Republican Obstructionism, A tale from Sid and a Bit of Political Word Usage

Why Republicans "Obstruct"

Republican obstructionists in the House of Representatives and the Senate feel it is their obligation to attack the President at every opportunity.  After all, they feel that the Presidency is rightfully a Republican position, and that a Democrat in the White House is no more than an unfortunate “aberration.”   The “traditional” presidencies of McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the two Bushes represent the norm to them, and the interposition of the terms of Democrats Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama are no more than temporary and accidental interruptions in the Republican continuum. 


Some contend that the only reason Wilson was elected in 1912 (the only Democratic President between Grover Cleveland and FDR) was because there were two Republicans running, conservative William Howard Taft and progressive Teddy Roosevelt.

Hence, attacking Obama at every possible opportunity as someone who really shouldn’t be in the White House seems to be a legitimate tactic to them.  To them, a Democrat in the White House is an “aberration” from the norm and should be dealt with vigorously.  This is the spirit in which they approach the Benghazi tragedy as well as the recent revelations concerning the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.  They really don’t care about how the electoral votes added up in 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992, 1976, 1964, 1960 and 1948 … as well as during the Roosevelt years.

I have already written enough about Benghazi, but suffice it to say at this point that the Administration was acting on incomplete information and is being wrongly accused of conspiring to hide the true facts and possibly being negligent as well in permitting the tragedy to have occurred in the first place. 


Bodies being brought back from Benghazi
 

But it is an excellent vehicle for Republicans to use as a G.O.P. weapon against the President.

As for the Internal Revenue Service matter, in investigating the tax advantaged status of supposed “social welfare” organizations, was the IRS being somewhat politically selective in their administrative dealings with such groups?  That question reminds me of a real incident I recall from years ago. 

Back during World War Two, I had a friend whose dad was in the wholesale meat business.  Meat was hard to come by in those days, and I suspect he was involved in selling his product on what we then called the “black market.”   Not being a dummy, of course, he had accountants and lawyers who structured what he was doing through a variety of corporate identities to keep it all legal.  And his business prospered.

For years thereafter, however, my friend told me, his father was subject to intensive and extraordinary IRS scrutiny of his own and of his business’ tax returns.  He readily admitted that while the government couldn’t get his dad for breaking a law, or cleverly avoiding compliance with one, they still would use the IRS as a tool to come down hard on him.  They wanted to make sure that whatever revenue he earned, including that from possibly “illegal” sources, was appropriately taxed.  And they were relentless.  Getting a conviction for tax evasion was easier than for selling sides of beef illegally.

I don’t think things have changed very much since then.  When a group applies for a tax exemption because of its function as a “social welfare” organization, the IRS is entitled to use all of its considerable investigative and enforcement powers to determine if indeed that group is entitled to such an exemption.  Many of the organizations applying for such exemptions happened to be right wing conservative groups, often referred to as “tea party” groups, and were subjected to such investigations. What would one have expected the IRS to do?  They were doing their job, what they get paid to do.   

Since many of these “social welfare” organizations also had conservative political agendas, it was unavoidable that the IRS has been accused of conducting their investigation from a political standpoint.  But still, as with my friend’s dad in the meat business, all they were doing was their job.   But don’t try to explain this to Republicans.

And while we are back in the middle of the last century, here’s another relevant tale.  When I was in the military, my duties involved my having a security clearance.  I was made aware, as all with such clearances are, of the severe penalties for compromising that clearance.  I suspect things are similar today.

So, when a government employee with a security clearance reveals classified information, the government must deal with that employee.  Unless the employee is some sort of master spy, the investigation will quickly reveal how and to whom the classified information was given.  And if that turns out to be a foreign country, it is relatively easy to build up a case against the employee. 
If the leak, however, was made to a journalist, it becomes much more difficult since journalists are protected under the First Amendment, and are even able to keep their sources of information confidential, based on Supreme Court decisions.

