'The entire scandal narrative was an illusion'

[ProSense]

'The entire scandal narrative was an illusion'

By Steve Benen

There's a salient downside to forward-thinking coverage of current events: occasionally, the political world gets a story wrong, and needs to pause to look backwards.

This may well be as much a part of human nature as news gathering. A development happens, we notice it and take it seriously, but as we learn the development wasn't as interesting as we initially believed, we move on to the next development. There's a certain awkwardness to consciously looking backwards and acknowledging, "Hmm, maybe I overreacted."

But when it comes to accountability, politics, and the public discourse, it'd be nice if this happened anyway. I mention this, of course, because for about a month, the political world, with all-caps commentary and a whole lot of exclamation points, said President Obama was involved in a series of "scandals" that threatened his entire presidency. Those controversies have been largely discredited, but there's no moment at which pundits and politicians tell the public, "Oh, about all that overheated impeachment talk, obsessive speculation about a 'second-term curse,' and Nixon comparisons? Never mind. Our bad."

As Jon Chait explained yesterday,

The whole Obama scandal episode is a classic creation of a "narrative" -- the stitching together of unrelated data points into a story. What actually happened is this: House Republicans passed a twisted account of a hearing to ABC's Jonathan Karl, who misleadingly claimed to have seen it, creating the impression that the administration was caught in a major lie. Then the IRS story broke, which we now see was Republicans demanding a one-sided audit and thus producing the impression of one-sided treatment. In that context, legitimate controversies over Obama's civil-rights policies became the "three Obama scandals," exposing a government panopticon, if not a Nixonian administration bent on revenge.

The collapse of the Benghazi story happened very quickly.... But the scandal cloud lingered through the still-extant IRS scandal, which in turn lent the scandal odor to the civil-liberties dispute. Now that the IRS scandal has turned into a Darrell Issa scandal, we're left with ... an important dispute over domestic surveillance, which has nothing to do with scandal at all. The entire scandal narrative was an illusion.

That's true, though the American mainstream and casual news consumers almost certainly won't know that because there's so little introspection among those who told them to believe the White House was in "crisis." The public couldn't help but hear about the "Obama scandals," and will never see any front-page headlines declaring the scandals over.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/28/19188308-the-entire-scandal-narrative-was-an-illusion

[Berlum]

1. "Ha, ha America. We fooled you. Again. As usual. Smirk." - RepubliBaggers, Inc. (R)

[stopbush]

76. Many Rs have fallen back on their favorite smear of Obama: "He's not a leader."

Because "leaders get in front of a scandal" and "control the narrative."

Since Team Obama didn't quash the non-existent scandal in its infancy, he's a terrible politician and non-leader who "still has something to hide" even though the "scandals" have all fallen apart.

[baldguy]

2. It's sad to see posters on DU helping the GOP circulate that narrative

With impunity, apparently.

[Orsino]

11. Yep. Media said it, we believed it.

Too many of us did, that is.

It wasn't even a good illusion. Hearsay anecdotes weren't even questioned for statistical significance in some quarters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I wish it were that simple …

For the general public (that doesn’t spend hours a day “debating” current/political events) … Okay; but, how does one explain DU?

“Yep. The same Media that we spent the entire most recent election cycle laughing at … the same Media that we excoriated for driving the war narrative(s) … the same Media for which we, in a not so distant past, held a healthy distrust said it, and suddenly we now believe it.

No … there is something much more going on amongst us.

[Orsino]

67. Probably just proves we're human.

A certain amount of groupthink is evolutionarily advantageous. It's not surprising that we have hung onto it, or that human institutions have learned to use it against our interests.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Again ...

that explains the vulnerability of those that do not think deeply/engage current events; but not what's going on here at DU.

[Hekate]

116. I agree. Something deeper, darker, and nastier is going on

here.

[JDPriestly]

113. We don't have a free media.

It is controlled by the same corporate 1% that controls everything else. That's why we have to turn to foreign media (which also has its biases) and to Pacifica Radio and the like. Truly independent reporting is very rare. I hear that McClatchy is pretty good.

