You all recall me blogging back in March about the Alberto Gonzales-installed U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis right? Indian American Rachel Paulose, at only 33 years of age, was one of the loyal “Bushies” picked to replace the apparently disloyal outgoing attorney (Tom Heffelfinger) from that region. Right away news began to surface that Paulose’s staff couldn’t stand her reportedly imperious ways. Well now it seems that the largely ignored Office of Special Counsel is investigating formal complaints against Ms. Paulose [via Eric Black Ink]:
The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating allegations that Rachel Paulose, U.S. attorney for Minnesota, mishandled classified information, decided to fire the subordinate who called it to her attention, retaliated against others in the office who crossed her, and made racist remarks about one employee.
Paulose did not return phone calls seeking her comment. Black Ink will publish any response that she makes.
The investigation has been under way since June. The Office of Special Counsel, which handles complaints about retaliation against whistleblowers and prohibited personnel practices by political appointees such as Paulose (that’s her at the podium in the photo at right), appears to be taking the allegations seriously. Investigators from two of its regional offices have been to Minnesota to interview witnesses and may be back for more. I could not find out when the OSC, an independent executive branch agency that is not part of the Justice Department, might complete the investigation. [Link]
<
p>It should be noted that this is an on-going investigation that is little more than he-said she-said right now. Here are a couple of the specific allegations being made, however:
*Paulose committed large and small acts of retaliation against others in the office whom she accused of disloyalty to her. In one instance, after changing the job assignment of one employee, Paulose allegedly said that she would make the woman so miserable that she would want to quit. In some instances, Paulose allegedly ordered those in charge of performing job evaluations to downgrade the reviews of those she considered disloyal, or turned down requests that they be allowed to perform work outside the office. The allegation is that Paulose took these actions against employees for reasons other than the quality of their work, but rather for offenses like advising her that some actions she was contemplating would exceed her legal authority.
*Paulose allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass…” [Link]
I don’t think using the four words above necessarily means you said anything wrong or that you are racist (as the allegations seem to imply). For example, I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize a subordinate like this:
“When you sit in that black chair eating non-fat yogurt when you should be working as hard as a four-legged ass it makes me think you are a bit lazy.“
Can anyone else come up with a possible non-controversial sentence that Paulose might have uttered using those four words?
The outlook may not be favorable for Paulose. With Alberto out the knives will be coming out and Democrats will be applying some pressure to clean-up what they see as a crony-filled Justice Department.
My lazy-ass black poodle is getting fat!
This was true about 20 years ago, it’s not today. Recently there was an excerpt from John Dean’s book, “Broken Government” in a Salon article which summed it up nicely.
“Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican, because they’re dangerous, dishonest and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime’s worth of difference in the parties; that is not longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable.”
that is excellent. its saying something that would be offensive, but a dog cant get offended, so its not offensive!
this reminds me of conan o’brians statement about how you can technically not say anything offensive, and still get your *ss k!cked. stand on a street corner in harlem and start chanting (in a mocking voice) “BLACKS AND JEWS! BLACKS AND JEWS!”
[redacted] as someone who runs his own group blog, I understand where SMIntern is coming from. All the Intern was trying to do was to get things back on track and keep things on topic. Moderating is a PITA and I do not think I have seen the Intern chime in on topics, ever.
Let us cut the intern a break [redacted]. Let’s stop nit-picking on the metaphors and give credit to the intern for keeping things civil for everyone. Be it black or fat or an ass.
Do these BLACK pants make my FAT ASS look thinner? I’m too LAZY to go check the full-length mirror.
(Sentence one uttered by half the females in the U.S. at some point in their lives)
I disagree. Republicans are the flavor of the month. The city of Chicago is well known for Democratic party cronyism, California has issues with similar problems, New England has had similar governance issues (Boston’s Big dig) with the Democratic party involved, etc. I don’t think either party really cares, if they did, governance would be better particularly with budgets/funding (pork). The democratic party isn’t an innocent bystander.
