If you have a pulse then you know that the biggest news story of the past week has been the politically motivated purge of U.S. Attorneys not deemed loyal enough “Bushies.” The eight fired attorneys were all ones that Karl Rove and the Whitehouse felt weren’t acting partisan enough. They were either pursuing corruption cases against Republicans or not pursuing cases against Democrats hard enough. Evidence didn’t really matter, nor did the fact that of the eight attorneys 6 were Republican and two Independent. The most vociferous of the fired attorneys has been David Iglesias:
United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political. [Link]
<
p>What’s the first thing you do after you fire eight attorney’s who don’t play political ball? You hire new ones of course. You’d probably go for someone you know you could trust. A loyal “Bushie.” Meet the only (as far as I know) Indian American U.S. Attorney. Her name is Rachel Kunjummen Paulose and she was appointed to the recently vacated job in Minnesota. She is the youngest attorney, and the first woman in Minnesota to hold this post (thanks for the tip Ravi):
It seemed like a fairy-tale: University of Minnesota graduate goes to Yale Law, gets a few high-profile jobs, including stints at Dorsey & Whitney and the Justice Department, and winds up, at age 33, the youngest serving U.S. Attorney, the first woman to hold that position in Minnesota and the first U.S. Attorney of South Asian descent. Her appointment to the post is sponsored by Republican Senator Norm Coleman, but also endorsed by outgoing Democrat Mark Dayton, who makes it his final priority in the Senate to see her confirmation through in the waning hours of the session.
This is the narrative we have received from the media of the meteoric rise of Rachel Paulose, the new U.S. Attorney in the Minnesota district. But with the recent furor over the firings of the “Gonzales Seven”–several of whom were involved in ongoing corruption investigations, and others of whom have revealed that they were pressured to speed up investigations by sitting members of Congress–and their replacement by up-and-coming partisans, the curious case of Rachel Paulose merits a closer look. [Link]
The blog Minnesota Campaign Report has some opinions about how Paulose may have gotten the job at such a young age:
Paulose was nominated for the post by Sen. Norm Coleman. Some might wonder why a 33-year-old woman–a woman with quite impressive credentials, it’s true, but young nonetheless–would be promoted from relative obscurity to be the top prosecutor in the Minnesota district…<
p>So what made Paulose the right choice? Senator Coleman praised her as “capable [and] experienced,” and said he was “confident [that] Rachel will do an exemplary job.” But a little research reveals more reasons Paulose may have gotten the nod–her connections to Republican politics and the conservative movement:
-According to IndiaWest, Paulose is “a registered Republican and has worked for GOP candidates,” though she cites a “lack of involvement in big-donor contributing and fundraising” as evidence that she will run her office in a non-partisan manner. However, FEC records show that Paulose has donated $1,500 to Norm Coleman’s campaign since November 2005…
-An article by McClatchy Newspapers states that, “according to a former boss, [Paulose] has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society,” an organization “dedicated to reforming the current legal order” by “developing and promoting far-right positions and influencing who will become judges, top government officials, and decision-makers,” according to People for the American Way. “Many members of the Federalist Society advocate a rollback of civil rights measures, reproductive choice, labor and employment regulations, and environmental protections,” PFAW states. [Link]
<
p>Paulose did a couple of interviews outlining what she’d like to do as a U.S. attorney. You can see clips of one such interview here and here. She also did an extensive interview with India West:
She said the U.S. Attorney’s office will focus on six areas: terrorism; economic crime, including fraud and public corruption; Internet crimes against children; gun and gang violence; drug trafficking; and civil rights, including human trafficking, immigration violations, and identity theft fraud.
Paulose jumped at the chance to expound on these priorities – mentioning that the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s office has two terrorism case pending, indicted three Minnesota city council members on corruption charges, and vigorously pursued a case of Internet pharmacy fraud totaling about $20 million in illegal sales. The defrauder faces a possible sentence of 20 years in prison.
