Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Monica Goodling Serves the President
The DOJ's Inspector General has released a 146-page
(pdf) "Investigation of Allegations of
Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office
of the Attorney General." Via the Washington
Independent comes a sampling of ways in which Goodling
assessed whether lawyers were qualified to act as chief prosecutors
for the United States:
The report gives eight instances where candidates who qualified for positions like counter-terrorism prosecutor and asst. U.S. attorneys were turned down by Goodling due to questions about their GOP loyalty. Goodling gave each of these employees interview questions like "Aside from the President, give us an example currently or recently of someone in public service that you admire" and "Why are you a Republican?" Several prospective employees told the inspector general that Goodling often steered the conversation to questions about abortion and gay marriage. For instance, one employee might have thought they were displaying their GOP bona fides by naming Condoleezza Rice as their most admired politician. But Goodling "frowned" and replied "but she's pro-choice."
Goodling also performed Lexis Nexis searches on prospective candidates by typing in their names in tandem with words like "abortion," "gay," and "homosexual." She also mined www.opensecrets.org for prospective employee's political contributions.
Also on the list of interview questions: "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?", which sounds like a Twilight Zone punchline. In Goodling's favor, she apparently makes excellent brownies.
|7.28.08 @ 4:57PM|#
For some reason the Bush II adminstration's handling of the
Justice Department bothers me as much as the useless and futile war
in Iraq.
Am I the only one who feels that way?
thoreau|7.28.08 @ 4:59PM|#
I know that people will remind us that lots of federal hiring does have and has had an element of politics. Fair enough. I would just observe that there are varying degrees of political meddling in hiring, and turning it up is never good. Moreover, turning it up is especially bad in the department that is responsible for investigating government corruption.
|7.28.08 @ 5:06PM|#
"Am I the only one who feels that way?"
Hell, no.
The fundie takeover of our country was in full swing.
From Creationism in public schools, contraception, the full scale
assault on science and reason, a different interpretation of the
Constitution, forced prayer, etc., the Wahhabi Christians were
planning on turning us heathens into subservient minions of their
"gawd".
I fear our government far more than a few Arabs.
But fuck, I donate to the ACLU too - putting me on the terrorist
watchlist.
|7.28.08 @ 5:10PM|#
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve
him?"
DOJ attorneys are not the President's personal attendants. The
White House has it's own lawyers that have no other function than
kissing the President's ass.
|7.28.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Am I the only one who feels that way?
Not at all.
What's most ironic about this all is that this president (and the
GOP in general) has been accusing critics of being unpatriotic,
when they themselves are the ones putting party above country.
couldn\'t resist|7.28.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Wouldn't "Monica Serves the President" be a better headline? It
works in 98, it works in 2008.
(Monica Goodling sounds like a truly horrid person, by the
way.)
gorgonzola\'s foil|7.28.08 @ 5:20PM|#
"I did not 'delegate hiring decisions' with that woman, Monica Goodling"
djyrn|7.28.08 @ 5:27PM|#
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve
him?"
That one just made my skin crawl.
db|7.28.08 @ 5:34PM|#
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
serve him?"
That one just made my skin crawl.
+ about 10. Yikes!
DannyK|7.28.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Outrageous. And practically it seems like a really bad idea, too -- if the Democrats win in November, what'll they do to retaliate? Hound serving Bush appointees out of office? Investigate the Federalist society as an extremist organization?
thoreau|7.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
couldn't resist | July 28, 2008, 5:16pm | #
Wouldn't "Monica Serves the President" be a better headline? It works in 98, it works in 2008.
OK, that's a win.
|7.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
If anyone believes this is the first, worst, or last example of politicized hiring by an underling in an administration, I need your help getting $40,000,000 from a Nigerian bank account. On a 1-10 scandal scale, this rates about a 1.
H. Lector|7.28.08 @ 5:41PM|#
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve
him?"
With favre beans and a good chianti.
|7.28.08 @ 5:43PM|#
To some degree ALL political appointments and non political
hiring by the executive branch is political, but the level of
incompetence by the Bush Administration is astounding. For Fuck's
sake they can't even vet their hirings in a way that guarantees the
people they want without looking like actual crooks, and
nepotism.
Clearly if you are hiring a Federal Prosecutor, since their
resources (the prosecutors) are limited you can ask questions about
how they would use these resources. Based upon the answers, you
could probably quite easily tell their political affiliation as
well as their general political persuasions.
