American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437308]NASCAR is kind of like the Republican Party. They keep going around in circles and can't find their asses.[/QUOTE]Yes, a party with tight discipline, a strong leader and a clear view of what it wants to accomplish can make dramatic changes. Like the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in the USSR.

Fortunately the Democrats probably won't win the House and 60 spots in the Senate in 2014.

Oh, I forgot, actually they only need 51 votes in the Senate as long as Harry Reid is majority leader.

Sorry, I know I'm being rough on you, but you shouldn't have said bad things about NASCAR. If I just let that go you'd be slamming professional wrestling, tractor pulls and cock fights next.

[B][size=3]Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gun[/size][/B]

[QUOTE=ChiefCraig]If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.”[/QUOTE]"Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he's changed his mind.".

[QUOTE=ChiefCraig]Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

[highlight]I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.[/highlight][/QUOTE]Graig took over in Detroit in October and it was common to see signs on roads coming into the city that had been posted by police that read "Enter at your own risk". 911 response time was measured in hours if the police bothered to respond at all.

A recent study from Quinnipiac University concludes that states with more restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits had higher murder rates by guns than gun-friendly states, and suggests that increasing restrictions on concealed-carry permits pushes the murder rate up, not down. It also showed that assault-weapons bans had no effect on murder rates.

Summarized:

[i][b]Restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits drive murder rates up;.

Restrictions on carry permits increase murder rates;.

Assault weapons bans have no effect on murder rates.[/i][/b]

I would call this proof that progressives and anti-gun advocates are out to control people not guns. Gun control is nothing more than a "feel-good remedy" for progressives who refuse to address the real issues surrounding gun violence.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437304][URL]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514[/URL]

Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.[/QUOTE]This article is from the Wall Street Journal, a shill medium for Wall Street under the same corporate umbrella as Fox News. I bet some of those Wall Street egos have a tough time dealing with their new reality, they don't have the same wreckless freedom and lower tax rates they used to enjoy. They should be happy they are still raking it in hand over fist. Writers at WSJ are PAID to write anti-government, anti-Democrat material.

There will almost always be lobbyists or special interests involved with any government decision, so perhaps government decisions should be evaluated based on their merits. Renewable energy is an appropriate and worthwhile federal investment for many people. Citibank did not get special treatment as the article claims, DOJ is filing civil fraud charges against Citi over MBS sales. Big business, is that the reference to race track owners? That one does smell of pork. Although, I don't agree that "pork" is always a bad thing. Whether it's Democrat or Republican, if a bill creates jobs or helps middle class Americans, there is merit to it.

Look at some of the special interests of Republicans: Big Oil, the NRA, the Church. Unnecessarily subsidizing huge oil companies, blocking common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence, and abortion bill after abortion bill. On balance, I find the so-called "special interests" of Democrats help the average American more than those of Republicans.

[QUOTE=Punter127;437311][B]Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gun[/B][/QUOTE]The problem is when BAD people carry a gun.

So it makes sense to adopt measures to prevent this. Like closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun without a background check.

We tried to implement universal background checks last year, but the NRA fought tooth and nail against it, and tacitly threatened enough people in Congress to block the bill by a slim margin.

[QUOTE=Esten;437313]I bet some of those Wall Street egos have a tough time dealing with their new reality, they don't have the same wreckless freedom and lower tax rates they used to enjoy. [/QUOTE]Yes, but thanks to Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) they still have their carried interest. Your party has historically been in the pocket of Wall Street. Just look at the campaign contributions. This has changed somewhat since near the end of Obama's first term, after the investment bankers and hedge fund managers realized how incompetent their donees were.

