It isn't real news to my readers that Karl Rove and the rest of BushCo has had a policy to politicize the Agencies of the Federal Government, some of this is fairly ordinary political paybacks in positions that are ordinarily patronage positions and most Agency heads and their deputies. It becomes more worrisome when career positions begin to be politicized, very worrisome when Prosecutors become political tools, and it is horrifying to find the government itself turned into a political arm. In 1939 the Hatch Act was passed in the face of corruption to limit the political activities of the federal government employees and in some cases state and municipal employees. The following activities are prohibited to federal employees in general (there are special cases with more stringent regulations):
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty
Enter Lurita Alexis Doan, GSA head, who has had a rather tumultuous 10 month tenure. She began to stir the pot by reducing the budget of the Office of the Inspector General, GSA is the lead procurement agency at $56 billion worth of federal contracts, she handed out a no-bid contract to a former business associate and friend, and finally put on a tele-conference from Rove's office with J Scott Jennings presiding. He is the White House Deputy Director of Political Affairs and the 28 page presentation included 2006 election results and listed the names of Democratic candidates considered beatable and Republican lawmakers thought to need help. This was made to up to 40 Regional Administrators with Doan in attendance, after the presentation Doan asked, "how they could help our candidates in the next elections." Some of the suggested methods involved targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country.
You might wonder who Jennings is and you'd be interested to find that besides working for Karl Rove he was a long time Kentucky political operative including being Sen Mitch McConnel's (R-KY) Political Director. His name has shown up in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys when he used the RNC's email account to urge the appointment of former Rove aide Tim Griffin, an RNC political opposition researcher, to the DOJ for the Arkansas position.
Regarding the Powerpoint presentation to the GSA Scott Stanzel said, "There is regular communication from the White House to political appointees throughout the administration." On the other hand Doan stated to Henry Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 10 times that she does not recall asking employees to help the GOP or does not recall details about the presentation. She did, however, remember that nothing improper happened. Apparently this is so ordinary in BushCo that it's just slipped her mind, along with the Hatch Act and her use of GSA facilities for a blatantly political activity including asking federal employees to help a political party (um, Republican Party).
This stuff continues to dribble out, like drool from a senile geezer's mouth, disgusting drip after drip. I've stated before that Karl Rove is similar to a criminal thug in his inability to see beyond immediate advantage and short term gains, here it is in all its brilliant stupidity. Rather than pursue the electoral advantage of having policies that benefit the country at large and publicizing them they secretly advance the privileged few and use narrowly effective propaganda tools and administrative tools to gain little. As the President sinks into the approval mire and is considered by a majority to be simply incompetent and by many as nearly criminal, we have his "Brain" on display. I sincerely hope this is an education for political operatives for a long time to come.
Showing posts with label Rove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rove. Show all posts
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Machiavellian Politics
Politics have been studied and analyzed for a very long time, and written about for very nearly as long as writing has existed. One of the best known, and most reviled writers on the subject is Machiavelli; his book, The Prince, is a classic and much misunderstood work. The most often quoted piece of the book is, "the ends justify the means." The cliche term for short-sighted vicious politics is "Machiavellian."
This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.
Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.
The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.
This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)
This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.
Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.
The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.
This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)
Friday, March 09, 2007
Gonzales - Idiot or Worse?
Remember the sneaky little bit about the Administration being able to appoint replacement federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation? There was that bit about the Appeals Courts doing it being Unconstitutional and tooooooooo time consuming in this era of imminent danger. Apparently now that everybody and their brother is hot about it, The Admin is no longer committed to it, they will no longer oppose legislation limiting the AG's power. After the meeting Sen Arlen Spector had this to say, "One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," which might lead one to think he's unhappy and that maybe a little pushing around occurred. This is the same nit picker that stated that because the Constitution only prohibits the suspension of Habeas Corpus in certain circumstances that it's not otherwise a guaranteed right. Now why would anybody talk about replacing such an intellect?