To say it was TRUE 20 years go and now it is FALSE is not correct. We’re taking shades of gray here. Plus, cronyism only gets highlighted when the crony drops the ball or ruffles feathers. If the status quo remains (which still may be shit), you’re not called out.
It is possible that this was another version of the “niggardly dud-bomb”
what could be the reason for not divulging the actual sentance?
Not really. Maybe two sides – Republicans(except for Pat Buchanan) and establishment Democrats(especially the DLCers). The main cheerleaders were the Liebermanites on the Democratic side and the neocons on the Republican side. And yes, AIPAC types. Bill Kristol was obsessed with this since the 90s, even before 9/11.
Back to Poulouse. I don’t think any of us can just assume she is a neocon just because she may be a partisan Republican.
once again, let’s try to bring it back to Rachel. Does anyone know of her background and character related to her job in more detail than what we saw here? Both parties are guilty of cronyism. But the Bushies have taken it to a new level. They are not content with mere Republican friends, but they need to meet ideological tests. Just look at Iraq. Goodling was part of that group. I do not know if Rachel is or not? Maybe she is just a partisan Republican who was in the right place and right time? My instinct is she could be one of those ideologues too, but i have no proof.
Once upon a time, when I was but a lowly intern, I saw plenty of this shit. On both sides of the aisle. Republicans don’t have a monopoly on pettiness and Bush didn’t invent reward/retribution. Rove’s purge itself was outrageous, but let’s not pretend that a lot of what is quoted above is somehow new. What is new is the scale of it all, in my opinion. Can’t say dubya didn’t think big, when it came to perverting, abusing and destroying things.
I have relatives who voted for Bush. Why? Because they’re fu*kin’ RICH man. They want tax cuts.
I really don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that brown + Republican makes no sense. It does. People are multi-faceted. Like Rachel Paulose.
most very rich people i know are limosine liberal types. think “im rich enough not to give a $hit about taxes, and worry about social good and all that”. i think a lot of bush’s support came from poor people voting on “values”.
Cronyism has and is practiced by both parties. What has occurred over the past 7 years is a quantum leap over that level or era of party favors.
This administration’s real goal was privatizing the Federal Government for profit.
these particular relatives live in Bush’s home state and are, um… openly not that caring about the rest of society. I think it depends on geography and other factors too.
On a Federal level in recent times, you’re probably right. IMHO, it has to do with how long he had a Republican Congress that toed his line. Dems lost their majority in Congress soon after Clinton took office. Bush walked into a very comfortable situation, while not being agressively challenged by his own party. Absolute power absolutely corrupts. Six years is a luxury many in power didn’t have.
and most very rich people i know are in the GOP. it takes all kinds. values voters, texans, cuban-americans, evangelicals, freaked-out soccer/security moms…there are even gay republicans.
yeah, both parties are wierd path dependant amalgamations of odd bedfellows.
i think i know what rachel said last summer. it was, “malcolm x wasn’t chosen because he wasn’t fat or lazy, you ass, it is because he didn’t look black.”
But I suppose that’s inevitable if you only have two parties, right?
and most very rich people i know are in the GOP. it takes all kinds. values voters, texans, cuban-americans, evangelicals, freaked-out soccer/security moms
The GOP seems to have two camps: one being those who are in it for ideological reasons (security, America.. F*** yeah! type people) and those who are in it for tax bracket type reasons. If you’re a rich motherf*cker, now’s a good time to be in the GOP, because you get tax cuts up your ass.
My mom voted for Bush (politics usually end up in heated debates between me and my mom). But surprisingly, she also appreciated the directness of Howard Dean who I supported in 2004. I think older people just vote for who they are comfortable with and seem more direct. Democrats need to learn to keep it simple. I like Ron Paul even if I do not agree with him on abortion. I feel bad when he tries to explain his points because the press does not have the patience to parse out what he really is trying to get at and we end up with Guiliani doing a gotcha on Paul.