[QUOTE=Esten;437313]Citibank did not get special treatment as the article claims, DOJ is filing civil fraud charges against Citi over MBS sales. Big business, is that the reference to race track owners? [/QUOTE]Citibank settled for what, $250 million? While J P Morgan is on the hook for $10 billion+. What's the difference? Citibank pays off Democrats with high paying jobs, while J P Morgan's CEO criticized the Obama Administration. It's like the $5 billion lawsuit the Obama administration filed against Standard & Poors, for the ratings on debt securities S&P supplied before the mortgage crisis. Moody's did the same thing. However, Standard & Poor's downgraded USA Debt at a sensitive time for Obama, before the 2012 election, while Moody's did not. And Warren Buffet (Democrat) owned a big chunk of Moody's. So Standard & Poors gets hit with a lawsuit that threatens its very existence, even though it's the largest of only 3 significant rating agencies in the USA. Hey, Buffet likes competitive moats, and I guess having his only real competitor disappear would be a big plus. Finally how about the way Democrat politicians, including Obama, encourage the IRS to go after the Tea Party. Your party has its favorites and isn't ashamed of it.

[QUOTE=Esten;437313] There will almost always be lobbyists or special interests involved with any government decision, so perhaps government decisions should be evaluated based on their merits. Renewable energy is an appropriate and worthwhile federal investment for many people.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps??? Isn't it obvious that government decisions should be evaluated on merits? We can argue about whether government should invest in renewable energy, but regardless the way the Obama administration is approaching this is like flushing money down the toilet. Very few jobs were created and the effects on carbon emissions were negligible.

[QUOTE=Esten;437313]Look at some of the special interests of Republicans: Big Oil, the NRA, the Church. Unnecessarily subsidizing huge oil companies, blocking common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence, and abortion bill after abortion bill. On balance, I find the so-called "special interests" of Democrats help the average American more than those of Republicans.[/QUOTE]I agree with you about the abortions and the Church, am an agnostic on guns, and know that you're naive about Big Oil. Truly Big Oil is taxed more heavily than the rest of American industry. "Medium-sized oil", by taking advantage of the percentage depletion deduction and by borrowing money and re-investing all its profits in additional drilling can avoid taxes better than companies in most other industries. All companies should be put on a level playing field.

In any event, the politicians out there who aren't indebted to anyone, like Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, are Republicans. Tea Party Republicans. Your guys have been bought off, lock stock and barrel.

[B]Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.[/B]

[QUOTE=Esten;437314]The problem is when BAD people carry a gun.

So it makes sense to adopt measures to prevent this. Like closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun without a background check.

We tried to implement universal background checks last year, but the NRA fought tooth and nail against it, and tacitly threatened enough people in Congress to block the bill by a slim margin.[/QUOTE]Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.

There are no loopholes in the background check law, you can not legally buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without a background check, [B] period.[/B] The reason the background check law can't be expanded to individual sales is (as you know) because there is no way to enforce such a law without creating a National Gun Registry. The American people have always been leery of any type federal registry and I suspect they trust government even less now than they did the last time you tried to get it.

BTW how many of the recent mass shootings would have been avoided by expanded background checks?

Democrats shot down an amendment in the last failed gun bill that would have provided funding to help deal with the mentally ill, so you might want to check and see why Democrats have been less than enthusiastic about dealing with that issue. Why is it we can't deal with problems like this on an issue by issue bases, why do the Democrats always insist on an all encompassing universal plan? (Can you say ObamaCare?)

If your goal is to just keep guns from "bad people" (which it's not) perhaps you could give an explanation as to why the federal government won't allow individuals to access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For example if I want to sell a gun and you want to buy my gun, why won't the government let me check and see if you are legally eligible to own a gun? A simple "eligible" or "not eligible" answer is all that's needed. No responsible gun owner wants to sell a gun to someone who can't legally own a gun, but the government refuses individual access to NICS, why?

Another interesting question is why do we have such a low prosecution rate of ineligible people who try to buy guns?

The Democrats haven't pushed for enforcement of current laws, they haven't dealt with the mentally ill issue, and they haven't opened up NICS on a voluntary bases. Why you ask, it's simple, because they're more interested in their political agenda then they are in dealing with crime.

[NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE]

[QUOTE=Punter127;437317][B]Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.[/B]

Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.

There are no loopholes in the background check law, you can not legally buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without a background check, [B] period.[/B] The reason the background check law can't be expanded to individual sales is (as you know) because there is no way to enforce such a law without creating a National Gun Registry.

[NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/QUOTE]You just put it all in a nut shell. It won't happen in our lifetime!