Paulose pledges to keep the heat on child pornographers who, she said, are becoming “more graphic, more heinous and frankly appalling.” She also emphasized her office’s increasingly tough sentencing requests for weapons’ offenses, with violent crime on the increase in the urban areas of Minnesota.
“We must protect all citizens, young and old, from the violence that threatens our way of life,” she said in a statement. “We must hold everyone, particularly public officials, accountable for their actions. And we must ensure the civil rights of all people.”
While she has already been informally sworn into office, Paulose plans a formal investiture ceremony in March. She is looking for a large enough location to accommodate “all of my relatives who are coming (to Minneapolis) from all over the United States…” [Link]
<
p>The funny thing is that the press started looking into Paulose not because of her partisan background but because they seem to think that the big hoopla surrounding her “coronation,” may have been too extravagant (see the clip on the right hand column here):
While past investitures have been simple ceremonies, an internal document obtained by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS details plans for a more elaborate event. The document lists a processional, a professional photographer, a color guard and a choir. All of those were included in the March 9 ceremony. Paulose’s office called the document inaccurate and said it was discarded months ago.
Paulose said she personally paid for most of the ceremony. According to her office, the cost to taxpayers was $225. But David Williams of Citizens Against Government Waste says the staff time spent planning the event also represents a significant cost to taxpayers. [Link]
In any case, Paulose will probably only have this job for two years. After that she will be purged, along with all the other U.S. attorneys, when a new President takes office.
I see nothing wrong with what Ms.Paulose did at her coronation. I wonder if she was a democrat, there would be the same outrage.
Ms. Paulose is actually not the only South Asian American currently serving as one of the 98 United States Attorneys. Amul Thapur currently serves as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
33? She is only 7 years out of law school. That is pretty unusual. I’ve never heard of such a young US Attorney. As for her political connections. I really doubt a $1,500 donation to Sen. Coleman did it. It’s more likely that she has close connections to top GOP contributors.
Also I found this comment funny: “secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.” It’s not exactly skull and bones. Every law school in America has a Federalist Society chapter. When I was in law school they constantly advertised their events. I wish they had been secretive then I wouldn’t have had to listen to that annoying girl in my section advertising their events so much. They are conservative but not anymore than the American Constitutional Society or the ACLU is liberal. I really doubt she is that conservative, given that she is brown.
Thapar’s bio is here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/kye/usattorney/index.html
According to Wikipedia (they are never wrong), she worked for the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. That probably explains why she got appointed at such a young age. Anyway, it is refreshing to know that Gonzalez is not replacing US Attorney’s with his GOP cronies. Oh wait…
Ay, I knew not much good could come from Al -‘Torture’s cool’- Gonzales. I’ve been shouting over lousy overseas connections to my relatives ‘Puta, I tole you so!’
As far as her purging, it’s still a helluva thing to put on your resume.
U.S. Attorney’s have not been nearly as insulated from politics as Dems would claim. That is, they are “insulated” in the same way federal judges are insulated, and we’ve all seen how that has played out. Comment #3 makes a good point with respect for the Federalist Society. They are simply a mirror of the ACLU or the American Constitutional Society. The Masons they are not and the organizations positions are not at all radical, they are simply conservative. The Minnesota Campaign Report seems to be relying on sensationalism to make its argument here.
Having said all that, it’s clear to me that at this point that shady shenanigans did occur in the U.S. Attorney General’s office.
Or maybe, just maybe, Federalist Society’s version of “conservative” doesn’t boil down to “white race uber alles” and is instead something more subtle. Of course, that would make discussion here so much more…complex.
The Bush administration has done a decent job of placing ideologically correct minorities in various positions. Its much harder for an average minority to get similar placements under the Democratic administrations as the pool of qualified minorities to pick from is much larger at the democratic side.
[Paulose] has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society
Its as secretive as the National Lawyers Guild.
Clueless – yes.