Gonzales also allowed the Senate to call five top level Justice officials involved in the Pearl Harbor, um, Dec. 7th firing of 7 federal prosecutors. For some reason these prosecutors took to heart allegations that their firings had to do with performance issues and began to object. Some people other than the fired ones found it odd that their latest performance ratings were fine. Some Senators are concerned that the firings and the hiring procedure would be used to place political cronies. Karl Rove, one of whose cronies has already been appointed, said these actions are, "normal and ordinary," after the AG's appearance. Someone must've forgotten to tell him. I've heard somebody runs the show over there...
So, how bad does all this stink? Bad enough to get the lap dogs in the Senate stirred up.
Gonzales also allowed the Senate to call five top level Justice officials involved in the Pearl Harbor, um, Dec. 7th firing of 7 federal prosecutors. For some reason these prosecutors took to heart allegations that their firings had to do with performance issues and began to object. Some people other than the fired ones found it odd that their latest performance ratings were fine. Some Senators are concerned that the firings and the hiring procedure would be used to place political cronies. Karl Rove, one of whose cronies has already been appointed, said these actions are, "normal and ordinary," after the AG's appearance. Someone must've forgotten to tell him. I've heard somebody runs the show over there...
So, how bad does all this stink? Bad enough to get the lap dogs in the Senate stirred up.
Friday, February 23, 2007
We Still Have A White House
You may have noticed that I've tried pretty hard to come up with some kind of uplifting post. It's been difficult, but a little practice at getting my rose colored glasses on correctly is helping. So in that spirit, Libby Jury Still Out. And why is that good? The story is not yet dead and the BushCo pardon must wait.
But see the especially good part is that there is still a White House Administration. You might remember that our Defender of Democracy had Scott McClelland promise that anybody involved in the "outing" of Valeri Plame would be fired. So far that's about 10 top people, including the Dick, um, VP Cheney. Now since the VP is supposed to have a boss (a direct superior) that person would also be involved as well as all the little busy bees who wrote memos and placed calls and ... that would mean that there'd be no BushCo left. How're we supposed to run a country with no White House? Good news that jury has not yet come in with a guilty verdict, because if all those reporters didn't just make up the story about Valeri and an innocent verdict could be rendered; we need some time to get things organized for all the firings.
I've been worried for two days now that we'd be suddenly bereft, rudderless in a sea of terrissss. We still have a White House.
But see the especially good part is that there is still a White House Administration. You might remember that our Defender of Democracy had Scott McClelland promise that anybody involved in the "outing" of Valeri Plame would be fired. So far that's about 10 top people, including the Dick, um, VP Cheney. Now since the VP is supposed to have a boss (a direct superior) that person would also be involved as well as all the little busy bees who wrote memos and placed calls and ... that would mean that there'd be no BushCo left. How're we supposed to run a country with no White House? Good news that jury has not yet come in with a guilty verdict, because if all those reporters didn't just make up the story about Valeri and an innocent verdict could be rendered; we need some time to get things organized for all the firings.
I've been worried for two days now that we'd be suddenly bereft, rudderless in a sea of terrissss. We still have a White House.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
How Could I Agree With National Review Online ??
You don't suppose aliens abducted me and replaced me with another bearded one? I tell you, I am chagrined. But then, here's a Rove quote (attributed to an un-named Republican Congressman's wife) that you've got mull over:
Regarding BushCo amnesty/worker nonsense, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
Mark Krikorian poses this conclusion "This is why the president's "willing worker/willing employer" immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it's not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad."
Am I going to find fault with this? Maybe the security thing is a bit overblown, I don't have a real serious opinion on that, we've had a real hit from people who used visas to get in... How the left cannot get this through their heads is beyond me. There is nothing progressive in crushing blue collar wages. The "progressives" will talk about wealth disparity, they'll note that this "wonderful" economy isn't for the bottom end, and then they'll advocate cutting the throats of the workers because illegals are....special? they're picked on? they're what? They'll parrot the Free Marketers "it's not a zero sum game," when it is just exactly that, in fact it's a negative sum game. The damn jobs are being exported and insourced and there are a decreasing number of them and increasing competition for them.