The Benghazi story was just the silliest Republican nonsense ever.

The IRS story looked troubling until we got the facts.

The problem with the story of the Fox news reporter being suspected of conspiring with a leaker reveals the problem that the government's ability to obtain pen registers, the problem with surveillance on the press and its conflict with freedom of the press. Either the press is free or the journalists may be spied upon. If journalists may be spied upon under any circumstances, we do not have a free press.

[Cha]

59. And, good ol stalwart "journalist". Jon Karl(for one mediawhore example).

Didn't even apologize.. only doubled down on cnn.. didn't want to stink up abc anymore than he had to.

[Roy Rolling]

43. It's a good point

I agree that posting the narrative exposes more people to the "infection" that is a false narrative. I also see the other side, where a medical analogy might be helpful. When there is a deadly infection that can harm anyone, still there are doctors who risk exposure to save the patient from the infection.

So, on one hand, the vast majority of DU readers are exposed. But perhaps there are a select few among DU readers that might be better trained to battle such nonsensical and dangerous narratives by being exposed to it, and acquire "antibodies" in the form of collective progressive ideas from other DU contributors like yourself.

I see your point, the narrative gets a "free ride" too often. And if not thoroughly challenged and defeated, is on-balance a detrimental post.

[madokie]

115. I lost a lot of respect for a lot of DU'rs who

previously I hung on their every word. I'm at a loss, feels like I've lost some very good friends.
It sucks really bad
Actually I find it more difficult to come here each day now. This used to be my first and many times only place to visit, not so much any more.

[Hekate]

117. Right

[intheflow]

3. Duh. Everything out of Republican mouths is an illusion.

Well, 50/50 illusion and delusion. I'm not even sure they know the difference as they're spewing it. But whatever. It ain't the truth.

[LisaLynne]

4. And that's the frustrating thing that the Repugs learned long ago.

You just have to make the claim. Who cares if it's later proven to be false? You've wasted the "other side's" time forcing them to refute it and most people won't notice when it's discredited anyway. They'll be paying attention to something else and be left with whatever impression you wanted to create -- that Obama is a failed president, that he is wrapped in scandal, that he wasn't born in the US. Whatever. Too many people are either too busy being worked to death, too dumb and ignorant, or too angry to figure it out.

[99th_Monkey]

54. It wouldn't be so bad if the M$M was a level playing field

and not always uphill for real Democrats Progressives to get their
point of view across clearly.

It seems ReThugs can lie, but Dem/progressives, not so much,
as they are more likely to get called out about it.

just mho

[Hekate]

118. It's the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" smear. If you say you never have...

... you've then given the lie that much more publication. If you say nothing, everybody wants to know why you won't answer the question.

You can have a story, or a story about the story. You can do a lot of things with it. But the one fact is: the dirty lie is out there.

[Skittles]

5. Benghazi, IRS, birth certificate are indeed bullshit "scandals"

[DainBramaged]

14. All a distraction from the real scandal, Republican obstruction

without scandal, they are exposed and become like vampires in sunlight.

[Major Hogwash]

20. That was one of my favorite songs!

"Vampires in Sunlight" by The Undertakers.

[spooky3]

27. Agree. Unfortunately, the Dem response

To these phony scandals could have been much better. For example, rather than throw the IRS under the bus immediately, Dems should have explained that 501 c4s are supposed to be apolitical and that they would have more to say after completing their own investigation.

[Skittles]

63. that one I cannot figure out

there has to be some else going on, to fold so fast over OBVIOUS bullshit

[Initech]

49. Manufactured bullshit from the bullshit machine: the Fox Opinion Channel.

[zeemike]

6. I can actually say I agree with you on this.

With the exception of the word "entire"....because that leaves an opening to say that the NSA spying is the same thing...and it is not.
And it allows you to through anything in that same bag of stinking shit.
Few things are entirely true in honest debate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. So let's see ...

