these programs need to be move to United States Department of Education (ED).
There are more than 15 federal programs that deal with food safety within several federal agencies. All of these programs need to be move to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
There are more than 20 federal programs that deal with homelessness within several federal agencies. All of these programs need to be move to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
You said: “Second is the pressure on the Government is not to earn a profit, but to provide a service for people, most of whom do not pay for that service.”
This is also true but I thought we agree that at less 50% of the people that were receiving benefits did NOT want to be on welfare that they wanted to work. So if we can get the jobs back in the U.S. and get rid of the H-1B and L1 visas, these folk will no longer need government benefits.
I think we have some fundamental disagreements. But think of it this way, we are both sharpening the saw for the real work.
But consider this fact about Government. It is a Bureaucracy, or as you probably point out so well, Multiple Bureaucracies. Each Bureaucracy was set up for a purpose, to address an issue. The problem is any Bureaucracy is an organization, and the goal of any organization becomes survival. So if the Bureaucracy is to survive, then it cannot solve whatever problem it was intended to address, or it will cease to grow, and may even cease. What organization would willingly participate in its own demise?
Thus Jerry Pournelle’s Iron law of Bureaucracy :
“In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”
Pournelle’s example of the American Education system is a valid one. But I have a more recent example.
The IRS and its recent actions regarding the Various Conservative Groups whose applications for Tax Exempt status they held up. The Sad sickening art? These groups were not required to apply for Tax Exempt status, they were supposed to file as tax Exempt at the end of the year. Yet no one at the IRS wanted to tell them that.
Now much has been made of the fact that it was Conservative groups under a Liberal President that was targeted by the IRS. The President denies knowledge of what was going on. I kind of of doubt that. But I am willing to bet that his knowledge was pretty much about covering his ass in an election year because this was just too obviously suspicious.
I am no fan of the President, but guess what. I think it is possible he was shocked as anyone else about what the IRS was doing, if a few months earlier. Maybe, maybe not.
But the point is he did not need to orchestrate it. Those groups were primarily motivated by one thing, what they viewed as outrageous Taxes and an incredibly complicated tax code.
Everyone of those groups posed a threat to the Internal Revenue Service when they demanded a simpler tax code, fair tax or what not. It would have deliberately cut the resources of the IRS. And the IRS reacted as nearly any organization would to a threat. They attacked the threat undercut it as much as possible. The President need not have done anything.
Duffy – I have move this to “Electoral and Government Reform”, so that Gene doesn’t yell at me.
Gene - I don't think you can have "Bipartisanship" between polar opposites.