Oh come on, the Federalist Society is not the counterpoint to the ACLU or National Lawyer’s Guild (altohugh I agree, it’s also not “secretive”). I say this, not because I think they are “super far right” conservative, but rather, because they are actually strategic about their vision for transforming the justice system and pushing policy in the legal system. What makes it “scary” is that no one else does this in an organized way.
AMD, I’m not sure how that makes sense. If there are more qualified minority applicants among Dems, then why are so few appointed, again? Or are you talking about how so many young and seemingly less-qualified party-line minority Republicans are being so quickly promoted/appointed?
I’m kind of depressed. Not so much about Paulose, but just about this whole USATTY thing in general.
“I really doubt she is that conservative, given that she is brown.”
Gandhi (comment #3), are you for real? Have you heard of Dinesh d’Souza? Michelle Malkin? The right loves no one like it loves its brownz.
They would argue the precise opposite, ACLU et. al. absolutely have an organized, well-funded “agenda” that they’re pushing… Federalist’s feel like they’re pushing back.
“They would argue the precise opposite, ACLU et. al. absolutely have an organized, well-funded “agenda” that they’re pushing… Federalist’s feel like they’re pushing back.”
The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of white supremacists ,black nationalists, atheists, and radical evangelicals. Just what “agenda” are they pushing that the Federalists’ have to push back against?
That kind of makes it grosser and weirder, doesn’t it? Who shells out money to pay for a procession, color guard, and choir to celebrate their new job (granted, this is a pretty impressive one). Have any other US Attorneys approached this level of pageantry, or do most just show up to work?
Civil liberties, obviously! We can’t let just ANYONE everyone say or do things that Real Americans disagree with…
Dinesh D’Souza is a freak. My point about this Paulose lady is that she probably isn’t a right wing social conservative nutjob because she seems like a mainstream brown person. She went to Yale, not the right wing Dartmouth campus that D’Souza went to. She worked for two moderates, Gonzalez and McNulty, not a bunch of right wingers that D’Souza worked for. (Reagan, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute). Finally, her picture makes her look very moderate (perhaps even somewhat cute for her age). I cannot possibly imagine a sweet little Desi girl from Yale being a right winger.
BTW, the Federalist Society is just a modern day KKK. They want others to think it’s about some deep ideology, but at my law school the only people who joined that were the white rednecks. The only ideology they have is placing social conservatives on the bench so Roe v. Wade and every other “liberal” decision will be overturned.
Pot, Kettle.
Off topic, but the abuse/misuse of ‘s have been something I’ve been noticing a LOT lately. See the first sentence of this post (“motivated purge of U.S. Attorney’s”).
While Gonzalez has handled the situation moronically and possibly illegally, there would be no situation if it wasn’t for the liberal bias of the NYT and Wash Post. When Clinton’s Janet Reno fired all 93 DAs because they were appointed by Bush I, this was a tiny article tucked into the back section of the NYT and Wash Post. When Bush II’s Gonzalez fires a few DAs, these same newspapers scream bloody murder on the front page headline.
What’s being missed by the general public is that political appointees are almost always appointed because they are loyal to the president.
1) #10, anyone who calls the NY Times and WashPost “liberal” these days is an idiot. Period. Whether it’s supporting Iraq, bashing Dems, or sitting on evidence of executive lawbreaking, both of these papers have indicated a marked bent towards using their news pages to help the Republican Party. You prove your idiocy by recycling the Republican talking point du jour, which is that Clinton fired all 93 of his US Attorneys when he started office. Of course he did; those positions are political appointments, and so he wanted to appoint his own people. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did the same thing; that is not unusual (it would, in fact, be unusual and fairly unprecedented in modern history if an incoming president DIDN’T put in his own people). That is not the issue in the US Attorney scandal. The issue is: 1) it’s completely unprecedented for a President to replace 8 of his own US Attorneys midway through his own Presidency (not illegal or unethical, but unprecedented); 2) this caused people to start asking why the Bushies fired these 8 US Attorneys; 3) the Bushies then lied and said that these were all for performance related reasons and that neither Gonzales nor Rove were involved; 4) we’re now learning that these prosecutors may have been fired because they refused to investigate Democrats and/or drop investigations against Republicans. #4, if you’re counting and you’re capable of any form of critical reasoning, is obstruction of justice.
