That Obama's IRS scandal survives as a genuine scandal only in the tumescent dreams of Darrell Issa & Co. never troubles these philosopher wing-kings stuck in the spooky caves of moronic conflation--not to mention that Googling the supposedly suppressed "Obama's IRS scandal" renders more than 82 million links, thanks to the furious political onanism of said Issa, & Fox News, & Podhorshetz, etc. etc.
They're not entirely ineducable, though; they have learned this much: just keep insisting, as Podhorshetz does, that "Last year, we learned from the Internal Revenue Service itself that it had targeted ideological opponents of the president for special scrutiny and investigation--because they were ideological opponents"
(He of course provides no links to authoritatively substantiate this claim, although one would think that out of 82 million, he'd be swimming--and Obama would be drowning--in them.)
As a substitute for rational argument, our New York Poster resorts to conspiracy. "[A]ccording to Scott Whitlock of the Media Research Center, 'In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.' Why? Oh, come on, you know why. Christie belongs to one political party. Obama belongs to the other."
Thus Republican presidents' Watergate and Iran-Contra and Iraq war criminalities and a Democratic president's blowjob were not scandals of journalistic merit; they were sensations--assuming one retains the proposition's disproving strikeout--merely because Nixon and Reagan and G.W. Bush belonged to the Republican Party.
I find it of particular interest that upon reinserting the stricken phrase, however, the proposition's initial truth is affirmed in the Democratic instance alone. Clinton's dalliance was indeed no scandal of real journalistic merit any more than FDR's jollies with Lucy Mercer were, which sort of blows John's partisan-press argument all to hell, and thereby complicates the bejesus out of the proposition's ensuing untruth.
Nonetheless it's a nifty political fiction if one can sell it as historical reality. And if one's readership is as profoundly disingenuous as one's argument, selling horshetz is no problem.