Thus, when hiring prosecutors you'd could hire competent relatively
conservative prosecutors with ease. At the same time, your hiring
would look very above board. It ain't rocket science.
All that being said, the Bush Administration is one of the most
flat out incompetent Presidential Administration EVER. Really,
EVER. They make Grant and Harding look down right
transparent.
This White House could fuck up a wet dream. From the Neocons who
tried to reinvent Iraq into some kind of free market nirvana. Where
they sent twenty somethings with an ideological agenda and no
actual knowledge of Iraq or any experience rebuilding a country. To
hurricane Katrina, where between the utter incompetence of
Louisiana Government coupled with the ineffectual Federal Effort
made the US look absolutely pathetic.
Coupled with this utter incompetence is a philosophy that believes
in the "Unitary Presidency" which basically believes what ever the
president does is okay. Essentially, these fucktards are unclear on
the idea of limited presidential powers and the conception of
checks and balances.
Incompetence + Hubris = Cluster Fuck
Regards
Joe Dokes
|7.28.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Something tells me she won't be joining the Board of Log Cabin Republicans any time in the near future.
|7.28.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Love Song to Our President
World Trade Center's on fire, and no one could save us but
you
It's strange what a pyre will make foolish people do
I never dreamed that I'd vote for somebody like you
And I never dreamed that I'd lose somebody like you
No, IIIIII don't want to fall in love
(This prez is only gonna break your heart)
No, IIIIII don't want to fall in love
(This prez is only gonna break your heart)
With you
What a wicked game to play
To make me vote this way
What a wicked thing to do
To let me dream Kerry's worse than you
What a wicked thing to say
Saddam's nuke program's under way
What a wicked thing to do
To make me cheer the war with you, and
IIIIII want to fall in love
(This prez is only gonna break your heart)
No, IIIIII want to fall in love
(This prez is only gonna break your heart)
With you
Nobody ... loves no onnnne.
|7.28.08 @ 5:52PM|#
If anyone believes this is the first, worst, or last example
of politicized hiring by an underling in an administration, I need
your help getting $40,000,000 from a Nigerian bank
account.
If you think this is due to an "underling" then I don't doubt you
are looking for that $40 mil you were duped out of.
The corruption went all the way to the "top" - if that word can be
used regarding the Bush criminals.
TallDave|7.28.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Wow, it almost sounds like they're political appointees.
Does anyone seriously think the Clinton admin was any
different?
I also seem to recall lots of political questions for Supreme Court
nominees.
Oh well, let the crazies have their Two Minutes Hate.
Matthew Brown|7.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Yes, politics is always going to play a role in these kind of hirings; however, it seems like Monica Goodling cared more about how much appointees wanted to fellate the President than their qualifications or experience.
db|7.28.08 @ 6:13PM|#
however, it seems like Monica Goodling cared more about how
much appointees wanted to fellate the President than their
qualifications or experience.
Yeah, there are questions that you shouldn't have to answer once
you're past the intern phase of your career.
DannyK|7.28.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Wow, it almost sounds like they're political
appointees.
Hi, TallDave, did you follow the link or read any of the front-page
news stories about this today? Kerry Howley kinda buries the lede
about the hiring practices being "illegal". But they were,
according to the notoriously liberal Mukasey DOJ.
By the way, when are you going to stop using the "Clinton was
worse" wheeze? I've heard the other wingers are switching to
"Imagine if Bush had done that!" in 2009.
|7.28.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Tall Dave,
The issue is not that politics played a role in the hiring, after
all everything is to some degree political. The issue is they
didn't have the sophistication to at least have the window dressing
of being above board.
Further, unlike the top positions at the DOJ which are entirely
political, many of these positions were for CAREER lawyers where
their COMPETENCE was supposed to be the overarching concern. And
this is where she clearly violated the law.
Regards
Joe Dokes
Jennifer|7.28.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Stevo, if I weren't already in one of those committed-relationship things I would beg you to marry me. Seriously.
Democrat Shill|7.28.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Waaaaaa! Waaaaaa!
You can't disagree with me, that is QUESTIONING MY
PATRIOTISM
|7.28.08 @ 6:59PM|#
Stevo, if I weren't already in one of those
committed-relationship things I would beg you to marry me.
Seriously.
As a libertarian, I support your right to marry both of them.
