What We Know About Monica

Remove all ads!

I bet I had you with the title - Bill's infamous "White House sex queen." No way, this is about a different kind of "queen" - Monica Goodling - Queen Lackey. Ragusa crafted a good thread on how "Loyalty to Bush" landed Gonzo Gonzales in a heap of trouble. And one might reasonably ask, what's so bad about "loyalty" anyway? Monica is a good case in point. Here's a direct quote from Bill Maher (infamous "liberal"):

I did not even know that Pat Robertson had a "law" school. All this time I thought he was just a "business man" parading as a "Christian" gay basher. I guess he needed some lawyers.

And there's more:

150? Well, it's reassuring to know that they are not having sex. We may have to have another impeachment trial if they were.

There is a bright side to all this: At least Monica didn't go to a college run by a bunch of "liberal professors."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/13/pat_robertson/index.html

 

yeah, God forbid she get a real education.
If that's not corrupting our nation I don't know what is. You can be a christian and a lawyer, but these people from Regent are taught to try to change the law. Can our country make it until Bush is out of office?

 

I saw that show as well. I, too, didn't know that Pat Robertson had a law school. One thing that you didn't copy into your message was how law schools are ranked by U.S. News and World Reports and other similar reporting agencies. Just because the law school was founded by Robertson doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad law school. Anyway, they breaks the schools down into four tiers. The first tier consists of places like the Ivy League schools, Stanford, Georgetown, and other exceptional schools. Robertson's school consistently ranks in the bottom tier.

I also find it unbelievable that someone who is just 33 years old (my age) can have the responsibility of overseeing the job performance of all 95 U.S. attorneys when she herself has never worked as a prosecutor. I do not know when Monica got appointed to that position, but it probably didn't just happen yesterday. If she is a holdover from Bush's first term it is possible she got this job when she was still in her 20s. I would think that someone so young would really have to have an exceptional resume to even be considered for the position, and coming from a low-rated law school alone would seem to disqualify you. You'd also think that you'd have to have some experience as a prosecutor to be considered.

I don't know - maybe that's why I don't make more money - I have only applied to jobs I feel I'm qualified for. Of course, if qualifications are equivalent to being a Bush crony, then it really doesn't matter. Not to totally get into Bill Maher's show, but I think a comment on a previous episode by D.L. Hugely rings true here as well: The problem with Bush appointments is that he has always chosen loyalty over competency.

 

Aldeth, It makes perfect sense that he would appoint incompetent people. After all like-minded people tend to stick together.

 

lol

 

Leadership classes teach that it is easy to find people like you that will follow you. Good leaders go out of their way to get people who are strong in areas that they are weak in. It is a way to artificially raise the lid on an organizations potential. Reagan was the poster child for this, Clinton wasn't shabby at it, both Bushs and Carter flat out sucked at it.

If you want' to study leaders and understand their weakness and strengths you should really read The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John Maxwell.

 

I don't know, the first Bush wasn't bad at it, but he wasn't the greatest either. He had some pretty good people and some not so good people. A few of the good ones jumped ship in the latest Bush's administration.

That made me think about something. Seeing as most waited until after the last election(right after) to leave do you think that he would have been reelected had the people known that so many of the people we trusted in the administration were abandoning him, especially Gen. Powell?

 

Interesting question sa. I'm not sure, but my gut feeling says, "yes", he would still have been re-elected. While Powell's word certainly lended some legitimacy in the lead-up to the Iraq war, I think most people saw the war for what it was by the end of 2004. Or at least realized the trumped-up reasons given for the invasion were not true.

However, there is a more poignant question that I cannot answer with any certainty. Was Powell's resignation after the frist term considered extremely unusual? I did not think that it was - at the very least it wasn't precedent-setting.

I was of the impression that it was considered a courtesy to continue to serve in the Cabinet until the president's current term expires, unless there is some medical reason or scandal that would prevent you from doing so.

However, I also feel that Powell's reasons for staying were more than just courtesy. Powell has always been an honorable man, and likely decided that he would be the "good soldier" and do the job the commander-in-chief asked him to do. Afterall, he had agreed to accept the position in the first place. That he did resign does seem to indicate he wasn't in agreement with what he was asked to do, but perhaps he felt duty-bound to follow his marching orders.

Perhaps we can look at other instances of why or at least when other Cabinet members of two-term presidents decided not to stay on for a second term. Unfortunately, no example springs immediately to mind.

 

There's a point those people overlook who mock Robertson's law school as fourth rate.

What Robertson seems to produce is a cadre of ideological reliable aparachiks -- zealous and disciplined believers in the culture war -- qualities that make them excellent executioners of the party line, which is of course the GOP party line. Even more than average conservatives in the US, or the neo-cons for that instance, Robertson's people have a tribalist mindset, 'us vs. them', 'either with us or against us'.

So I wouldn't call Goodling incompetent. In fact, she was perfectly qualified and suitable for what her superiors asked of her.

The Gonzales' DOJ doesn't so much need brilliant lawyers -- all the thinking is to be done by the top ranking political appointees. What they do need is a cadre of zealous and disciplined underlings loyal to 'the cause' to whip through the decisions that have been made and who are hostile to the enemy -- the career civil servants with a more traditional understanding of what working at the DOJ means, and who hold quaint and obsolete delusions, like that the work is non-political and non-partisan for instance.

That means Gonzales' & Cie. have thoroughly politicised the process. Drones like Goodling were instrumental in achieving their goal.

 

Heh, my guess is they were grooming her for SCOTUS...

 

Ragusa - It's still fourth rate. Actually, I was unaware that anyone had overlooked the point that the "process" had been politicized by Team Bush, (which was everyone's main complaint about the issue anyway). And as someone pointed out, serious decisions are made by the office of federal prosecutors. Every death penalty conviction is reviewed by the office of the federal prosecutors. So, while this may look largely "political" to some on the outside, to others it's a matter of life and death.

 

Chandos,
I know it is fourth rate. But leaving it at that leads to you underestimating the institution and missing it's intended purpose.

What harm can a law school do that produces fourth rate lawyers? As we see quite a lot. The quality of Robertson's law school is beside the point because it is not there to produce top notch lawyers but zealous religio-political activists with some knowledge of the law, or rather, the right-wing take on it. You can expect they are taught that everything else is the work of Satan's liberal henchmen. It's their law vs. the liberal activist's law that has to be rolled back. Of course rational people understand that rightly as fourth rate.

It's a cadre school for politico-religious activists that is named a law school. I think that's important thing to understand.

It is not that Gonzo appointed incompetence, but that he made a political purge and appointed ideologues -- to a much stronger degree than any predecessor and to a stronger degree even than the neocons for instance were able to do the same at the Pentagon.

With the numbers of career civil servants fired and the politicos put in their place and regulation changed it will take up to a decade to repair the damage Gonzo has caused with his politisation.

And that is not the result of him appointing incompetents but of him appointing obedient cadres of the christian right to push through targets probably from the Whitehouse's West Wing. That's what I call a spectacular success in the deconstruction business.

 

As I pointed out, for some the competency question is a matter of life and death. So, I would say that eveyone understands the harm that can be done by a forth-rate lawyer.

Ah good, you took the time to read the link I provided. That was Bill Maher's point regarding Robertson's law school. In fact, that statement is blantantly in the school's official mission statement, as he points out.