2) The Federalist Society isn’t exactly secret at its lowest levels, true, but it’s definitely got a secrecy at its higher levels (much like how the Masons used to work). It’s true that at every level, any jackass can join the Fed Society. However, not every Fed Society member gets plugged in into the DC elite network; this is typically reserved for the Harvard and Yale Law students, as well as those students from lesser law schools who have done very well there, enough to get a clerkship with a right wing judge at least. There is no doubt among anyone who sees what’s going on that at those higher levels, it’s fairly secretive (as well as strategic). The whole “appoint young conservatives to top positions in the federal bureaucracy despite a marked dearth of experience” is definitely part of this Fed Society model. I’ve seen 2nd and 3rd year HLS and YLS students get appointed to top positions, particularly at Dept of Homeland Security and DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, based entirely on the fact that they were Republican, had maybe taken part in Bush v. Gore or evinced other marks of being a true believer. These are typically jobs going to very senior folks (think partners or junior partners at law firms, typically a decade or more of experience).
3) As to minorities, there is no question that the Dems rule here. Their bench is deep and talented. The reason why you see less minorities among Dems is complex; in my opinion it largely boils down to the fact that Dems typically have made Presidential appointments based on tenure and experience (although at this point, this simply means Clinton made his appointments as such). For reasons of institutional and historical racism, and others, there are, for example, far fewer South Asian or African American Assistant US Attorneys with 10 years of good experience. With respect to East and South Asians, I suspect this problem will remedy itself (look at any law school campus). With respect to African Americans, this is still a systemic problem. Anyways, if you’re a Republican minority, it’s simply put a lot easier to advance, because the GOP is a media savvy party that doesn’t have a lot of minority presence (for good reason, see, e.g., George Allen), and wants to put the minorities it has on the front cover of any media package they’re selling. I think every talented minority in DC knows that there’s that choice: you can sell out and go GOP and advance much more quickly, but really at a cost of selling out everything you believe in (unless you believe in Biblical literalism and Christian dominionism, uncompromising supply side economic libertarianism, Republican advancement over national advancement, etc.)
4) It is highly unusual for a 33 yr old to be appointed US attorney. It is somewhat unusual to have an appointment ceremony with the bells and whistles Ms. Paulose had. It is highly unusual for 4 senior assistants to a US Attorney to demote themselves. Any of these in isolation would cause any reasonable observer to ask questions; all 3 of these indicate that something completely whacked is going on.
5) Finally, for whoever said that Gonzales and McNulty are moderates, I think you’re misreading the politics of today. There are hardcore conservatives and hardcore Republicans. Gonzales and McNulty are politically moderate, but they are radically Republican. In other words, their core beliefs aren’t that hardcore, but their belief in having the GOP win at all costs is pretty hardcore. A hardcore conservative wouldn’t lie before Congress; a hardcore Republican would. A hardcore conservative wouldn’t try to wiretap political opponents or prevent Dems from voting; a hardcore Republcain would. Etc. etc.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
As you’re no doubt aware, the methodology and purpose of the UCLA study have been widely criticized (except by the conservatives). Using think tank quotes to “prove” that the media is liberal is a pretty dumb way to prove a point, and the UCLA authors appear to have tried different methodologies before hitting the one that “proved” their point.
A perhaps cruder, but imo, more accurate, method is the # of negative references to Dems vs. Republicans, or endorsements of Dems vs. Republicans in presidential races, which overwhelmingly skew Republican.
I have yet to see a plausible explanation of why liberal media bias might exist. The data used most often, namely that reporters vote disproportionately Dem, is way outdated, and the most recent data has that # much closer. Add in the fact that editors and owners skew overwhelmingly Republican, and that media conglomerates skew Republican in campaign contribution and voting, and it makes no sense at all.
