We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.

As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.

The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that opposed ObamaCare or advanced the second amendment—the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the U.S. Constitution.

for more see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...0479247792.html

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #2

---

Well, Pegster, since you helped get him elected....

---

The first line "We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate." is about all you have to read.

The admission by her that this is a scandal of Watergate proportions is soothing to the senses. at least a little bit. now keep it up peggster!

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #3

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #2

---

Well, Pegster, since you helped get him elected....

---

Peggy, "I was for him before I was against him", writes a tortured piece every Thursday in which she generates an enormous amount of "comments".

I, personally, enjoy the "comments" more than her opinion pieces.

I think, the WSJ, keeps her on for the traffic she generates vs the wishy-washy confusion she illustrates each week over The Arrogant One ....

---

Her tone is grating on the nerves.

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5

---

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #3

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #2

---

Well, Pegster, since you helped get him elected....

---

I think, the WSJ, keeps her on for the traffic she generates....

---

And traffic determines ad revenue.

Tell me, while reading her pieces (and reader comments) have you noticed an inordinate number of pop-up ads for Midol?

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #8

---

Never had any doubts about you, W-Girl.

---