[QUOTE=Punter127;437317][B]Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.[/B]

Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.[/QUOTE]There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because [U]most people don't want to carry a gun around[/U]. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people.

Craig's inference that the low gun violence rate in Maine is a result of more people with guns is laughingly unscientific. Hawaii has an even lower gun murder rate, but a far lower gun ownership rate. More than likely, there are other state-specific factors involved.

Guess what Chief Craig also supports? You guessed it.

[QUOTE]Although Craig supports having more legal gun owners, he has also emphasized confiscating illegal weapons. On Thursday, he said that in Detroit, each time they take an illegal gun off the street, they've likely prevented a robbery or shooting down the line. He also supports banning assault weapons, regulating magazines and ammunition and enforcing tighter background checks at gun shows, according to the Detroit News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/james-craig-detroit-guns_n_4536332.html[/QUOTE]
Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.

I grew up with in a rural area and there were guns every were. I had a 4-10 shotgun in my room when I was lets say 7 or 8. It wasn't there for protection but my room had a corner that didn't have a gun. I started hunting when I was lets say 10. I really can't remember. With my friends we hunted rabbits, squirrels but mostly we just shot birds. Now I will not allow guns or ammo in my house. This debate on gun control isn't much of a debate. I have never heard the issue debated. How could any one be aginst a very in depth background check. A background check that would prevent felons, spouse abusers or the mentally ill from getting a gun permit.

Lets just think if the stop and frisk law was in effect and enforced in Chicago. If a resident wanted a gun for protection then get a license to have a firearm, and get a license for the firearm. If someone is stopped an frisked and they didn't have either of these permits...off to jail you go.

Second and third offenders would be in jail for a long time rather than on the street.

[QUOTE=Esten;437332]There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because [U]most people don't want to carry a gun around[/U]. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people.

Craig's inference that the low gun violence rate in Maine is a result of more people with guns is laughingly unscientific. Hawaii has an even lower gun murder rate, but a far lower gun ownership rate. More than likely, there are other state-specific factors involved.

Guess what Chief Craig also supports? You guessed it.


Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;437332]There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because [U]most people don't want to carry a gun around[/U]. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad?[/quote] Really? So what if they're [u]not allowed[/u] to carry a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Or are you suggesting that expanded background checks will keep all bad guys from getting guns?

[QUOTE=Esten;437332]Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people. [/quote] I'm all for keeping guns from bad guys, lets start by enforcing current law.

[QUOTE=Esten;437332]Guess what Chief Craig also supports?[/quote] The point about Chief Craig is that his opinion is changing, I suspect he will see the light on the other gun issues as well in time.

[QUOTE=Esten;437332]Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.[/QUOTE] I haven't told any lies and you fucking well know it. My remark was [i]“The American people have always been leery of any type federal registry and I suspect they trust government even less now than they did the last time you tried to get it.” [/i]I did not say they were leery of background checks, but they are leery of the government.

And there are no “loopholes” in the background check law, it was intended to address dealer gun sales and it does just that, it was never intended to be for private sales. What you are advocating is an expansion of the law.

Your 80-90% number is from “push polling”, people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation. And the surveys asked a vague question with no information on how the current system works. Do you know how the current system works? Ever bought a gun?

Sample “push poll”question; [i]“In order to prevent criminals, terrorists and the mentally deranged from easily obtaining firearms, do you support or oppose Legislation that requires background checks be completed on every person that attempts to acquire a firearm?”[/i] Who would answer no? I wouldn't have a problem with background checks if you could do it without a gun registry, but I don't think that's possible. Even the ACLU agrees.
[quote]ACLU’s Chris Calabrese spoke of privacy and civil liberties concerns regarding universal background check legislation in an interview in the Daily Caller:“... the current proposal ... raises two significant concerns. ... [b]The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. ... The [Reid] legislation says simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer. ... That kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a [u]new government database.[/u]”

Calabrese explained the ACLU’s second [u]“significant concern,”[/u] that Reid’s legislation creates “a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.”[/b][/quote]

If I'm wrong about the gun registry why won't you elaborate on how you can enforce the background check on individual gun sale without a gun registry? You've ignored this question before. I think this is another “if you like your policy you can keep you policy. Period”.