Important classified intelligence information was leaked recently to a reporter, and ultimately was published widely.  This conceivably endangered the lives of Americans and our supporters in other countries.  In building up a case against the government employee, the Justice Department found it necessary to consider the journalist to be a “co-conspirator,” so they could properly look into his role in the “leak.”   The Justice Department claims they do not have any intention of prosecuting the journalist nor violating his constitutional rights, but claims investigating him was essential in the interest of protecting national security in the course of bringing an action against the government employee who violated his security clearance.  But don’t try to explain this to the Republicans.

There would be no problem at all, and the Attorney General would not be subject to criticism, had the employee leaked the classified information directly to the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran or some other country, instead of to a respected American journalist.

 

And so, the IRS incident as well as the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute a government employee who illegally “leaked” classified information to a reporter join Benghazi in providing the Republicans with yet two more pieces of weaponry with which to attack a President whom they feel is illegitimately occupying a  

  White House which they feel is historically their private domain. 

Bear this in mind when you hear the Republicans screaming about Benghazi, the IRS and the Attorney General.  They have nothing constructive to contribute, so that is all they have to do these days.  Although the donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party, it is the Republican Party which brays like one.

Jack Lippman

                                                             

Sid's Corner

                        

MUSINGS WITH MY MUSE   

                                                 

Yesterday I spoke with my muse about being filled with sadness at the latest plight of friends with whom my wife and I have been friends since our teen-age years some sixty years ago.

This couple seems to be under a black cloud that has been dogging them without letup for many, many years. Their latest disaster of the wife falling and breaking her shoulder combined with her husband’s bleeding episode landed them both in a shared bedroom at a nearby rehab center. I commented to my muse that their plight reminds me of Joe Btfsplk, one of the characters in Al Capp’s long ago
comic strip, L'il Abner.

Joe Btfsplk, as he occasionally appeared in L'il Abner. 

Muse and I then expanded our conversation to embrace the broader based subject of the overall realty of human existence that results in unwanted, unexpected events striking some of humankind whilst by-passing others ala the angel-of-death “passing over” specially marked houses during the tenth plague visited upon the biblical pharaoh in ancient Egypt.

Later that day our conversation manifested itself with the massive tornado that rampaged through Moore, Oklahoma. Atmospheric conditions coalesced such that this monster was created and tore randomly across the state to wreak havoc in its path. But the havoc itself was also random in that some structures were leap-frogged leaving them intact while surrounding buildings were razed to the ground leaving most of the area looking like Hiroshima after the atomic bomb.  One such example is a woman’s flimsy house trailer surviving with only minor roof damage in a vast desert of flattened houses.

So, who, or what decides who gets the shaft and who does not? Or maybe there is no decision being made…that all events are chaotic happenings with no rhyme or reason.

Sid Bolotin

                                                     

The "Democrat" Party

Frequently, Republicans refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” Party.  This is incorrect; the words “Republican” and “Democratic” are both adjectives, and they are the words which should be used to modify the noun “Party.” 

 

In the noun form, however, they differ somewhat.  While the noun describing a member of the G.O.P is that same word, “Republican,” the noun describing a member of the President’s party is a different word, “Democrat.”  When this noun, “Democrat,” is improperly used by Republicans as an adjective modifying the word “Party,” it takes on a mildly pejorative sense, and subtly denies the attribute of being “democratic” to what they sarcastically call the “Democrat” Party.

The late Josepth McCarthy always referred to the "Democrat" Party.
Harold Stassen, to whom this strange usage is attributed.

This twisting of words was initiated by the late Minnesota governor, Harold Stassen, back in the 1940s when he was a perennial losing G.O.P. Presidential prospect, and conservative Republicans have used it ever since.  The closest, although much stronger, parallel I can think of is when an anti-Semite refers to a “Jew lawyer” rather than to a “Jewish lawyer.” 
JL

  
                                                                                                                   

  
 

Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.   BY CLICKING ON THAT ADDRESS, (shown above in red) YOU CAN ALSO SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.   I am just a click of your mouse away.

Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.

                                                    * * *   * * *   * * *

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search” box can also be used to find older postings.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below.   Even better, let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman