If U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey heeds the advice of the Wall Street Journal, disgruntled staff members who lobbied for Rachel Paulose to depart from the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office may soon wish they hadn't.
In a weekend editorial entitled "Scandalette" (password required), the heavy-hitting business daily weighed in squarely behind Paulose, who recently announced that she would leave the state at the end of the year to take a policy job at main Justice in Washington, D.C.
The WSJ opinion piece characterized most of the criticism against Paulose as amounting to an accusation that she can be a difficult boss. "If that's a hanging offense, then most of Congress would be out of a job," the WSJ says.
The editorial also refers to Paulose as an "innocent bystander" drawn into a "Beltway bloodletting" by a Congress wanting to take public hostages, a media playing up the controversy and a career staff that "took the chance to trash a political appointee they don't like."
The WSJ goes on to give the following piece of advice to Mukasey: "As for replacing Ms. Paulose in Minnesota, the AG ought to send to that office someone who'll take no grief and clean out the whiners."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Kudos to the WSJ for calling it like it is: Paulose is at worst a tough boss (big deal); her office is full of whiny manipulators who trashed a dedicated public servant; and the alleged (self-proclaimed, re-invented) "whistleblower" in the office is a pathetic liar who has no business staying on the public payroll. We'd bet good money that this DOJ puts a lot more stock in the WSJ than in the NYT.
Tracking this story, I have always wondered why the "quitters" "stepped down" but "stayed on" in the office. Could not find other jobs with their so-so resumes, most likely? Or they hated Paulose with such vindictiveness that they dedicated their careers to trashing her in an effort to force her out. Either way, they look like exactly what the WSJ described today: whiners who lied, manipulated, and oppressed a young woman who moved up faster than they did or ever could.
I just read the editorial and I second the motion. Time for all the career "persecutors" to find real jobs; this taxpayer is fed up with funding their childish rants.
I don't believe the WSJ article said anything was a lie, but it did demonstrate some skepticism toward some of the claims generated in this controversy.
Post a Comment