Why haven't you called for individual access to the NICS?

Why don't you fess up and tell everybody that your real goal is a broad ban on guns?


[b][NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/b]

Christie now fighting for his political life. What a spectacle!!

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen.

What did Republicans have on the IRS "scandal" ? Was their best smoking gun, a record that some guy from the IRS made like 150 visits to the White House? And just what does that prove? The most relevant finding was actually that a self-described "Conservative Republican" in the IRS Cincinnati office determined that Tea Party groups warranted closer review for determining if they exceeded limits on political activity, to be eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. It seems at best they should have done their additional screening in a more apolitical manner, at least for the sake of appearance. But it stemmed from a legitimate effort to assess tax-exempt status from a wave of mostly right-leaning groups applying for this status. As I posted way back, this is the testimony that Darrell Issa tried to block from being disclosed.

On the other hand, the motives in the Christie story make it a legitimate scandal. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if Christie became President one day, so I'm not necessarily rooting for his demise. I do agree with the arrogant, bully characterizations, so I won't be upset at his demise either.

[QUOTE=Esten;437534]I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen.

What did Republicans have on the IRS "scandal" ? Was their best smoking gun, a record that some guy from the IRS made like 150 visits to the White House? And just what does that prove? The most relevant finding was actually that a self-described "Conservative Republican" in the IRS Cincinnati office determined that Tea Party groups warranted closer review for determining if they exceeded limits on political activity, to be eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. It seems at best they should have done their additional screening in a more apolitical manner, at least for the sake of appearance. But it stemmed from a legitimate effort to assess tax-exempt status from a wave of mostly right-leaning groups applying for this status. As I posted way back, this is the testimony that Darrell Issa tried to block from being disclosed.

On the other hand, the motives in the Christie story make it a legitimate scandal. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if Christie became President one day, so I'm not necessarily rooting for his demise. I do agree with the arrogant, bully characterizations, so I won't be upset at his demise either.[/QUOTE]Complete bull shit. Prominent Democrats including President Obama encouraged the IRS to go after the Tea Party:

"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

"Nobody knows who's paying for these ads. We don't know where this money is coming from.".

-Barack Hussein Obama.

How about the 7 Democrat Senators that sent letters to the IRS encouraging them to investigate political activities of 501 (c) 4's?

And why do they want the IRS to go after these groups? It has nothing to do with taxes. Contributions to 501 (c) 4's are not tax deductible. However, if an organization does not meet the qualifications to be a 501 (c) 4, it becomes a political action committee (PAC). And PAC's are required to disclose their donors. Once the donors are identified, Democrats, as long as they control the executive branch, have the option of unleashing the fury of the federal government. Google Frank Vandersloot for an example of what the Obama administration can do to people who support the opposing side.

Obama did not fire Lois Lerner, the Democrat at the IRS who was behind this. The Obama administration, instead of being contrite, has proposed new rules to curb political spending by 501 (c) 4's. And, talk about brazen, Holder has appointed an Obama donor to lead the Justice Department's investigation of the IRS / Tea Party scandal.

Contrast to Christie. He was contrite, accepted responsibility, and fired people. His sin was hiring idiots and political hacks. And yes, that does call into question his judgement.

Is that all you got Tiny? You must be completely kidding me. That is the best evidence you have? And you just ignore the fact that a Republican IRS employee in Cincinnati claimed he initiated the increased scrutiny?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437541]Complete bull shit. Prominent Democrats including President Obama encouraged the IRS to go after the Tea Party:

"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

"Nobody knows who's paying for these ads. We don't know where this money is coming from.".

-Barack Hussein Obama.[/QUOTE]There's nothing in that quote that says Obama wanted or instructed the IRS to do anything. Similarly, the request of Democrat Senators did not say to target conservative groups. I suppose you think the IRS folks "read between the lines" of Obama and the Dem Senators, and proceeded to target conservative groups. Even though the IRS is largely an independent agency with no obligation to interpret and implement "code-speak" from any political party.

