If he outed all politicians that would be one thing. He outed a politician in part because he did not agree with his politics. If you are a political operative that is one thing, but do not claim to be doing it for a higher moral purpose. You are doing it to further your political ends.
This reminds me of when Brian Ross who is the Head of Investigative Reporting for ABC News bought the list of clients of the DC Madam (I keep hearing they do not pay for news stories). He then only released the names of Republicans, because they took a stance on morality and this made them hypocrites. If Brian Ross had been a Republican operative not a Democratic one he could have only released the names of Democrats since they have taken a stance supporting woman's rights and this made them hypocrites.
So you are either a reporter or a political operative. If you are a political operative you can behave in a partisan manner, if you are a reporter you cannot. The guy who runs this blog is a political operative and should be treated accordingly.
I wonder if the person had been of the Blog of Arizona's political persuasion and saying crazy stuff if the Blog of Arizona would still have outed them. I doubt they would have. So now we are going to have people afraid to cross over and comment on blogs that have a differing view. So we are going to have echo chambers where only one set of ideas are presented. This is going to cause people to become even more partisan.
I think you need to reexamine what happened. We have significant evidence that there was unequal treatment. The one person who seems to have directed this unequal treatment "lost" two years of emails. Six other people involved with this have also lost their emails.
This is not the first time the IRS has targeted people with an anti IRS bent. There have been numerous times tax documents have been leaked. There is a high correlation between audits and people that were critical of the administration.
Nixon supposedly lied. I guess we will never know.
It was the Republican Congress that caused him to do this
It was the Republican Congress that caused him to do this. He blames them for everything else. He accuses them of failing to compromise, but his definition of compromise is you do what I tell you. Eventually the public may realize that Obama's definition of compromise equals capitulate.
When I was attending New College a similar thing happened. A drunk guy and girl not remembering what happened. She went to Womyn Tea. They decide she had been raped and went around collecting signatures of professors to kick him off campus. They put up signs calling him a rapist. He left.
It is not surprising to see this happening, a majority of the woman studies students believed that since it was so difficult to make an accusation of rape that there should be no trial. There is shame and judgement of the victim. They believed that the guy should be automatically guilty since only a small percentage of rapes are reported.
There were already six investigations of the IRS targeting
There were already six investigations of the IRS targeting. I saw numerous people (Jay Carney, Harry Reid, etc) make statements how one more investigation was unnecessary. That this was just a political exercise since it was throughly investigated. Well apparently none of those six investigations were through enough to uncover that they did not have all outside emails from the person at the center of the targeting. I am waiting for the apologizes from all the politicians and press that made those statements.
If they are impress by George Ws PR then they must be in awe of the Obama PR machine. His press team determines what stories most of the press covers. He uses his interviews as a carrot to have the press provide favorable coverage. He will periodically punish a media company by refusing to provide them with interviews from him and his administration. He provides the press with photos that his staff photographer took, so he determines how he is photographed in many events. He also goes around the press with a strong social media campaign.
Let's say that no money was allowed to be spent on campaigning. Then the media Comcast/NBC would have even more power by being able to chose their coverage of a candidate. Political speech would be limited to media companies. So we say ban the media from choosing the candidate. You throw the influence to the labor unions, NRA, AARP, and other groups with large member bases that can be mobilized. You are playing wack a mole with political influencers when what you really need to do is find a way to educate the public on the candidates and let them decide. We need a way to cut thru the half truths and false implications.
The problem is that most journalist have a party (team). It is fine to do these things to help your team, but if this happens to your team it is wrong. The survey picks an interesting year in 2002, which was right after 9/11/2001. There was a strong feeling of nationalism that year. I would be more interested in seeing a study that used different years.
What do you mean by paid political advertising. Can NBC do a one sided Obama interview? They are controlled by NBC which has a couple of merges they are trying to push through. Is that a political ad? If you limit paid political advertising you are then saying the only people allowed speech on candidates is the news media. Get ready for some pro media laws.
Lets start with the assumption that you can remove the money out of politics. Then the power will lie with big media corporations nbc, fox, nyt, etc. You will not be elected unless the media chooses to present you reasonably. Comcast (nbc) recently showed their power by purchasing the #2 cable service, there were few objections. If you are rich enough to buy a media outlet then you are allowed to promote your candidate without limit, if not you have a very limited voice.
It is terrible that we have such a short memory and attention span. You promise something wait a couple of years and either deny you promised it or try to change what you promised. The press is counted on to combat this sort of thing, but they rarely call politicians and companies out on this.
So you are saying you don't want her on the board, because she supported warrentless surveillance, so you will make the same argument and protest against anyone from the Obama administration when they try to get on boards of tech companies. I am sick of people claiming that they are upset about an issue when they are really just upset that the person was on the wrong team. I was involved in several groups that supported Net neutrality and when Obama was elected the groups disbanded. We still don't have net neutrality.
The guidelines also tell schools to look at race to make sure they are not disproportionally suspending african american children. The goal should be to foster a environment where kids can learn. If a child is disruptive and not interested in learning the school needs to be able to remove that child from school. Additionally, I am sure majority of students that are suspended are male, so by this logic we should take that into account and make sure we suspend an equal percentage of female.The only reason this is not mentioned is that males are not a minority (they are less than 50%, but not a minority).
It seems that when Obama takes his yearly vacation to Martha's Vineyard he stops by Brian Roberts house. They go golfing together. I don't foresee Comcast having any issues from this administration. It is becoming less about your product and more about who you know. I will not be surprised if they buy Time Warner and that is approved by this administration.
Have Mark Zuckerburg or someone explain why this guy is important. The general public has never heard of Diffie, but you can have someone they have heard of explain that he built the underpinnings of the secure internet.