A hat-trick of political missteps

The term, hat-trick, was first used in 1858 when cricketer H.H. Stephenson took three wickets in three balls. I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds impressive. It was so impressive, in fact, that a collection was taken and Mr. Stephenson was presented with a brand new hat from the proceeds. Hence a new hyphenated word was added to the sports lexicon.

A 155 years later the term has expanded beyond sports and come to mean anything difficult accomplished in threes. Now in Washington, D.C., the Republicans have managed their own hat-trick with the Benghazi, IRS, and AP sticky wickets, and their opponent/commie-Nazi Muslim from Kenya Barack Obama is the one being scored on. The President might consider taking a cricket bat with him the next time he goes for a stroll through the playing fields of Congress. OK, I should stop using terminology from a sport I know nothing about. It just isn’t cricket. Sorry, that’s the last one. I promise.

Anyway, the GOP is now treating the country to a three-fer, and we in the media are lapping it up. Evidence this column. It seems Darrell Issa, John Boehner, etc., etc. have flung enough congressional rectitude that some of it is finally sticking.

There is the, not altogether inaccurate, perception that three scandals at once is a problem, and the President’s out of the loop excuses don’t help his case. I suspect these issues will be wrung out for all they are worth. Congress will call witnesses. Questions, germane or otherwise, will be asked. Fifth Amendment rights will be invoked. Congressmen and Senators will make grand pronouncements and countless hours will be spent reviewing and dissecting until even cartoonists have had enough. In the end, all that will probably come of this is much more political divisiveness and much, much, less actual governance.

While our elected representatives are busy indulging themselves, we still have no meaningful way to keep assault weapons out of the hands of the violently insane. We are ignoring crumbling bridges and the closure of unfunded schools. These “statesmen” haven’t even managed to pass a budget in over four years. No, there are more important things to do, like pontificate about how the IRS is picking on conservatives.

The IRS did overreach, if not legally than at least ethically, when it singled out conservatives while examining 501 (c) (4) groups. These organizations seek tax-exempt status as benevolent associations whose purpose is to improve communities. They also do not have to divulge who their contributors are. The problem, at least for the IRS, is that these groups can devote some (less that half) of their efforts to politics.

There was a spike in 501 (c) (4) filings after the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision held that money is speech and people, aka corporations, can engage in political rhetoric as loudly as they like.

The subsequent blooming of these altruistic groups with opaque memberships overwhelmed the IRS, and they looked for a way to sort through the paperwork. Their chosen strategy probably wasn’t the most politically elegant, but then the IRS is rarely considered overly sensitive.

So far, there is nothing tying the President to this decision other than the fact that he should have been aware of what was going on.

The Justice Department’s tapping of AP and Fox News phone lines is more chilling in my opinion because it gores my particular ox. I think the First Amendment is the most important in that collection because it embodies the ideals of tolerance and diversity that we were founded on.

Of course, the executive branch in the form of the Justice Department was within the letter of the law when they listened in on conversations between reporters and their sources, but they betrayed a genuine lack of respect for a free press by doing what they did. That being said, they wouldn’t have been able to do this had there been a shield law in place to protect the press. That law could have been passed some time ago, but Congress saw fit to not vote on it because they were too busy babbling on about how we are loosing our freedom. I’m not sure, but I’ll bet that a good portion of that august body would be hard pressed to even spell the word irony.

Lastly, Benghazi has been the go to scandal for some time now. When our embassy was attacked and our citizens murdered, Congress sprung into action and went after the President. Historically we have pulled together and stood behind our Commander in Chief, but not this bunch. It doesn’t matter that every witness trotted before the Benghazi investigating committee, every anticipated political bombshell, every implication presented as fact, has amounted to nothing. It doesn’t matter that our focus has been on the White House and not on the people who committed the crime or how we can better prepare ourselves in the future. What does matter is that a cluster of political narcissists can take a few wickets. I know, I promised, but I couldn’t help myself.

Could the White House have handled this political hat-trick better? Yes. Should there be some cause for concern? You bet. Do these issues rise to the, “Oh my God, the sky is falling,” level? Of course not.

Congress holds yet another Benghazi hearing while a bridge collapses in Seattle. Conservatives cry, you’re picking on me, and psychopaths can still buy assault rifles that spray hundreds of rounds in less than a minute. The uber-conservative mantra is: government bad, but do they have to keep proving their point by being the worst governing body in memory.

But more to the point, do we have to keep proving them right by continuously sending these idiots to Washington, D.C.?

Chuck Legge is a freelance political cartoonist and community columnist who lives in Sutton.