In the last 3 months ... The media drove a story … The story played out … Turns out the Media lied to me. The media drove another story … The story played out … Turns out the Media lied to me. The media drove yet another story … The story played out … Turns out the Media lied to me. The media is driving a story … The story playing out … THIS time the Media is telling me straight?

Might want to take a step back and reflect.

[zeemike]

55. The media?

I thought it was the GOP in congress that made the story and the media reported it?...they were the ones holding the hearings not the media.
The GOP did not break the story on NSA spying...and they feel like you do, that this is a non story and that Snowden is a traitor because he did.
Now you want to throw that all in the same bag and say if the GOP scandal is bogus then all of it is bogus....convenient for the GOP and the ones that want to spy on us.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. That is a very narrow ...

perspective of the media's role in these "scandals."

The wider view would have it that the media is/has been sniffing around for some "scandal" for the past 4.5 years ... from whatever source. The fact that THIS "scandal's" source was from snowden (not the gop, but an anti-President Obama, previously willing to defer to a republican president's judgment when he did the same thing without the benefit of enabling law, "libertarian", BTW); if you wish to play the partisan angle), is a distinction with little difference and misses the point. The media in its rush to pur$ue the $coup, is doing the same thing it has done for the last 4.5 years ... it sniffs out/is given a story; it runs with it, only to find that the story narrative is significantly different from the story it was given (had been reporting on).

But that is really nothing new ... what is different is the left's reaction (or should I say a segment of the left's reaction) to this "Charlie Brown/Lucy/Here's the football" thing ... in the past, the left didn't bite, before deciding the "facts"; they waited for the "facts", and those "facts" included looking at the credibility of the "source." In fact, the left excoriated those that jumped to soon (remember Sherrod, and Van Jones, before her?)

Not so much this time around ... it seems this time around, a segment(s) of the left is convinced that THIS time, the media is reporting the whole truth, that all of the relevant facts are out, AND the credibility of the source is unimportant.

But that said ...

and they feel like you do, that this is a non story and that Snowden is a traitor because he did.

This is a real, and complete, mis-characterization of my (and many others') opinion/position on this matter ...

1) I do believe what the NSA has done/is doing is a big story; if for no other reason, it returned this matter to the public's eye, thus allowing our Congress to use its collective wisdom to best express the will of the electorate. (democracy)

1.a. For the record ... I do believe that it is the "government's" constitutional job, in general, and that of the Executive Office, in particular, to find the balance between the nation's security and the "liberty/freedom" of her people. (governance)

2) I do not believe Snowden to be a traitor because he returned the NSA's activities to the public eye. I do, however, believe Snowden may be a law breaker ... as most Civil Disobedients are. (but I'll say it is premature to even make that judgment)

Now you want to throw that all in the same bag and say if the GOP scandal is bogus then all of it is bogus....convenient for the GOP and the ones that want to spy on us.

And this brings me to my larger, 3rd point ...

3) I am not saying that because the previous "scandals" was/were bogus, this "scandal" is bogus, too. What I am more concerned with is a segment of the left's reaction to THE REPORTING OF this "scandal." Again, in the past ... the left didn't bite, before deciding the "facts"; they waited for the "facts", and those "facts" included looking at the credibility of the "source."

So yes, I do throw the response of a segment of the left's response to the previous media driven non-scandal "scandals", and (presumably) that same segment of the left's response to this story.

[zeemike]

72. I am sorry but it was the congress who created these "scandals"

not the media...you can fault them all you want on being enablers of it but that is all...they did not create it.

But the NSA is not a created scandal...it is real, and they don't even bother to say it is not real...and THAT fact is all that is needed to justify the left's response...
And no amount of rationalization will change that, and the character of Snowden will not change it ether.

And we agree that Snowden broke the law...but so did MLK...because the law was unjust and so is any law unjust that violates the constitutional guarantees that we have...and it is our duty to break such laws.
The complaint against him is that he did not stick around to take his punishment...well sorry, but I do not fault him one bit for avoiding what happened to Bradly Manning...not one bit.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Okay, let me ask you ...

1) Do you believe that there are people out there seeking to do violence to the United States, through her people?