:)
|7.28.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Democrat Shill,
I don't think your problem is with the people who disagreed with
you. More the people who said that Dems wanted America to be
defeated in Iraq, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc...
Seitz|7.28.08 @ 7:02PM|#
TallDave's just bitter because he's afraid that when it's his turn to drop to his knees, Bush will be tapped out.
|7.28.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Was Democrat Shill being super-ironic? Everybody knows the crop
of neocons have cornered the "Dissent is Unpatriotic" shtick.
Oh well, let the crazies have their Two Minutes
Hate.
How deliciously ironic that you would use this term when it
references those of us who get mad at the merger of party and
state.
Please tell me you did it completely oblivious to that...
Taktix®|7.28.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Where will all the Liberty University grads get jobs after
Bush is gone?
Iran?
Paul|7.28.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Goodling also performed Lexis Nexis searches on prospective candidates by typing in their names in tandem with words like "abortion," "gay," and "homosexual."
Like journalists do when a new conservative-appointed judge hits
the circuit?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Yes, disclaimers: Goodling sucks,
politicized hiring bad, etc.
thoreau|7.28.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Normally I don't comment on the appearances of women mentioned
in blog posts, but since the topic is a GOP loyalist looking for
loyal foot soldiers, I think it's appropriate to observe that she
looks like she could totally be on Fox News. She just has that
look.
Does the GOP have a breeding program or something?
Taktix®|7.28.08 @ 7:44PM|#
I think it's appropriate to observe that she looks like she
could totally be on Fox News. She just has that look.
What look? Idiotic, mindless bureaucrat marching lockstep with
orders, fearing losing her job and career because, as a Republican,
believes this her only chance to escape being a housewife?
Did I miss anything?
Metal Messiah|7.28.08 @ 7:45PM|#
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
serve him?"
He's taking America back from the gays, perverts, atheists,
abortionists, evolutionists, intellectuals, and pornographers, and
giving it back to Jesus Christ.
"You're hired!"
sadielou|7.28.08 @ 8:15PM|#
That word "serve" makes me shiver a little. You'd think we were
in Turkmenistan.
(In fact, I'm curious to see what would happen if someone put up a
heroic gilt statue of the President in an enclave of Bush
supporters.)
|7.28.08 @ 8:21PM|#
I'm just as heterosexual as a guy who lifts a lot of weights,
but right now I'm really gay for Stevo Darkly.
This place has really gone to suck since de stijl and Stevo fucked
off to greener pastures, or employment. At least we have josephine
and Tall Dave!
|7.28.08 @ 8:26PM|#
I think it's appropriate to observe that she looks like she
could totally be on Fox News. She just has that look.
Do you mean the Greta Van Sustren look or the Laurie Dhue look?
|7.28.08 @ 8:37PM|#
Where will all the Liberty University grads get jobs after
Bush is gone?
Would you like fries with that?
zoltan|7.28.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Call it the WASP breeding program. (Though I have no problems with WASes).
|7.28.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Good. I never thought Greta belonged on Fox, she could never be accused of talking out of both sides of her mouth.
thoreau|7.28.08 @ 8:56PM|#
On a related note, why is Nancy Grace on CNN rather than Fox? Not only does she look like a Fox News anchor, the establishment would agree with her that anybody accused of a crime must be guilty.
|7.28.08 @ 8:57PM|#
I agree with J sub D. This is mind-blowing, that the Department
of Justice is being run this way.
As you vote this November, I want to consider what you've seen the
Republican regulars write about this, on this thread, an on the
threads about all the Gonzo-gates from last year.
They keep saying that this is how the government - even federal
prosecutors' offices - is supposed to work, because that is what
they believe. That is how Republicans govern. It's how they've
governed for the past eight years, and it's how they will govern
for eight more if they win, because that's how they think the
government is supposed to be run. They think that Goodling did
nothing wrong.
|7.28.08 @ 8:58PM|#
"Where will all the Liberty University grads get jobs after Bush
is gone?"
They did open up a creationist museum in TN I think...
|7.28.08 @ 9:01PM|#
joe,
Not all Republicans are Bush. Should we keep the Carter
administration in mind as "how Democrats govern"?
|7.28.08 @ 9:02PM|#
TallDave | July 28, 2008, 6:01pm | #
Wow, it almost sounds like they're political appointees.
They don't believe that federal prosecutors are different than
flacks in the White House press office.
|7.28.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Occam,
Most are. Did you see how the Republicans in Congress behaved
during this? They sound an awful lot like TallDave.