All you guys got is [B]bullshit conspiracy theories[/B]. LOL! Just like the birther theory. I understand conservatives dug their hole deep on this phony scandal, so you guys feel the need to defend it. But your defenses are empty on this one.

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;437543]
There's nothing in that quote that says Obama wanted or instructed the IRS to do anything. Similarly, the request of Democrat Senators did not say to target conservative groups. I suppose you think the IRS folks "read between the lines" of Obama and the Dem Senators, and proceeded to target conservative groups. Even though the IRS is largely an independent agency with no obligation to interpret and implement "code-speak" from any political party.

All you guys got is [B]bullshit conspiracy theories[/B]. LOL! Just like the birther theory. I understand conservatives dug their hole deep on this phony scandal, so you guys feel the need to defend it. But your defenses are empty on this one.

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Right Esten. If Bush were president and if this were about, say, community organizers instead of 501 (c) 4's, you'd rightfully be all over it.

Yes, an "anonymous" IRS manager who described himself as a Republican said he initiated reviews of 501 (c) 4's. That doesn't change the fact that it was Republican-leaning organizations that were harangued. Your Huffington Post link notes "more conservative-leaning groups received scrutiny than did Democratic ones."

That's putting it mildly. According to the New York Times, from From April, 2010 to April, 2012, a 2 year period that included the 2010 election and led up to Obama's re-election, the IRS placed on hold applications for 501 (c) 4's with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. During that same time period 32 presumably liberal-leaning organizations with "progress", "progressive", "liberal", and "equality" were steadily approved for 501 (c) 4 status. It took an inquiry from a Congressman in May, 2012 to get the IRS to start processing applications from Republican-leaning organizations. Another possibility -- since any 501 (c) 4's that weren't active before the summer of 2012 were unlikely to have an effect on the election, someone at the IRS figured it was time to finally open the spigot. See [URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL].

Also, it's curious that the IRS has only attempted to identify and impose gift tax penalties on donors to one 501(c)4, which was conservative, see [URL] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324682204578517563566848922[/URL]. Hey, if you want, since you think the Wall Street Journal only reports bull-shit-right-wing conspiracies, just google some of the content and I'm sure you'll find the same story in one of your approved sources.

As evidenced by the letter from the Democrat congressmen, this was about suppressing free speech by 501 (c) 4's in order to benefit a political party. Democrats know that if the identity of donors were made public and if the donors were made afraid of being investigated by the IRS, funds to organizations unfriendly to Democrat causes would be reduced.

The effect is real. Without going into a lot of detail, I reduced my contribution to a libertarian-leaning 501 (c) 4 because I was afraid of potential government harassment.

Getting back to your original point, it's extremely unlikely Christie wanted to slow down traffic on a bridge. The Democrat Congressmen indeed weren't expecting the IRS, as you say, to read between the lines. They explicitly asked the IRS to investigate 501 (c) 4's.

[QUOTE=Esten;437534]Christie now fighting for his political life. What a spectacle!!

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen...[/QUOTE]Such hyperbole!

Esten, I know you're salivating at the prospect that the Republican's prime candidate to defeat Hillary might go down under a salvo of Democrat "Politics of personal destruction" gunfire, but what you're actually witnessing is something you haven't seen during the Obama years: It's called Leadership.

Here's how a real leader responds when he learns of misconduct by underlings:

1. You immediately accept full responsibility. (As opposed to calling the event a "phony scandal" when speaking only to your supporters).

2. You publicly apologize to all parties that were affected by the misconduct.

3. You immediately fire the individuals involved. (Nobody ever gets fired in the Obama administration, largely because Obama doesn't have the stones, i.e. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathy Sebelius, etc., etc., etc.).

4. You order your administration to cooperate fully with any investigation. (As opposed to publicly claiming that you'll cooperate, and instead actually stonewalling the investigation i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.).

5. You hold an exhaustive press conference that continues for hours until every reporter in the room has had every question answered. (As opposed to making some prepared remarks and then walking away from the podium).

Personally, I find it refreshing to see a real leader in action.

Thanks,

Jax

[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recently released book detailing the leadership chaos in the dysfunctional Obama Administration![/size][/B]