Which is true, I think, as far as it goes. But what if all of the current Obama scandals had broken last fall? What if voters not only knew the truth about Benghazi–that four Americans were killed by al Qaeda because the Obama administration ignored repeated warnings from the CIA, refused the ambassador’s pleas for better security, and failed even to try to rescue them once they came under attack–but also knew that the IRS had been commissioned to harass the administration’s political opponents? And what if, in addition, reporters knew about DOJ’s surveillance of the Associated Press?

We know that the administration fought feverishly to prevent the truth about Benghazi from coming out until after the election. That is what the notorious talking points, Susan Rice’s tour of the TV news shows, and Obama’s and Clinton’s endless references to the phantom video were all about. We also know that the IRS’s improper activities were well known at the upper reaches of the IRS as well as the Treasury Department–and, it is fair to assume, at the White House–well before the election. Yet numerous officials conspired to keep the scandal quiet until the election was safely past, and at least one IRS employee seems rather clearly to have committed perjury to keep the scandal from coming to the attention of voters. As for the AP surveillance, I still don’t understand the legal context of the incident, and I doubt that many voters would have been swayed by the apparently legal, but unprecedented, surveillance of reporters. But what if reporters had been angry enough over the administration’s double-cross (as they might reasonably see it) that their coverage of the campaign’s closing weeks had been less slavishly pro-Obama? Might these factors, together, have made a difference?

I still don’t think the result would have been different. To an extraordinary degree, the 2012 electorate seemed uninterested in the Obama administration’s failures. If voters didn’t care about the economy or about $16 trillion in debt, why would they have cared about Benghazi or the IRS? But the cumulative effect of multiple, mutually reinforcing scandals is hard to predict. It is easy to understand why, last fall, the Obama administration didn’t want to take any chances. They went into full cover-up mode, and carried off their multiple cover-ups successfully. Without doubt, that effort helped to bring about the president’s re-election.

The analogy to 1972 is obvious. Richard Nixon managed to keep the lid on Watergate long enough to enjoy one of the most sweeping electoral victories in American history. After the election, however, his cover-up unraveled; it consumed, and eventually destroyed, his second term. Whether the same will happen to Obama remains to be seen, but already it is clear that scandal will be a major part of the Obama legacy.

Anyway, lots of good stuff piled up on the photo spindle since our midweek graphical update.  There’s a pretty clear theme here–even the media can spot it I think.

Heh.

I don’t know how I missed this when it came out, but here it is now:

And finally, for something different:

In prior testimony, Miller was asked what “targeting” of tax exempt groups was taking place at the IRS. At the time Miller, had been briefed about targeting. However, his answer did not divulge the targeting.

Even Democrats don’t seem to be buying Miller’s attempt to claim that this answer was the whole truth. Their approach is quickly to acknowledge wrongdoing by the IRS and then launch tirades against Citizens United.

The formula — 15 seconds of mock outrage; four minutes of speechifying about the evils of the campaign finance system, and 45 second of blaming Republicans for not giving IRS more resources. But more resources would create the danger of more politicized harassment.

Ryan also asked Miller whether the IRS used the terms “progressive” or “organizing” in identifying organizations to be scrutinized. Miller tried to avoid answering, but eventually acknowledged these terms weren’t used.

Miller nonetheless keeps denying that the IRS acted politically. But Pat Tiberi of Ohio has just shown the disparity between the treatment of liberal and conservative groups in Ohio. Conservative groups were left waiting years for approval while left-wing groups received it within months.

A conservative book club was required to identify the books its members read and to provide book reports to the IRS. You can’t make this stuff up.

Miller is about as disingenuous and slippery as he can be. He rejects the word “targeting” (used 16 times in the IRS Inspector General’s report, which Miller says he accepts) by claiming that there was no bad “intent.” So he is asked whether, intent aside, groups were treated differently based on their name.

Astonishingly, Miller says “no.” Thank God this sleaze is no longer in charge at the IRS. Given his lack of candor, Miller is lucky he’s not been held in contempt of Congress. He certainly is in contempt of its intelligence — and ours.

Miller acknowledges that he promoted Sarah Ingram, the IRS official in charge of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012, to director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office. Asked why, Miller responded that she is “an exemplary public servant.”

Even giving Ingram the benefit of all doubt (and why should we?), major wrongdoing occurred under her watch. Is this the modern bureaucracy’s idea of an exemplary public servant?

Miller goes on to say he does not know whether Ingram was what criteria the IRS was using to select groups for scrutiny. That’s hard to believe. But if it’s true, that’s not exemplary.

The Democrats’ defense of having Ingram in the position of director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office is that the IRS will not have access to medical records. That may be true if the IRS adheres to procedure. But the lesson of this scandal is that the IRS cannot be trusted to adhere to procedure.

Rep. Aaron Schock drives home just how improper IRS questioning of pro-life groups was. Christian Voices for Life was asked whether it provides education on abortion issues on both sides of the question. Miller refuses to comment on the propriety on this inquiry.

The Coalition for Life of Iowa was asked for the content of the prayers of its members. Miller finds this “unusual,” but goes no further.

IRS asked another pro-life group to detail the signs its members use when they assemble in front of Planned Parenthood facilities. Again, Miller fails to characterize in harsher terms than “unusual.”

It’s time for a pet peeve. Miller begins his answer to many questions with the word “so.” The word is clearly superfluous when used in this way. When did it become de rigueur for a certain type of person (often the pompous or ingratiating kind) to preface answers and remarks with this word? And why?

Miller begins a few more answers by saying “so.” That’s my cue to sign off.

Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev left a note claiming responsibility for the April 15 attack on the Boston Marathon, reports CBS News senior correspondent John Miller.

Sources tell Miller that Tsarnaev wrote the note in the boat he was hiding in as police pursued him, and as he bled from gunshot wounds sustained in an earlier shootout between police and his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. It reads as part manifesto, part suicide note and part justification for the killing and maiming of innocent civilians.

The note — scrawled with a marker on the interior wall of the cabin — said the bombings were retribution for U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and called the Boston victims “collateral damage” in the same way Muslims have been in the American-led wars. “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” Tsarnaev wrote.

Tsarnaev said he didn’t mourn older brother Tamerlan, the other suspect in the bombings, writing that by that point, Tamerlan was a martyr in paradise — and that he expected to join him there soon.

As for joining his brother soon, if only. As for the rest, we can count on President Obama to explain to Tsarnaev how he misunderstands his faith.