2) If yes, do you believe that it is the responsibility of the U.S. government to prevent that violence?

3) If yes, do you believe that it is the responsibility of Congress to find a balance between the threat of violence and the "liberty/Freedom" of her people?

If you answer, "NO" to any of the above questions, then we really have nothing further to discuss on this topic because a negative response to any of these questions puts you squarely in a fantasy camp. (Maybe, we can talk about puppies, kittens, or piano playing canines?)

There ARE people seeking to do violence to the U.S., through her people; it IS the responsibility of the U.S. government to prevent that violence; and to do so, it IS the responsibility of Congress to find a balance between the threat of violence and the "liberty/Freedom" of her people.

[zeemike]

74. OK I will play the programed quiz

#1...yes, and it has always been so.
#2...yes and it has always been their duty.
#3 ...no....it is the duty of our police force and our military to do that...not congress...that is how the Constitution was set up....the congress is there to protect us from overreaching by the military and the police force...which happens when we let them run wild and will lead to a fascist state as it has in other countries.

So I failed your test.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. My questions were NOT a test ...

it was merely my request for information to clarify your thoughts ... and to help me gauge the extent to I will engage you in the future.

But since you see it as a test, Yes, you absolutely would have failed.

Maybe you misread the question ... but, if your response to:

3) If yes, do you believe that it is the responsibility of Congress to find a balance between the threat of violence and the "liberty/Freedom" of her people? {highlight for emphasis}

Is really:

#3 ...no....it is the duty of our police force and our military to do that...not congress...that is how the Constitution was set up....the congress is there to protect us from overreaching by the military and the police force...which happens when we let them run wild and will lead to a fascist state as it has in other countries.

Then, we really have nothing to discuss. It shows a stunning lack of a basic understanding of the Constitution, how democracies work, and the role of Congress within a democracy.

Do you really believe that it is the "duty of our police force and our military to" determine the appropriate balance of National Security and constitutional grants? And do you really believe that "fascist state" talk?

Please tell me that you mis-read the question!

{Edited for highlighting}

[zeemike]

84. Well this sounds like it to me.

"If you answer, "NO" to any of the above questions, then we really have nothing further to discuss on this topic because a negative response to any of these questions puts you squarely in a fantasy camp"
So I thought this conversation was over.

But if you want an answer I believe in the separation of powers between the three branches of government as per the constitution...
If I need to explain that then we will never have any meeting of the minds.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. So you didn't mis-read the question ...

I was hoping that you had mis-read it and was hoping to give you an opportunity to save face/correct you mistake ... But apparently, you didn't mis-read the question ... you either, just can't admit error, or you just don't understand that "separation of powers" that you cite.

While I hope it's the latter ... ignorance in understanding, is correctible with a willingness to learn; the former, is not.

[zeemike]

86. Fuck that "save face" crap

I am not so insecure that I need to save face.
So work that on someone else.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. So ...

it's an ignorance of the separations of powers thing that you wish to rest on?

Comforting.

[zeemike]

89. And it is you that decieds what is ignorance.

Because you are the authority on it...I imagine you are a constitutional and historical expert.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. No ...

I let ignorance/arrogance speak for itself.

And no, I am no constitutional or history expert ... only what little I picked up in law and grad school. But I do know enough of the Constitution to know that it is not the responsibility of the police or military to make the policy determination of balancing national security with constitutional freedoms ... that is WHY the Constitution provided for congressional oversight.

Give it up and admit the error. Please!

[zeemike]

92. Well I will not continue this

Because from past experiences with conversations like this you will try to run me around in circles for hours....It is a pattern I have seen many times...and I have been doing this for a long time...I think they teach this is some school somewhere.

And always with the same intimidation tone....You are arrogant and ignorant...give it up and admit your error...as if there is no doubt that you are right and I am wrong...must have seen that a million times now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Okay, simple solution ...

defend your statement that in a democracy, it is the police/military's responsibility, rather than that of Congress, to make the nation security/"freedom of the people" policy determination.

