I suspect this will get the attention it deserves, and probably more it shouldn't. The right will demand blood, and the left will probably double-down on that in an attempt to prove to the public they deplore this, so odds are we'll get some heads rolling that probably don't deserve it with the ones who do.

Much like with Bush, the President's critics range from reasonable to a bit excessive to downright hypocritical, most are in the first two categories. I'm not really in a position to judge on A2k, but his remarks are a damn sight tamer then a lot of the stuff directed at Bush in the later years, Obama's still got 3 1/2 to go though so that may change.

Problem is, A2k never mentioned Obama, and its not like he's reticent to do so. So not only are you not giving him the benefit of the doubt, you're probably falsely accusing on this one. I'd bet he does not think Obama ordered this, at most he might think Obama gave tacit approval or helped cover it up after the fact, but that's for him to say not me. I am willing to shove some of the blame onto him here, but mostly for being one of the many who've been way over the top and biased as hell in their criticisms of the TEA Party and similar. Obviously I'm not taking it as a given he had no involvement, but I rather doubt that's the case, for one thing the IRS commissioner in at the time was a Bush appointee, something I'm amazed no one seems to have mentioned yet. Doesn't matter, A2k never mentioned Obama, just the very real dilemma and right attitude toward it. I hate to say it, but if I'd posted on this subject I'd have said the same thing, only probably used ten times as many words, and gotten none of the hyper-defensive replies. It's because he posted it, and I never get the hostility directed at him, I can think of half a dozen regular poster on politics with much ruder posting styles and decidedly poor debating skills. If he'd said "Yes, damn liberal, you'll get yours!", yeah, sure, fine, but he didn't, and again it isn't like he is reluctant to say that sort of thing.

Danny, the right opposes most of the things Obama wants, it is supposed to do, we scream at our guys when they don't try to block his initiatives, as the left did and still does about Dem congressmen who didn't 'Stand up to Bush', ask Joe Liebermann. The words Opposition Party are used for a reason. People also seem to forget that most stuff sails right through congress unopposed, or gets held up strictly because its part of a package deal with an unpopular rider. Let's not get melodramatic here or develop persecution complex, the president whines about how the GOP wants him to fail, and I say whines because his predecessors all knew that was true and didn't routinely get in front of a podium to say it. I can seriously say that on my list of dislikes for the current POTUS, his bizarre - and apparently genuine - inability to understand that we don't agree with him for reasons we won't change just because he asks is right near the top. Its ironic that when I thought he was just feigning anger for political advantage it didn't much bug me, now that I feel he genuinely is angry and upset and mystified that the right doesn't just nod along with him I'm leaning toward contempt. Our president is apparently thin-skinned and takes it as a personal affront that we don't find his arguments compelling. Although I think he, and a lot of the left it seems, are convinced we do find it compelling but don't go along because we're bastards, there's a queer combination of egotism and naiveté in there. Whichever, I myself am assuming that in the IRS thing, unless strong evidence indicates otherwise, our president had nothing to do with this abortion, that's my view, I feel no need to defend that or defend or condemn anyone who feels differently at this stage.

I doubt the left will circle wagons on this, we'll get an investigation. Some might throw out the 'Witch hunt' card but that's inevitable and its good for such a card to get tossed from time to time, or else you get those. Until abuses or excess occur in the investigation though, lets limit it to reminders to be fair and reasonable in our conduct of that investigation and not to go looking for scapegoats. The right doesn't need any scapegoats on the matter or a lawn for of heads-on-pikes, we got our victory the moment this was exposed because this sort of abuse validates our concerns about government and trust.

As mentioned, neither A2K or myself mentioned Obama until this post, when you did. Don't jump the gun here and go into defense. Whether you like it or not the right has been victim of a serious crime here and has every right to be angry as hell about it, and we do expect people to pay attention - they should, and they are. The morally right, and probably political wise, thing for the left to do right now is to nod their heads and say 'This is inexcusable, we will investigate throughly and act accordingly'