This isn't some isolated thing. Did you see anything, either in the
earlier hearings of today, to make you think the party as a whole,
or even some meaningful slice of it, was outraged about this?
|7.28.08 @ 9:06PM|#
There's a difference between not showing visible outrage and seeing this as good government practice.
|7.28.08 @ 9:07PM|#
They defended her, Toothbrush! They denounced the hearing, and tried to pass the whole thing off as much ado about nothing.
|7.28.08 @ 9:08PM|#
They made exactly the same arguments as TallDave.
(Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that he made exactly
the same arguments that they did).
|7.28.08 @ 9:14PM|#
That's just political theater. Republicans aren't as shallow, so you can't just judge by appearances, you have to look deep into their hearts.
|7.28.08 @ 9:18PM|#
All right, Toothbrush. I got carried away, because this
particular scandal really pisses me off. Particularly in light of
the Don Siegelman case, and the raft of other bogus prosecutions
the federal United States Attorneys offices have carried out.
There probably are Republicans out there who are opposed to this
sort of thing, who respect the need to put limits on the partisan
activity of goddamn FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU
PEOPLE! They're FEDERAL PROSECUTORS' OFFICES! They're not paving
streets. They're not the sewer board. They've got to be civil
servants first, not partisan operatives.
Back on topic: there probably are Republicans who oppose this sort
of thing. Point is, there seem to be a heck of a lot of them who
don't, so it would seem to be the kind of thing you'd want to know
about when you voted.
H. Lector|7.28.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Mmmm....
Republican hearts . . . I think that calls for burgandy to offset
the pure concentrated evil.
|7.28.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Point taken, joe. I can't imagine Bob Barr asking anyone to serve him out of partisan motives.
SIV|7.28.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Particularly in light of the Don Siegelman case
He was a corrupt politician. What the hell are you talking
about?
|7.28.08 @ 9:38PM|#
As usual, its all about WHO you know. Got the right contacts and
you can literally get away with murder, war crimes, crimes against
humanity and anything else.
JT
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
|7.28.08 @ 9:41PM|#
Where will all the Liberty University grads get jobs after
Bush is gone?
FYI, she's a graduate of Messiah College and Regent University. Get
your Rev. Billy Bob's schools of book learnin' straight.
ktc2|7.28.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Liberty University?
ROFLMAO.
I would never hire anyone who attended that joke.
Fritz|7.29.08 @ 12:20AM|#
Also from the list of questions:
"Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different
groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative,
Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican."
Do the "Fiscal Conservatives" get the boot too?
|7.29.08 @ 2:12AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
The creationist museum was opened in Kentucky.
And so long as they didn't receive any government funds for it,
then I don't think there's any problem with it.
|7.29.08 @ 4:37AM|#
Occam's toothbrush | July 28, 2008, 9:14pm | #
That's just political theater. Republicans aren't as shallow, so
you can't just judge by appearances, you have to look deep into
their hearts.
Didn't Bush say the same thing about Putin?
|7.29.08 @ 6:45AM|#
Wouldn't "Monica Serves the President" be a better
headline?
Shouldn't that be Monica Services the President?
|7.29.08 @ 7:37AM|#
Occam's utensil wrote: "That's just political theater."
At this point in President Bush's term, given his pathetic ratings,
the strategically appropriate political theater for them would
surely be to support good governance, rather than pandering to
TallDave and the rest of the 27%ers.
If they're still defending Goodling, they must truly suck to the
core.
Abdul|7.29.08 @ 7:38AM|#
Joe's right that Sampson and Goodling can't be justified by
saying they needed to know how the prosecutors would pursue cases.
Federal law actually prohibits the use of political affiliation as
a hiring factor for people in career DOJ attorney positions.
Furthermore, I don't know of any precedent in the DOJ for this type
of violation. That's because most DOJ lawyers know and apply the
law correctly. One of the more troubling aspects of this case is
that Goodling and Sampson both thought that they were justified in
using political affiliation as a hiring factor--plain incompetence.
I could see a Post Office hiring official pleading ignorance of the
law, but a DOJ attorney?