Fox News coordinates its coverage with the RNC. The fact that other networks don’t do so (but still peddle huge coverage of Clinton “scandals” with minimal coverage of Bush scandals, criticize Pelosi for going to Syria without mentioning that Republicans also have done so at the White House’s request, etc.) don’t make them “liberal”, it just makes them non-propaganda, per se.
My personal opinion: most media members are slightly left of center on race, abortion, gays and guns, due mainly to the fact that educated people in cities tend to be slightly left of center on those issues. However, most media members are way right of the American people on economic and foreign policy issues, like taxes, economic libertarianism, Iraq, etc.
Just a thought about the person who said that Rachel could not be too conservative because she is ‘brown’ — two names: Ramesh Ponnuru, and (trying to keep the puke down, here)Dinesh D’Souza, DD is the genius who believes, by the way, that Indians like his grandfather are wrong to lay blame on the British for colonialism because, after all, the Brits gave India a ‘judicial system’.
NYT’s endorsements:
2004: Kerry (D) 2000: Gore (D) 1996: Clinton (D) 1992: Clinton (D) 1988: Duakakis (D) 1984: Modale (D) 1980: Carter (D) 1976: Carter (D) 1972: McGovern (D) 1968: Humphrey (D) 1964: Johnson (D) 1960: Kennedy (D) 1956: Eisenhower(R)
What do famous right wing Indians have in common? Ramesh Ponnuru, Dinesh D’Souza, Bobby Jindal, Rachel Paulose? They are from far-right religious Christian backgrounds which have nothing to do with mainstream moderate Christian denominations. There is a silent battle in the Indian-American community (if one can call it a community) between right-wing Christians and Right-wing Hindus. Alliances are being formed between right-wing Hindus, who loathe Muslims, and right-wing Jewish people, who already have alliances with far-right Caucasian-American evangelicals, all in support of Israel. Other alliances are being formed between right-wing Arab-Americans and right-wing Muslim African-Americans, who both loathe Jews and, by extension, Israel Further yet there are alliances between far-left Caucasian-Americans and far-right Arab-Americans, who both loathe Israel.
The Republicans are masters of the Gonzalez effect, heavily promoting a far-right minority person and using that minority candidate to cast a wedge within his/her own community in the US in order to deviert traditionally Democratic votes over to the Republicans. They have driven wedges into the Asian community with Evangelicals like John Yoo, Michelle Malkin and David Kuo, into the African-American community with Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, Alan keyes, Karl Malone, T.D.Jakes and Shelby Steele, into the Hispanic community with Alberto Gonzalez, Linda Chavez and George Prescott Bush.
Meanwhile, the clueless Democrats rumble with their antiquated PR machine that still spews forth the tired old rhetoric of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Beatles-era peacenik ideology. The Democrats’ handling of right-wing evangelism and its viral spread thru the fabric of mainstream America has been inept and neglectful.
The real loser in all of this is America itself, as we squander our environmental resources, our way of life, and our children’s future all in the name of further enabling right-wing evangelicals to bolster Israel, and hate Jewish people all at once.
Uh, Rachel Paulose is probably a Malayalee Christian. Since when is being a Marthomite, Orthodox or Catholic Malayalee a “far right” thing? And if they are uber-religious, wouldn’t they want to join the right-wing Hindus who are befriending the right-wing Jews, since all fundamentalist Christians are desperately awaiting the rapture? Does not compute.
Uhh Gandhi “I doubt that she’s conservative because she’s brown”?? WTF??? So she worked for Gonzalez but just because she’s brown she can’t be conservative? Stereotypes anyone?
Believe it or not, there are quite a few desi’s that agree with Conservatives when it comes to issues of economic freedom but don’t agree with the agenda of the social conservatives. However, when forced to decide between conservatives’ economic freedom vs. liberals’ personal freedom, they tend to agree with F.A. Hayek who said, “to be controlled in your economic pursuits, is to be controlled in everything.”
