The defense of Paulose steps up the rhetoric

Scott Johnson from Powerline ratchets up the rhetorical defense of his friend and fellow conservative, Rachel Paulose in an article published in the ultra right-wing National Review Online. In it he confirms the facts that I reported in my previous article. His spin, however, is quite different from mine or any reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the facts.

In Ms. Paulose' defense, Scott complains that the New York Times is calling on the new AG, Michael Mudkasey, to fire her "just because she is a Republicans." Scott then goes on to provide this:

The Times recites that Paulose is also charged with having “used a racial epithet in reference to another employee.” I’ve known Rachel for ten years. For those of us who know her, the allegation is absurd on its face. Among other things, Rachel is herself an Indian-American immigrant sensitive to racial slights. I’ve never heard Rachel utter a swear word or cast a racial aspersion. In her first on the record statement regarding this charge, Paulose states: “I NEVER made any such statement. I have told the department so, and the department is defending me against this outrageous and defamatory lie.”

Paulose adds: “The McCarthyite hysteria that permits the anonymous smearing of any public servant who is now, or ever may have been, a member of the Federalist Society; a person of faith; and/or a conservative (especially a young, conservative woman of color) is truly a disservice to our country.”
[Highlighting mine - editor, WTF-o]

This is a statement using victimology as a defense that really goes way over the top. It would appear that for anyone to acknowledge the clearly factual items found in her biography and resume (member of the Federalist Society; person of faith; conservative; young; woman; and conservative woman of color) is to attack her in a McCarthyite manner. Sorry. That flat doesn't wash.

Tail-gunner Joe attacked individuals and named them as Communists without a shred of evidence to support his allegations, at a time when it was illegal for a member of the Communist Party to work for the government and when places like Hollywood were banning alleged members of the Communist Party from working at all. Joe McCarthy was searching for people to persecute, whether they were guilty or not. Joe's mere unproven allegations destroyed lives. That's McCarthyism.

As far as I know, being a conservative, a woman of faith, young, a woman of color (that's a euphemism for being a native from India, not, as she is attempting to imply, Black) or being a member of the Federalist Society are not at this time criminal offenses, or even negative characteristics. She is has proudly publicized all of those characteristics as being positive aspects. How does recognizing those things become "McCarthyism" when she and many others proudly proclaim to the public that she is all of those things?

Any honest look at the evidence will show that for all her academic honors and abilities, she is an incompetent manager who was thrown in over her head and she has all the political instincts of a hermit. She was also a person who worked closely with Alberto Gonzales and his top subordinates, all now removed or resigned in the wake of the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, and while she may not have participated in the firing of the U.s. Attorneys, she certainly benefited from the political misuse of the Department of Justice they represented in order to get her current position as U.S. Attorney in Minnesota. She is one of the right-wing extremists who were misusing the DoJ for political gain.

Had she been politically and managerially astute, she very likely could have escaped notice when the ringleaders of corruption at DoJ headquarters were removes or forced to resign. That wouldn't make her innocent, but it wouldn't have opened her up to forced removal as appears likely right now. In the absence of the current outcry against her and the impending removal, she probably would retain sufficient credits on her otherwise short resume so that she could later still be considered for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.

That's what this hullabaloo is all about. First, it is quite clear that she is more ideologue than lawyer. Second, it is clear that she is an incompetent manager. Third, it is very clear that she is not suitable for appointment to any federal bench or to any federal management position where she makes decisions on her own.

Apparently the NRO is unwilling to give up on her. They want her kept in play. So Scott Johnson is pulling out every rhetorical trick in the deck to try to help her in these, her last few days as a government employee. It won't work. largely because of her political incompetence she has made herself into a political lightening rod.

But becoming a political lightening rod because of managerial incompetence and ideological extremism is not McCarthyism. To try to revive her career with the government by public use of inappropriate victimology simply demonstrates the political tin ear that both Ms. Paulose and NRO share, and which justifies her immediate removal from office.

[ h/t to TPM and to Eric Black Ink. ]