Should be simple.

[zeemike]

94. You don;t get it.

I will not defend it...so the game is over...cause if I defend it there will just be something else I need to defend... that is how the came is played and why it goes round in circles.

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. What you have described as a "Game" ...

others would is called a "discussion."

What you are saying here is: "I cannot defend my statement", will trying to cast it as, "I will not defend my statement."

That's the other "game."

Thanks.

[zeemike]

96. And you characterizing what i said is a game too,

I said what I said....I did not say what you say I said...
And you could run this around for hours...Always coming up with something new that I need to defend,

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Okay ...

But understand ... anyone reading this string will/would see your dodge and will/would note when it began ... shortly after I asked you directly to support/defend what I called out as an ignorance in understanding of your statement ... then, it suddenly became a game, you were unwilling to play.

[zeemike]

98. I am not afraid to be who I am.

Nor am I ashamed of it....that will not work on me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. LOL ...

Smooches!

[cheapdate]

102. 1StrongBlackMan, your argument is excellent.

Your stated your premises plainly and with clarity. I appreciate good form, which you've shown and which sometimes seems to be in short supply around here. Clearly, the Congress -- the people's elected representatives -- has a large and important role in finding the proper balance between freedom and security, within the constitution. Congress writes the laws.

Zeemike has taken a virtually indefensible position, and now he sullenly refuses to either defend his position or concede a point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Thank you ...

It truly saddens me when people pull that kind of stuff ... It's as if acknowleding a flaw in one's thinking is some grave error; when, recognizing and closing the gaps in our thinking, only makes our arguments all the stronger. But refusing to do so, makes us the clown.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. And, BTW ...

it takes far more "security" to admit a mistake, than to continue argue, more loudly, more angrily and profanely, but still in error.

[zeemike]

90. In error in YOUR mind

Again, I am not so insecure that I let you think for me.

[Hekate]

119. Very well articulated points, 1Strong...

Thanks for keeping on.

[Cha]

60. lol.. exactly. The media drives every narrative agenda to blame Pres

Obama. And, some are only to happy to suck it up.

Luckily Obama Liberals aren't buyin' it. Don't make me post that link again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. I agree ...

See my, belated, response (to Zee) above.

Oh, how things have changed on the left!

What changed?

Oh! It can't be the unspoken, frequently denied, difference in the President himself ... could it?

[BlueCaliDem]

80. President Obama has been so squeaky clean that they have to manufacture

a crisis even when there isn't any. And with "they" I mean the corporate media that had usurped our true 4th Estate and supplanted it with pro-corporate/pro-Republican propaganda.

They were the same way with President Clinton. All we ever heard was the b.s. of Flowers! Vince Foster! Paula! Monica! Whitewater! For a non-observant consumer of American news {which I was back then}, President Clinton was a depraved monster and a "slick willie" who got away with murder! Good thing the economy did well under him or he'd have nothing.

But did we ever hear about Duhbya in those terms? Did we ever hear about his "youthful" indiscretions (at 40) as he sniffed up white lines or drank himself into a stupor, or that he cuckolded Texans into raising their taxes for his pet project, using eminent domain to buy private land on the cheap for the stadium that made him $250 million.

"When the Rangers franchise was sold for $250 million in 1998, at a total profit of $170 million, Bush personally received $14.9 million for his $600,000 investment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush[7].

There still isn't a single strip of evidence that Saddam had WMD. And when it turned out that Liberals have been correct all along, where was this "neutral" media of ours to report on it? Sure, we got some vindication - buried and forgotten in the pages of the largest newspapers where no one could find it, let alone know about it, but they did this to save their behinds so they could say, "See? We did print the truth when the evidence emerged that countered our earlier reporting! Want a subscription?"

There's a reason why more and more Americans don't trust newspapers or evening news. Although they can't put their finger directly on it, their gut is screaming, "Bullshit!" And their gut is correct.

[Cha]

101. Excellent indictment of the US "media", BlueCali!

I didn't watch it during the Clinton years.. I was off doing other things. But, when I did start watching in 1999 I was shocked at how biased they seemed. They were blaming Gore for bush's DUI getting exposed, ffs.