The typical desi’s understanding of conservatism (or the federalist society) does not acknowledge this possibility, as reflected in the messages on this board. Most indians associate Conservatism solely with social conservatism, which is an inaccurate picture.
With the likelihood of Guiliani being the first conservative to win a republican primary without support from the religious right, we will see the party shift away from social conservatism to focus on fiscal conservatism , and with that, the emergence of many more libertarian-leaning “conservative” desi’s.
I don’t know if Paulose is one, but this board’s focus on “the right-wing” and “religion” is misguided at best.
What do famous right wing Indians have in common? Ramesh Ponnuru, Dinesh D’Souza, Bobby Jindal, Rachel Paulose? They are from far-right religious Christian backgrounds
Ramesh Ponnuru’s father is Hindu and Mother Lutheran. Conversion to Catholicism seems to have been a personal choice for him as a grown up. Refer, http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/rameshponnuru_oct04.asp
Jindal however seems to have converted even as a teenager. It may not however be a coincidence that both were attracted to the Catholic Church, not the southern Baptists, Episcopalians or something else.
One thing that’s not surprising is that these overachievers are all ultra conservative. Most upwardly mobile Indians tend to be ultra conservative socially and politically. In America, one’s Hindu background may come in the way of such political positions since ultra conservatism in this country is somewhat closely identified with Christian groups. If you’re a Christian Indian, there’s no inconsistency, else you convert. In any case, I think for Jindal and Ponnuru, their socio-political conservatism might have come first, religion only next.
Puhlease. The man cheated on his wife. His own son wont talk to him any more. You think Republicans will put up an pro-choice adulterer (who stayed with a gay couple when he got kicked out of his house) as their candidate?
What about security? Well, his chief of police, business partner and recommendation for the head of the DHS, Bernie Kerik, was dirty and is now going to be indicted. That’s going to be a prominent trial and it’ll expose Rudy’s poor judgement.
He’s barely going to make it out of the starting gates. Remember, this is a man who lost to Hillary before …
the details of the paulose dress code, unveiled late friday, have sparked surprisingly little discussion here. several young republican applicants for the vacated positions are said to be privately upset that epaulettes are to be worn only by the u.s. attorney herself.
any public display of disunity was thwarted by compromise language which allows staff to wear whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes…
the details of the paulose dress code, unveiled late friday, have sparked surprisingly little discussion here. several young republican applicants for the vacated positions are said to be privately upset that epaulettes are to be worn only by the u.s. attorney herself.
Worth repeating, though in context, not sure it was a joke :-0
brown was the code word – hmm like TPM Muckraker the codewords are too, too ….
Paulose’s great grandfather was a founder of the Brethern assembly in India.
according to http://www.brethernassembly.com, her grandfather is also born-again
Her mother was the sixth child of Daniel Kunjumen.
Rachel Paulose taught sunday school at the westville bible chapel in New Haven, connecticut. That is a Brethern Assembly as well.
This lawyer is in a brand that has come to favor during Bush 43 in the nation’s law firm — the U.S. Department of Justice. Rarely have so many people with so little prosecution experience been placed in the highest ranks of Justice. Has anyone looked to see how many cases Ms. Paulose brought to trial while she was an AUSA in Minneapolis? Or the level of sophistication of her cases? A significant impact case can take as long to develop as her entire tenure at the office!! Now, in the latest round of withheld documents from Justice, we see that Kyle Sampson (another inexperienced kid but a true believer if ever there was one) was considering Rachel Brand as a replacement for the U.S. Attorney in Michigan. Like Paulose, Brand is a true believer. Brand also has NEVER tried a criminal case in her life. This is so very said at an institution that has such a long and rich history.
I have to add that Paulose has a very nice fashion sense and she is quite a beautiful woman. These things are not insignificant in our society, where people get their information from talking heads and we see court dramas with Hollywood stars every day. While she may not fit the Minnesota stereotype, she is proof that the great white north has some true attractions!! I think she should resign as US Attorney and get a gig at CourtTV!!