That said, what Sampson and Goodling did could by done by any
kool-aid drinking partisan--and the Democratic party has its share
of those. It's not like registering Republican makes you cheer for
Voldemort and registering Democrat makes you fart rainbows.
|7.29.08 @ 7:40AM|#
So TallDave, how do you feel about the fact Goodling rejected a
highly respected, award-winning (presented by Gonzales),
experienced, and qualified anti-terrorism prosecutor who applied
for an anti-terror job simply because his wife is a democrat?
And how do you feel about the fact that Goodling chose, instead, a
totally inexperienced hack without even the minimum experience that
would normally be acceptable?
|7.29.08 @ 7:45AM|#
"That said, what Sampson and Goodling did could by done by any
kool-aid drinking partisan--and the Democratic party has its share
of those."
Could be - *if* such people were placed in positions to do so by
Democrats - which doesn't seem to happen. Goodling even overruled
names put forward with Gonzo's recommendation. I kinda doubt the
Dems would set up a system where that could even happen.
The Democratic preference for people from good schools rather than
Christian diploma mills helps a lot, too.
On the Democratic side, I think you're more likely to see this kind
of behavior on the state or local level.
|7.29.08 @ 8:17AM|#
Douglas Fletcher,
National Review's Andrew McCarthy received the Attorney General's
Exceptional Service Award in 1996. And in 1999 he was promoted to
Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District's satellite
office, responsible for federal law enforcement in six counties
north of New York City.
By contrast, the Bush DOJ tried to drive out everyone who wasn't
Republican *enough*. Being Republican wasn't even sufficient.
|7.29.08 @ 8:27AM|#
It bothers me, too. I had the (strong) feeling this was going on
under Clinton, but the fact that it's blatantly going on now
suggests it's going to be SOP forever, regardless of high minded
allegations to the contrary.
JMR
|7.29.08 @ 9:54AM|#
"It bothers me, too. I had the (strong) feeling this was going
on under Clinton, but the fact that it's blatantly going on now
suggests it's going to be SOP forever, regardless of high minded
allegations to the contrary."
Oh boy, here it comes. This epic feat of projection will be the GOP
faux-scandal faux-outrage of the next Democratic administration, no
matter what actually happens at the DOJ.
Try to face it - the Bush administration has been corrupt well
beyond the historical norms, Republican or Democrat.
Johnny Nowhere|7.29.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Jon H,
I don't doubt that you're right about the Obama administration:
they'll have to be squeakly-clean to avoid GOP witch-hunts.
Even if the Dems manage this, however, and even if they vote in
some new proceedures designed to curtail future corruption, history
proves their actions won't solve the corruption problem.
Grant was bad, Nixon was rotten, and Georgie has been repugnant.
The only questions are who will be next in line, and what they will
do to the country.
as I see it, corruption is inevitable. the best way to mitigate it
is to mitigate the power of the corruptible offices.
|7.29.08 @ 10:49AM|#
John H wins the thread with his smackdown at 8:17, and he didn't
even tell a joke.
You can't just assume that A=B because you wan to. That's just as
much an act of blind partisanship as assuming that A > B.
|7.29.08 @ 11:02AM|#
So Clinton knew McCarthy was a republican when he appointed him? Cite please. You can't just assume that A=B because you want to.
Abdul|7.29.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Commenters who think this went on under previous administrations
are most likely wrong. If it did happen, it was not
widespread.
The stuff Goodling and Sampson did was just as illegal as asking a
black attorney if he can litigate as well as a white one.
Discrimination based on political affiliation comes under the same
section of the law as discrimination based on race, gender, etc. I
really doubt it was widespread under previous
administrations--republican or democratic--because it is such an
obvious violation of the law.
If you read the report, you'll see that people who sat in on
interviews with Goodling confronted her. Not only that, Goodling
was asking these illegal questions to other attorneys. It
was only a matter of time before she got busted by a jilted
job-seeker.
The only silver lining on Goodling's blatancy is that it harder to
believe that she was instructed by higher-ups to do it and supports
her statement that she and Kyle Sampson came up with this idea on
their own.
|7.29.08 @ 11:28AM|#
So Jon thinks Slick's administration didn't hire lawyers
politically?? Wow. That wins the thread all right -- but for
unintentional humor. Bush's corruption is simply more ham-handed
than Slick's, but they're otherwise just the same. Hell, Slick's
Chinese = Bush's Saudis to me.
JMR
|7.29.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Wilson Ellerson | July 29, 2008, 11:02am | #
So Clinton knew McCarthy was a republican when he appointed
him?
Who cares?