I know a few good people who voted for Bush(and some of them were Indian). I would also not equate the Bushies and Cheneys with most republicans even if they have a very sizable following(especially Cheney). They just take partisanship and ideological exclusiveness to such a high level that even Reagan and Bush Sr would be uncomfortable with. I dont think people who now dont like Bush didn’t expect that from self proclaimed moderate Bush in 2000. Hell, I used to think Cheney was a relatively mature guy in the early 90s.
I have a couple of very self centered lazy cousins who have worked in the DEmocratic party at a national level. One of them was really snobbish as hell to her Indian relatives(so much for Democratic values of inclusiveness). She seemed clueless on the level of effort it was going to take to mobilise voters to compete with Rove’s machine. Democrats liked to blame Nader, but what lost them 2000 was not Nader but the lack of sufficient turnout from the Dem base. Nader is entitled to whoever felt like voting for him. But a lot of Dems were like my cousin – prone to relying on lazy ass consultants who collected a paycheck for useless advice. Within party politics, I noticed a more sincere dedication to work among Republicans. My mom is very hard working and sincere and treats people fairly, unlike my cousin, and she is a registered Republican(though I think the Cheney years have finally sunk into her, and she is on a any Democrat but Hillary mood. She actually didn’t mind Bill) . So sometimes we cannot make a correlation.
Two major parties. 🙂
“whoever stole my bottle of johnny walker black while i was in madrass is as corrupt as arafat or Buthelazy”
i think i know what rachel said last summer. it was, “malcolm x wasn’t chosen because he wasn’t fat or lazy, you ass, it is because he didn’t look black.”
That is funny. A certain someone should take notes.
True, except for Dennis Kucinich. And possibly Mike Gravel and Russ Feingold. (too lazy to google)
that explains it all. it was HMF who was fired.
but what lost them 2000 was not Nader but the lack of sufficient turnout from the Dem base.
I think diebold had something to do with it as well.
Thank you! I agree wholeheartedly.
Just because you’re too lazy to google, I shouldn’t have to repeat myself. Though some have mistakenly said he is not “black enough,” Obama has been right about the war all along. (BTW, I think Gravel is fat and, besides, he is getting his ass kicked in the primaries.)
Yes indeedy. I’m registered as a Green myself. By the way, that’s a really entertaining rundown of the various third parties!
Believe it or not, there are people who read SM, who aren’t progressive! They deserve the same respect we show everyone else. Now get back on topic, please.
I wonder if there are any hardcore Paleo/Cultural conservatives here. Maybe they read but they certainly don’t comment. Most of the conservatives here are the libertarian types.
Correct.
anna, feel free to delete [redacted].
(as an aside, and not for this thread, i am very interested in the question of where force is considered justified by people who oppose the iraq war so vehemently. congo? rwanda? darfur? n. korea? bosnia?)
You can tell it’s close to election time when Nader starts to get negative press, and the canard “Nader cost Gore” appears with increasing frequency in reports of (Democratic) presidential candidates and their campaigns. 🙂 🙂
Who really spolied?
Methinks, if Bubba had remained zipped up, or if Gore had won his home state Tennessee, he would have ended up in the WH in 2K+1. You do the math as to who spoiled.
DTK, no question about it re: Obama. I was adding more people who were against the war (in addition to Obama) which has nothing to do with how one’s doing in the primaries (separate issue). And, if one’s winning potential is the only criteria, then people who voted for any of the losing Democratic candidates during Bush Sr. (first time) and Reagan probably wasted their votes. Presidential election is not a horse race, though that’s what it has been reduced to.
87 — in case it wasn’t clear, my comments about Gravel were throw ins just to make the comment work in the game people have been playing in this thread (using the four words Paulose used); I wasn’t being serious. I disagree with you somewhat re: Nader, and your comment re: winning potential and the losing Dem candidates in the 80s, but that’s a more involved discussion about our system of democracy that I don’t have time for right now.