Sure, right this minute the jobs with health hazards that include eye strain, carpal tunnel, and paper cuts are fairly safe. But if you think your wages aren't going into the toilet when the bottom falls out, you don't realize what your wage/salary is based on. A growing blue collar wage pushes up salaries and drags up low wage earnings. The numbers are all there, what you haven't seen in recent history is the bottom falling out, until the last dozen years, and now lower middle income is starting to slide. The plutocrats are doing well, this is all in their benefit. If BushCo is in favor of an economic model and you're not a plutocrat you'd better object. They're cutting your throats and getting you to smile about it.
What is particularly infuriating is for my stance to be lumped into racism, the major losers in this scenario are minorities! My industry, construction, was the gateway into decent paying work for minorities for decades. Now it's to be avoided unless all else fails. The largest concentration of illegal hirings is in construction. I don't give a damn if they pay taxes or not, the labor glut is killing this work. That's right, Americans won't come out, it's hard dangerous work and it doesn't PAY anything anymore. If you want to do a wage search by job descriptions you will find the same is true of just about anything that is comparably hard dangerous work.
I'm real sorry, there is no feel good solution. It's way past that time. Maybe after Ronnie Reagan's amnesty slamming the jobs shut would've mitigated itself, but that's not what was done, the flood gates were opened and now somebody is going to take a real beating. I feel rotten about this, I understand the plight of people fleeing crap countries, I admire a work ethic, and I don't care the least about ethnicity, but I do care about American workers more.
Regarding BushCo amnesty/worker nonsense, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
Mark Krikorian poses this conclusion "This is why the president's "willing worker/willing employer" immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it's not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad."
Am I going to find fault with this? Maybe the security thing is a bit overblown, I don't have a real serious opinion on that, we've had a real hit from people who used visas to get in... How the left cannot get this through their heads is beyond me. There is nothing progressive in crushing blue collar wages. The "progressives" will talk about wealth disparity, they'll note that this "wonderful" economy isn't for the bottom end, and then they'll advocate cutting the throats of the workers because illegals are....special? they're picked on? they're what? They'll parrot the Free Marketers "it's not a zero sum game," when it is just exactly that, in fact it's a negative sum game. The damn jobs are being exported and insourced and there are a decreasing number of them and increasing competition for them.
Sure, right this minute the jobs with health hazards that include eye strain, carpal tunnel, and paper cuts are fairly safe. But if you think your wages aren't going into the toilet when the bottom falls out, you don't realize what your wage/salary is based on. A growing blue collar wage pushes up salaries and drags up low wage earnings. The numbers are all there, what you haven't seen in recent history is the bottom falling out, until the last dozen years, and now lower middle income is starting to slide. The plutocrats are doing well, this is all in their benefit. If BushCo is in favor of an economic model and you're not a plutocrat you'd better object. They're cutting your throats and getting you to smile about it.
What is particularly infuriating is for my stance to be lumped into racism, the major losers in this scenario are minorities! My industry, construction, was the gateway into decent paying work for minorities for decades. Now it's to be avoided unless all else fails. The largest concentration of illegal hirings is in construction. I don't give a damn if they pay taxes or not, the labor glut is killing this work. That's right, Americans won't come out, it's hard dangerous work and it doesn't PAY anything anymore. If you want to do a wage search by job descriptions you will find the same is true of just about anything that is comparably hard dangerous work.
I'm real sorry, there is no feel good solution. It's way past that time. Maybe after Ronnie Reagan's amnesty slamming the jobs shut would've mitigated itself, but that's not what was done, the flood gates were opened and now somebody is going to take a real beating. I feel rotten about this, I understand the plight of people fleeing crap countries, I admire a work ethic, and I don't care the least about ethnicity, but I do care about American workers more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)