MY perception is that the current left leaning body politic has a disproportionate bent toward maligning those with differing views, and abusing power to suppress those views. There are too many noteworthy examples to list, but a few stick out; 1. Suppressing conservative groups with IRS harassment, 2. Stonewalling Congressional inquiries into (long list here) Benghazi, Fast & Furious, VA neglect, 3. Suppression of Senate debate by dis-allowing amendments embarrassing to Democrats. All normal politics, but not seen to this degree since Watergate. Originally Posted by trident60
I don't think using the IRS to harass your political enemies is "normal politics" under any circumstances. To me it is completely unacceptable - whether it occurs under Nixon or Obama. Nixon didn't get very far, just far enough to have it brought up as an impeachment count. Under Obama, the IRS has been deeply corrupted by the left in an attempt to nullify the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
Re. the suppression of debate in Harry Reid's Senate, this has become obvious yet the MSM ignores the story because it prefers to parrot the libtard claims of "Republican obstructionism". For those who haven't been paying attention, here is how the WSJ summed up the current sorry state of what used to be called the "world's greatest deliberative body":
Harry Reid's Senate Blockade
A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body.
May 13, 2014
The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.
The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.
The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them.
In the case of Portman-Shaheen, Republicans had prepared amendments to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas; to object to a new national carbon tax; to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal plants; and to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. A majority of the public supports these positions and many Democrats from right-leaning or energy-producing states claim to do the same. The bill against the EPA's coal-plant rules is co-sponsored by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin.
Yet the White House and Mr. Reid's dominant liberal wing won't take the chance that a bipartisan coalition might pass these amendments, most of which the House has passed or soon would. President Obama would thus face a veto decision that would expose internal Democratic divisions. So Mr. Reid shut down the amendment process. Republicans then responded by refusing to provide the 60 votes necessary to clear a filibuster and vote on the underlying bill.
It's important to understand how much Mr. Reid's tactics have changed the Senate. Not too long ago it was understood that any Senator could get a floor vote if he wanted it. The minority party, often Democrats, used this right of amendment to sponsor votes that would sometimes put the majority on the spot. It's called politics, rightly understood. This meant the Senate debated national priorities and worked its bipartisan will. Harry Reid's Senate has become a deliberate obstacle to democratic accountability.
And speaking of accountability, every supposedly pro-energy Democrat supported Mr. Reid in his amendment blockade. That includes Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who is running TV ads back home attacking the Obama Administration energy policies that Mr. Reid is protecting from bipartisan majority rejection. She still claims to support a vote on the Keystone XL pipeline, and she blamed Republicans for not going along with Mr. Reid's vague assurance that he would allow a stand-alone vote on Keystone later this month.
But why not force the vote now? If Ms. Landrieu really had Keystone as a top priority, as she claims, she'd have joined Republicans in demanding an immediate amendment to a bill that she knows the White House is reluctant to veto. And she'd have insisted that Mr. Reid allow a 50-vote threshold for passage, rather than Mr. Reid's 60-vote supermajority.
Ms. Landrieu instead is playing Mr. Reid's double game, demanding a Keystone vote even as she undermines its passage. She is running for election by boasting about her clout as the new Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, but she is so ineffectual that she can't get her own party to allow a vote on what she claims is one of her top priorities.
The lesson for voters is simple: If they want anything meaningful done in the last two years of the Obama Administration, they will have to elect a Republican Senate.
.