He either knowingly appointed a conservative Republican, or didn't
look into applicants' party affiliation at all. Both of these
situations are vastly more ethical and responsible than the
corrupt, partisan, illegal hiring practices desscribed by
Goodling.
A little logic, please.
|7.29.08 @ 11:34AM|#
So Jon thinks Slick's administration didn't hire lawyers
politically??
Retreat into vagueness.
Jon thinks Slick's administration didn't hire lawyers illegally. Do
you have any reasons not related to the phrase "but the Democrats,
too" to believe they did?
thoreau|7.29.08 @ 12:02PM|#
You know, I do get the cynical view, and I am a bit suspicious
of those who insist that there was no politicized hiring of US
Attorneys under Clinton. Human nature being what it is, I suspect
that this sort of thing happens to some extent in just
about every administration.
However, while I wouldn't be shocked if there was a bit of it
happening before, it's clear that this gang turned it up to 11. Bad
behavior will always be with us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
try to keep it at as low a level as possible. Even a very plausible
hunch that it's happened before is hardly a sufficient argument for
not getting upset when it's discovered to happen on a larger
scale.
It's like the difference between the guy who took a few pens home
and the guy who took a laptop with confidential data.
|7.29.08 @ 12:03PM|#
""" Federal law actually prohibits the use of political
affiliation as a hiring factor for people in career DOJ attorney
positions."""
This is what people like TallDave like to ignore. The law.
|7.29.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Statements like "the other guy did it" holds no value when
discussing the application of law.
If only we, as citizens, would be as concerned with applying the
law to government as government is concerned with applying law to
the citizens. Instead, many prefer to argue why their team should
get a free pass.
|7.29.08 @ 12:17PM|#
"Politicized hiring" can mean a lot of things, thoreau.
I haven't seen anyone claim that conformance to Clinton's/Reno's
policies wasn't a factor in hirings at DOJ during the 1990s, but
that is entirely appropriate.
Heck, when the Republicans got in trouble over the Carol Lam firing
(Carol Lam prosecuted Duke Cunningham), they pointed to an alleged
record of not taking enough immigration cases as the reason for her
dimissal - a perfectly legitimate, legal act basis for the action,
she didn't prioritize cases the way the administration wanted her
to.
There isn't just a quantitative difference here, though there's
that, too. There's the qualitative difference that Goodling and
Sampson violated federal law, and they did so by making partisan
affiliation, sexual orientation, and other explicitly-defined
no-nos into criteria for hiring and firing decisions.
Next up: the Civil Rights Division.
thoreau|7.29.08 @ 12:24PM|#
joe-
It would not shock me if there was also some subtle bias
influencing decision-making in hiring, causing them to favor people
with compatible political views. Nothing I can prove, but a
plausible hypothesis.
I'd love to hear what our GOP loyalists think about subtle bias
influencing hiring decisions.
Anyway, that's still not in the same category as "So, you're a
Republican, but how Republican are you?"
|7.29.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Remember when the Coalition Provisional Authority was refusing
to hire career foreign service officials with several years
in-country and fluent Arabic, in favor of politically loyal interns
from AEI?
Subtle bias is one thing. Working to make the government into a
branch of the party is quite another.
|7.29.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Does anyone remember what the fight Bush picked over the
Department of Homeland Security bill was all about?
That's right - he wanted to be able to hire and fire on an
political basis, without civil-service protections.
For departments like, say, FEMA.
Goodling and Sampson aren't a couple of bad apples. This was a
pattern. If this type of behavior wasn't endorsed by the
administration, those two wouldn't have held the positions they
did.
thoreau|7.29.08 @ 12:43PM|#
The Bush administration is everything that we libertarians have
warned can happen if the government gets too big. I also recall
that a lot of libertarians saw the Bush administration as an
opportunity, believing that the Bushies (and GOP more generally)
shared enough of our ideas to make it worth giving them
consolidated power.
Well, I think the Bushies do indeed understand a lot of our
ideas....they just don't draw the same conclusions. Accepting
certain conclusions about the nature of the state doesn't mean that
you want to trim it...you might decide to take advantage of it.
|7.29.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Why am I not suprised that a political party fails to see the danger in the ideaology of making the government one party.
|7.29.08 @ 12:55PM|#
"""The Bush administration is everything that we libertarians
have warned can happen if the government gets too big."""
Bush has become a rerun of the bad things from resent past
presidents.