I had heard enough about Clinton to think the media would go after bush when he was pResident, though.. so he and his coup would only have one term. When all the votes had been counted and "Gore won Florida" it was buried on page 10 in the NYT while not long after Judy Miller was on page one. When we Protested around the World .. "The World Says No to WAR".. I rushed to see the NYT report on it 'cause I was there in NYC.. I knew how many came out. Silly me.. they couldn't have downplayed it more.

Poor media.. in the end even they couldn't hide what a freaking disaster bush was.. those two tragic jokers weren't even invited to Mitt's Lie Fest. I forget if they were at McCain's.

There's a reason why more and more Americans don't trust newspapers or evening news. Although they can't put their finger directly on it, their gut is screaming, "Bullshit!" And their gut is correct.

Amen sistah, Amen!

[SidDithers]

7. Huge K&R!!!...nt

Sid

[flamingdem]

8. K&R

[Iliyah]

9. Issa is still investigating the IRS issue

and Benghazi. Still want to know who gave ABC fake memo on WH docs where every media outlet reported on like white on rice.

[go west young man]

10. Spot on.

Nice moment of clarity.

[NewJeffCT]

12. They're still investigating the IRS issue

Like all the evidence to the contrary doesn't exist...

[ucrdem]

13. Props to the Obama administration. Another GOP scandal crashes and burns

and the ship sails on. NSA-gate also crashed and burned some time ago but the news hasn't yet seemed to reach our self-identified "libertarian left."

[Iliyah]

16. There is a "libertarian left"?

Thats the corporate media spewing that BS. The Liberal Far Left, yes, but not Libertarian.

Big difference.

[ucrdem]

19. So it seems:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023115867#post83

Lots of company too.

[Iliyah]

23. Nah - LOL

[Hekate]

120. Wow: Says he's on the Libertarian Left and believes "most DUers" are as well!

Quite the instructive link, ucrdem.

[Skip Intro]

15. I don't care any more for Maddow's spin than I do for faux news' -

I just want the truth, the whole truth.

I want to know why the IRS apologized in an orchestrated piece of theater with a planted question.

I want to know what they apologized for if there was nothing done wrong.

I want to know why Lerner took the fifth, and refused to testify about the issue.

I want to know why another IRS employee took the fifth this week.

I want to know who gave the order to target "tea party" groups and groups that extoll the Constitution, and why.

I want to know if the IRS was used to hamper and suppress the legal rights of groups who advocate for issues contrary to the current administrations agenda. If you take a step back, and take even the most fleeting of unbiased views, it sure looks that way.

(Bring on the personal attacks now, I done stepped outta line and thought for myself)

[NoMoreWarNow]

17. well clearly there is a right-wing bias at work here

and a real conspiracy on the part of the GOP to fuck over the Dems. And the Dems never seem to fight back.

[Skip Intro]

21. Oh sure, the right will try to "draw blood" from this no matter what,

but despite the right's agenda here, and the left's, there is actual truth, what really happened, who was behind it, and why, and that is what I hope becomes known.

I want the unanswered questions answered.

[ucrdem]

22. Dems are fighting back.

That's why these scandals keep crashing and burning and also why the RW hates Eric Holder with a passion hotter than hades.

[Iliyah]

24. A lot of far left hates Holder as well.

[ucrdem]

28. A lot of far left calls itself libertarian.

[Iliyah]

30. I don't know why?

[ucrdem]

32. It wasn't a question. nt

[Hissyspit]

44. He's just posting slander crap.

It's a "narrative," too.

[ucrdem]

48. Thanks for dropping by. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. It's quite well organized. You should take a look at this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3115076

[Octafish]

36. Like who?

Got names to go with that?

[ucrdem]

38. Hi Octa, have you been following this discussion

or did you just pop in to spread some cheer?

[Octafish]

39. I want to know who you identify as Libertarian and a leftist

Your link to a DU thread doesn't really count, does it? "Civil Liberties vs. Civil Libertarians."