DTK, gotcha! It’ll be pretty hard to convince me that Nader was to blame for Gore’s defeat as I don’t buy into the two-party system. So, we’re simply viewing it from different places. Another discussion, another time. 🙂
OK, simple, probably stupid question here…but sincere…how do you people make yourselves interested in politics, and in the political process? I know that politics ties in with governance, foreign policy, the economy, social issues, and all sorts of very important issues that affect us all in very direct ways..and that should probably be the answer to my question, right? But I just can’t get myself to care. If I vote in the upcoming election, it will be the first time in my life. I do have a dislike for Bush based on the stupidity of the Iraq mess, but beyond that I simply can not stand to read a political article or watch a political tv show or have a political discussion. In fact I barely skim most SM threads that deal with politics, and all the labels (“hardcore Paleo/Cultural conservatives”) just leave me cold . Some of you are so passionate about this stuff. Anyone care to explain?
Amitabh, I hear this a lot. I think that a lot of people equate ‘politics’ with ‘assholes in suits in Washington’ and are understandably turned off. Beyond that, even, if you’re one of the people being affected directly in a negative way (and most of us are) it’s so disheartening that it’s easy to want nothing to do with it. It seems to me like a completely valid reaction to the loads of lies and BS that are thrown at us every day, by liberals and conservatives and the media. For me the key to breaking out of that was getting involved in grassroots organizing, and realizing that you don’t have to be a politician to be political. But there’s still plenty of reading between the lines and shouting back at the TV involved…
Political apathy is rational, but I guess I have a taste for it–kind of like a color or food preference. I find it more interesting to watch than most elements of pop culture.
For me, it started as a kid when I was part of a second grade project to put a picture of all the Presidents of the US on the wall. The students in my class took turns putting one up every day. THen I remember watching the Ford-Carter election coverage on the news and being fascinated even though I was too young to know the complexities of the election. I actually rooted for a Republican because he happened to be the President. Later on in life, I went to India. My grandpa was a freedom fighter, but never sought major office even if he had the connections in his hometown to do so. But I heard all the stories and became interested in Indian politics too. I got sick during middle school for a month and spent it reading most of the Encylopaedia Brittanica covering every single US President and other stuff. I used to enjoy talking to adults about politics even when I was in middle school. It helped that my cousins were all politically aware at a young age too. Reading about the Underground Railroad and Martin Luther King really got me interested in racial injustice. And then, one thing they do cover in India a lot in those days was the injustice in South Africa.
I got back and I think living in both places has given me a balanced picture of the world. I think leaders take advantage of the fact that politics turns a lot of people off. It gives them more leeway to get away with crap.
Politics is great drama. It shows you how absolute power corrupts regardless of ideology. It’s fascinating and frustrating to see how people with good intentions get into politics and are unable to defeat either the inertia or corruption that exists.
I am not really as jaded as my last sentence implies.
maybe she was doing an ashcroft and singing to be fat, lazy and black, that’s where it’s ass.
Go talk to your representatives in the federal/provincial/municipal govts. they are real. One of the benefits of living this side of the onion is that you can go up to them, shake their hands, and get their point of view*. The day you find their responses insubstantial, ask yourself if you could do a better job and step in the ring. This is critical to the pursuit of happiness.
For the Ontarians in the mix, we may be revolutionizing government with the upcoming referandum*. I had a scintillating (yes!) conversation with the electoral officer the other day. It really makes the sky bluer, the grass greener, in control of one’s destiny.
**This may remedy the disenfranchisement of the few who feel their votes are inconsequential.
For ontarians – here’s something to chew on. btw – the first person to speak on the interactive video is desi – sounds like Canada. 😉
Long live Kos.
Agreed. Over there.
so what anna feels about kos and conservatives is: we are fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here 🙂