The power grab of Nixon
The energy crisis of Carter
The record spending of Reagan
The savings and loan crisis of Bush I
Abdul|7.29.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Goodling and Sampson aren't a couple of bad apples. This was
a pattern. If this type of behavior wasn't endorsed by the
administration, those two wouldn't have held the positions they
did.
Gotta disagree, joe. The report's pretty thorough, and there's no
evidence that this came from top down. In fact, one of the reasons
Goodling came under scrutiny is that she squashed a detail for some
that Alberto Gonzales reccomended, i.e., she defied her superior's
merit-based decision for political reasons.
|7.29.08 @ 1:38PM|#
I also recall that a lot of libertarians saw the Bush
administration as an opportunity, believing that the Bushies (and
GOP more generally) shared enough of our ideas to make it worth
giving them consolidated power.
Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention to the "libertarian
establishment" in 2000-01, but I recall much unease about Bush from
libertarians and fiscal conservatives from the get-go due to all
that "compassionate conservative" crap. The civil rights violations
and general disregard for the law are just a bonus.
|7.29.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Abdul,
Personnel is policy - isn't that a Republican dictum?
Da Troops don't need explicit orders if you hire troops who already
know what to do.
Goodling and Sampson may have gotten a bit ahead of their
superiors, but it's pretty clear that they were all going in the
same direction.
|7.29.08 @ 4:43PM|#
"""Gotta disagree, joe. The report's pretty thorough, and
there's no evidence that this came from top down."""
Wasn't Rove mentioned in the report?
|7.29.08 @ 5:43PM|#
I wonder if she ever googled the words "miserable
failure."
God bless these kids.
|7.29.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Stevo, if I weren't already in one of those
committed-relationship things I would beg you to marry me.
Seriously.
Jennifer, I just now belatedly saw this day-maker.
Can we possibly have one of those pretend Internet marriages? I
know you're already pretend-Internet-committed to Jake, but he also
has another pretend-Internet-wife, so I don't know why you
shouldn't have the same freedom.
It could be one of those Heinlein-style interlinked S-group things
where you are the pretend-Internet-wife of two otherwise unrelated
pretend-Internet husbands.
Maybe down the road, a full merger might be discussed, of a
two-husband/two-wife deal, but Jake and his other pretend Internet
wife would have to agree to this first, and I'm prepared to pretend
to commit to you on the Internet right now.
Also, a four-way merger would require that elaborate bedding
procedures would have to be drawn up to allow girl-girl frolic but
no accidental male-male ghey. We might also have to consult a
pretend Internet lawyer. Fortunately, there are plenty of those --
they are like passenger
pigeons prior to 1800.
But for now, let's keep it simple. I say we pretend to give this
pretend Internet thing a go. We can pretend to elope and then
pretend to honeymoon at http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen
-- I hear the scenery there is beautiful this time of year.
|7.29.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Mr. von Laue: I thank you for your flattering comment, but I will have to table it for future action pending my accidental conversion to teh ghey or your willingness to undergo certain drastic surgeries. But I appreciate it.
|7.29.08 @ 9:14PM|#
Abdul wrote: " The report's pretty thorough, and there's no
evidence that this came from top down."
Maybe not the top of the DOJ, but possibly from the White
House.
Too bad the White House lost all those emails.
|7.29.08 @ 9:18PM|#
"So Clinton knew McCarthy was a republican when he appointed
him? "
No, Clinton and Reno knew McCarthy was competent and qualified for
promotion and commendation, regardless of his political
views.
That's kind of the point. The Bushies' main consideration was
membership in the Bush personality cult. Actual ability,
experience, and qualifications didn't matter to Goodling.
|7.29.08 @ 9:54PM|#
From Lichtblau's story in the NYTimes, via Drezner: "According
to the report, officials at the White House first developed a
method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of
a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The
Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials
then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words
in an applicant's background, like "abortion," "homosexual,"
"Florida recount," or "guns.""
So, yes, this came from the White House. And, why else were DOJ
people invited to such a seminar, than to purge the ranks and
applicants?
Jennifer|7.30.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Stevo, that works for me, so long as the choreography is done to ensure that none of the accidental girl-girl contact involves me. A woman can never have too many Internet husbands.
|7.30.08 @ 11:27PM|#
I didn't know you were squeamish about pretend girl-girl, but I
respect your boundaries.
This is the happiest day of my Internet life! Champagne for
everyone! Woo hoo!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245