So who is a "Libertarian leftist"?

PS: Don't worry. I spread enough cheer as it is.

[ucrdem]

41. There are two kinds of links, permalink and post in thread.

Try again. And cheer up, will ya? How much more good news do you need to put a smile on your face?

[Octafish]

46. So, you have no names. Just your 'word.'

Got it.

[ucrdem]

47. Do have a problem clicking links or are you just in bad mood?

The link goes to a post. Click it and knock off the trollery, it's beneath you.

[ucrdem]

81. p.s. since yesterday at least two more OPs pushing Libertarianism

have popped up in GD, and if you ask me very nicely and sincerely I'll post the links. Otherwise you can do your own damn search.



p.s. you don't need a search engine, just scan the thread titles.

[NoMoreWarNow]

35. yes, there is some pushback... just not enough imo

of course, maybe the Dems do call out the Repubs more and the media ignores it.

[ucrdem]

37. I think a lot of the pushback goes on under the radar

and doesn't really penetrate the NYT-osphere until something dramatic happens like Petraeus retiring the day after the 2012 election. Note there have been other unexpectedly early retirements among the GOP ranks. Former SC senator Jim DeMint comes to mind.

[toby jo]

25. Totally agree. Let's get into the nature of power & how it's being used.

No knee jerking allowed - it makes you dull, and dull things fail.

[stevenleser]

26. The answer to most of your questions is, the same reason people who are not guilty take

plea bargains sometimes.

Once an adversarial process is started, you don't know where it is going to end even if you have done nothing wrong. Sometimes it really is better to take a good plea bargain/lesser charge than risk big punishment/consequences. Even if you are innocent.

[cheapdate]

56. I want to know

Why some "social welfare groups" who promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections, and then went and did just that, aren't being charged with perjury?

They lied on their applications. They said they were social welfare charities and would not be engaged in legally impermissible election activities. Then they went and did just that. They used their charity status to hide the identity of their donors. That means the American people are prevented from knowing who is financing political campaigns.

[Cha]

61. First of all, it's not "Maddow" who wrote it.. so you have to get that straight right off the

bat. if you're so interested in getting the facts.

[Major Hogwash]

18. What this country needs . . is a giant enema!!

Kicked and recommended.

[malaise]

29. Not even an apology is coming

From anywhere in the media or GTAIssa and fellow ReTHUGs,
That was the plan -spread lies.

[graham4anything]

31. +1 So many important issues (Voting rights takedown is the most important of all). So many smears

I have tuned out the smears. It is always the same.

I tune them out.

[Iliyah]

33. Hear hear!

Civil rights in general are being trashed. Look at MI, its almost a dictatorship. NC is doing much damage to its people's rights. TX, WI, OH, VA, Miss, FL and other states (guess who is running them) are trouncing people's rights.

Where are the media???????

[SwissTony]

34. Was the IRS "scandal" an illusion or a lie?

Issa was telling people to cherry pick data.

[sheshe2]

40. Illusions~

Brought to us by the delusional party!

[RandiFan1290]

42. The media will run all of the bullshit accusations in 2014

and they will be paid handsomely for it.

Truth be damned we will be hearing this stuff for 20+ years

[Scurrilous]

45. Excellent summation.

Thanks for posting this ProSense.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

50. Republican agenda for 2014

With the help of the media. The GOP's war on big government. We knew.about the URS going sfter left groups, Bushs secret surveillance. etc. But the media ignored it

[Bobbie Jo]

57. K&R

[Cha]

58. Where the hell have I heard this before?

There's a salient downside to forward-thinking coverage of current events: occasionally, the political world gets a story wrong, and needs to pause to look backwards.

Oh, that's right.. after every Pres Obama "Scamdal". When Steve Benen says ".. we notice it and take it seriously". I know he's speaking for a lot of Americans but not for me or anyone who knows exactly what the corpmedia is up to after 13 years of hearing about the same ol crap.. over and over again. It took me about 2 years to drop them and the other years I read about their shit reporting online.

