Shorter Washington Post
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in The White House — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Bush White House played politics.
I know. I know--it's just amazing.
Of course, much of the impetus behind the story is the fact that not only the Bush White House played politics, but that it did it better than its predecessors did, including its most immediate predecessor. The story indicates that there was one violation of the Hatch Act but it also indicates--and points to the Post for being fair and recognizing this--that Karl Rove and Company were actually quite careful not to run afoul of the Hatch Act:
White House officials say Rove had two basic rules: the first was to avoid meddling with grant and contract decisions made by career government employees; the second was to make sure they complied with the Hatch Act. "What was surprising was how adamant Karl and his whole team was that we involve the lawyers in our discussions to make sure we didn't come up with things that ran afoul of the law," [Agriculture Department White House liaison Drew] DeBerry said. In March 2002, then-White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh gave such a briefing on the "do's and don'ts regarding your participation in politically related activities," according to the invitation.
And in many ways, with these strictures in mind, the White House's political operations were quite successful. Alas, things have changed in that regard and I have to believe that Karl Rove's departure might be the harbinger of further political screw-ups in the immediate future as the White House works to acclimate itself to Life Without Rove. But there is little doubting the fact that future Administrations will seek to replicate the successful portions of Rove's operations that we see at play in the Washington Post story. Snide remarks by Rep. Henry Waxman may accompany any discussion of a competent Rovian White House operation. Nevertheless, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if a Democratic White House did the kinds of things that the Rovian political team did for the current Administration, Henry Waxman wouldn't be quite as upset about the state of affairs.
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | Michael Deaver 1938-2007 — Comments (6) »
Shorter Washington Post 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Government and taxpayer money was certainly not used "solely" to further the interests of a particular political party. Of course, in principle, I don't like it. And as soon as the other side disarms, I'm sure that we will be able to as well.
Until then, I'm not fool enough to urge unilateral disarmament.
Does that answer your question?
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
because what is described in the article is not merely a failure to disarm, but an unprecedent escalation of the practice of subverting public assets for partisan ends.
If you're opposed to that kind of thing in principle, you sure have a funny way of showing it.
My computer auto-filled in that line. Which means that I've had to talk to you about this bad habit of yours before. I don't like repeating myself, particularly when people tell me that they're going to behave, then don't.
Ciao.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Well at least it was done for Americans. Clinton went international, now that's unprecedented and most decidedly an escalation.
I didn't notice where the devil Rove wanted to declare tens of thousands of state land a national park, under which sat millions of tons of clean coal, the loss of which could be supplanted by our friends in Indonesia. Whom Clinton also wanted to sell F-16's to to while they were butchering people in East Timor. Money talks, don't it?
Political favoritism and projects go back to the very beginning of the Republic but only Clinton whored regularly for foreign bribes. Unprecedented !!
Get off your high horse you phony !
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
and nobody doubts that his criticisms reflect mainly partisanship.
But you're still choosing not to acknowledge the actual point of the Post article. It's not that the Bush White House played politics, and that this is somehow shocking. Every White House plays politics. Nobody doubts that either.
The point is that playing politics is all this White House ever really chose to do. That's where all the effort and expertise went. Sure, they were especially good, and innovative, at it -- because it's all they cared about.
John DiIulio pointed this out years ago. What the White House itself really needed, in the long term, was more of a balance between the political shop and the experts on substantive policy matters. What was needed was a leader who cared enough about policy to keep the political hands in their place.
Since we didn't have that, the White House itself and its friends are now paying a terrible price. Gary Brick is perfectly right to point this out. Too bad that around here, pointing out reality is considered bad behavior.
Next time, use the Contact link if you've got a problem with our moderation policy. Wastes less bandwidth that way.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's a great thing. I'm all for it except there does seem to be some reality that's chosen with undue care. Which kind of skewers that treasured realistic approach.
What your mentor and tutor, the Plato for our time, Gary Brick didn't point out or even acknowledge in his post was the reality of Bush's predecessor. I know this wasn't considered by our hard hitting realist by his use of words like "unprecedented".
You are free to note my response to Mr Brick.
You are then equally free to ponder the misuse of the word "reality" and the vagaries of the overly selective mind.
And I might add, overly selective indignation.
The part about "this White House ever really chose to do" is off the wall, best think about it before responding.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
As best as I can tell, the main complaint they have about Karl Rove is that he's a winner, and that's the one kind of Republican they can't stand above all others.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Do you think it's a good or a bad thing for political operatives to use the machinery of government and taxpayers' money solely to further the interests of their political party?