There’s been a lot of debate lately about scandals, with different sides proclaiming or denying said scandals exist.
I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve come to the realization that it all depends on your definition of scandal.
If you think there has to be actual wrongdoing before there is a scandal, then you may be in the minority. The way the word keeps getting used, it seems most people consider anything they don’t like to be a “scandal.”
Take Benghazi. There is no evidence that there was any wrongdoing, even though there may have been mistakes and bad decisions made. I don’t consider that a scandal.
Or the IRS. Apparently the people who made the decision to investigate groups that are against taxes to make sure they really are non-profit were conservative Republican Bush appointees. Has there been any evidence to show that this was done for political reasons? None whatsoever, and the people involved have said as much. Were there any laws broken? Doesn’t seem so. Does it look bad? Oh, absolutely. Does that make it a scandal?
Then there’s the NSA phone and email situation. It appears that this is all allowed under the Patriot Act, has been approved by Congress many times, and has been in existence since the Bush administration. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence any laws were broken. If there is a scandal, it’s that Obama broke his promise to stop doing this.
For that matter, it appears that the seizing of AP phone records was done properly under law, too.
So I’m having difficulty finding “scandal.” I certainly don’t like the situation with the NSA and the AP and am against these kinds of intrusions on privacy and freedom of the press, but the solution is to change the laws so that this is not allowed and to hold Obama responsible for doing these things in the first place.
But that doesn’t make them scandals.
I am open to evidence, however. If you have proof that laws were broken or actual wrongdoing took place, let me know. I am certainly willing to acknowledge it when it happens.
Bill Maher did a “New Rule” this week that needs to be seen, in which he counters the “Reagan would never be accepted in the current Republican party” myth.
I remember Reagan, and except for a few minor issues, he would fit right in with the current Republican party. He’s their patron saint for a reason, you know.
Anyway, rather than just repeat the point Maher said, I urge you to watch. It’s funny, too.
And yeah, I know that in the headline, I’m using the term “teabagger”, which they hate. Ask me if I care.
“Someone again sent the deadly poison Ricin to President Obama through the mail. These dumbasses, do they really think Obama opens his own mail?” – Bill Maher
Apparently the woman who has been arrested for this is a failed actress (more of an extra, really) who has been through three marriages and five kids who did this to try to frame her current husband, so for once we can’t blame crazy right-wing political activists for this (although she was from Texas, where many of the craziest live, and the letters were all rants about guns being taken away)…
I’m not going to help her by printing her name; for all I know, she did this for the publicity. (Hey, she’ll still be available for film roles once she’s out of jail in ten years or so…)
I don’t really have anything to add to the story except this: I wonder who will play her in the movie version of this story?
I still admire him for speaking his mind, but his decision to have a special election is completely political in nature after all. I have to pull back my statements from before. Silly me, I thought better of him.
You see, he scheduled the special election to fill the empty New Jersey Senate seat for a few weeks before the regular election in November. This will cost the state millions of dollars, and has the express purpose of making sure that all of Cory Booker’s Democratic supporters who will turn out to elect him in October aren’t necessarily going to be there in November when Christie himself faces a Democratic challenger. His worry was that Booker’s supporters would turn out and, while in the booth, also vote for Christie’s opponent. Can’t have that now, can we? So a separate election it is.
Would a Democrat do the same thing? Sure, probably. Doesn’t mean it’s right, and doesn’t mean I’d support it — but then again, who am I to be surprised that there are politics in politics?
ventrellaquest.com 