Agenda "Narrative".. M$M.. to know it is to hate it. We need less mediawhores and more people like Steve Benen.

thank you, ProSense

[SunSeeker]

62. K & R

[kitt6]

64. Don't leave out

The Plant!

[DCBob]

65. That's the Republican SOP.."stitching together unrelated data points" into a scandal.

Create a scandal where there isn't one. Pathetic lying SOBs.

[Fla Dem]

66. What's needed is a progressive group to make a humorous, but damming

commercial highlighting and exposing the perpetrators of these lies, and running them on prime time for a month. MSM certainly won't get the message out, and yet it will remain in many people's minds there were scandals in Obama's administration.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

68. this infuriates me.

That's true, though the American mainstream and casual news consumers almost certainly won't know that because there's so little introspection among those who told them to believe the White House was in "crisis." The public couldn't help but hear about the "Obama scandals," and will never see any front-page headlines declaring the scandals over. 

"The casual news consumer."....yeah. Om nom nom.

[Dawson Leery]

75. Certainly.

The corporate media does not want to discuss the real scandal, the GOP obstruction campaign, and the far right take over of state governments.

[longship]

77. Nice one. R&K nt

[MjolnirTime]

79. It was all an attempt to damage the President before his ultimate Victory on Immigration

They don't know what to do.

When it passes, they will splinter as a Party.

[tularetom]

82. I don't think the part where the administration apologized for singling out tea party groups

was an illusion. I remember that quite vividly and I still don't understand why they did it and particularly why they were in such a hurry to do it. It gave ammunition to their opponents across the aisle and in the press.

Of course as it turned out they were not singling out tea party groups but they sure as hell acted as though they were. They need to be a little smarter and realize that the liberal media will extrapolate their apology into an admission that there was something really rotten in the IRS and that it was orchestrated by the White House.

I no longer hope that the Obama administration will ever learn how to play this game.

[DFW]

83. GMTA--And I promise I didn't see this OP first!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251313367

[FSogol]

99. K&R. n/t

[kitt6]

104. Since people want to spend their lives

trying to rid races, spaces. Here is life after the VRA was passed.

[spanone]

105. the media as compliant as usual

[DeSwiss]

106. This is NOT about ''scandals.''

It is NOT about Snowden.

It is NOT about Obama.

It is NOT about threats to anyone's presidency. That is irrelevant at this point.

This is about nothing short than the continuation of this BS we call a world order.

A true ''journalist'' would know this instinctively, and would have never questioned his/her motives for seeking TRUTH.

Apparatchiks on the other hand will ruminate, regurgitate and fulminate about what they are doing, and whether it's ''the right thing to do'' or not.

Your opinions are fine, as opinions. But like asses, everybody's got one.

Just report the facts.

We have to learn how to create opinions for ourselves.

- At some point....

“Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. ” ~ Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

[BumRushDaShow]

107. The media used to hold lessons-learned panels 20 years ago

many of which were aired on CSPAN, and were designed to critique themselves on their reporting, and how they could do better. Now that periodic critique is all but gone and they simply move on to the next scandal-du jour, hoping no one notices their abysmal reporting, and complete lack of credibility. They have fully embraced "if it bleeds, it leads" (even if it is completely bogus, because they desperately need the eyeballs and ear canals to survive).

[DeSwiss]

108. If they still existed.....

...these days they could hold those ''panels'' in a phone booth.

- Hey, maybe they could all meet at Disneyland!?!?!

[BumRushDaShow]

109. LOL very true!

And since the phone booth has essentially disappeared, so too have their self-reflections.

And I wish DU would add your "" smiley to the repertoire. It fits so many situations! I end up being forced to use " :\ "

[kentuck]

110. Almost all...

...except for the NSA spying. That is no illusion. Unfortunately, that is one that does not interest Republicans very much.

[protect our future]

111. Thank you for posting this, ProSense. n/t

[Scurrilous]

112. Quite different on the weekends kick.

[Hekate]

114. Kick and Rec 101