While she may not fit the Minnesota stereotype, she is proof that the great white north has some true attractions!!
As a Minnesota native/resident, I’d like to know exactly what that stereotype is, so that I can properly determine if Paulose fits it.
Come on hema! It’s as commonly understood as “Minnesota Nice”!! There is a stereotype of Minnesota girls as being blonde, blue-eyed, wholesome all-american girls. I know it is less and less true, which is thankfully a good thing for society because diversity is generally a very positive thing. But in terms of historic background, Minnesota’s ties with Scandanavian and Germanic culture cannot plausibly be denied, and the resulting mass of fair-skinned and blue eyed people is a sure sign of those origins.
It’s as commonly understood as “Minnesota Nice”!!
Actually, the term “Minnesota Nice” originates in the state’s reputation as a home for various public interest group from the early 50s onwards.
I know it is less and less true, which is thankfully a good thing for society because diversity is generally a very positive thing
Right. It’s just that I’ve gotten so used to people saying random (and often unsubstantiated) things about the Midwest generally, and Minnesota specifically, that I’m probably just a little defensive.
Thanks, hema. You seem reasonable!
So the real issue is, will Fredo make it through the week. He is really damaged goods after last week.
Her grandparents asked for asylum in the U.S, as they were apparently fleeing communism in Kerala. Would Ms. Paulose be kind enough to grant me asylum too? I’m from West Bengal.
Ironically Ms. Paulose is supposed to be a immigration hawk; the kind which is tough on asylum cheats and liars.
Actually, being a high achieving Desi I’m hardly surprised that she chose the right-wing of politics as her fastest route to success. It’s a strategy that’s worked well for other Desi suck-ups, notably Dinesh D’Souza. Besides, many Desi Americans are conservative for the most elemental of reasons, immigrant insecurity. To their striving mole like minds, it is obvious that the Republican Party, the party of the rich, is the correct party to be associated with. After all, they reason, who would want to hang out with the Dems, representatives of losers and/or non-whites? Latent (and sometimes not-so-latent) desi color consciousness/racism and the burning desire to be included amongst the Caucasian mainstream is what drives this type of opportunism.
Well, I’ve known Rachel and her family for several years, since I was a friend of her younger sister. They are very nice people and it is unfortunate that they have to go through with all this negative “publicity.” Although I don’t agree with her political views, I still respect her as an extremely intelligent and confident Indian-American woman.
“it’s completely unprecedented for a President to replace 8 of his own US Attorneys midway through his own Presidency (not illegal or unethical, but unprecedented)”
And so…. ?
If what Bush did was neither illegal nor unethical, why do we have to hear about this ad double nauseaum? Why the hearings? Why the faux outrage?
Bogus crap. Moveon.yawn.
According to this link, http://www.sajaforum.org/2007/04/law_rachel_paul.html, Paulose’s family had to flee “communism” in Kerala. Is this just some propaganda to endear her to the American right wing or was it a genuinely dire situation?
Were non communists in Kerala really being harassed to the point where they had to escape and seek asylum in America? Does anyone have any statistics/info on the number of Keralite political refugees seeking asylum in the West? Not trying to be sarcastic, because this is the first time I heard about people trying to flee Kerala. Honestly, my own parents left India in the 1950’s for better economic opportunities. However, to this day, they will still visit India once in awhile and are not afraid of communists in India.
For the record, I hate communism but I loathe facism even more.
Yaay – http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Attorney-Minnesota.html?hp
gm: you ask “Is this just some propaganda to endear her to the American right wing”? yes. though the government of the state of kerala is largely communist, the substantial presence of christians (of a wide variety of denominations) as residents of the state is proof enough that there is no justifiable claim to ideological persecution as has been put forward in ms. paulose’s bio. it would be no different (and no more ridiculous) than my claiming that the presence of liberals in north hollywood and their persecution of my religious beliefs is what drove me to return home to edina.