The latest word(s) on Paulose
After Rachel Paulose’s resignation as U.S. Attorney for Minnesota yesterday, the Left celebrated and blamed the Bush administration for a politically-grounded appointment that was bound to fail.
The Right blamed her departure on a media lynching.
And a non-partisan, offering a more temperate view, blamed it on the common mistakes of an inexperienced supervisor.
Here’s a sample of what the bloggers had to say last night and this morning.
U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose |
TPMmuckraker
“It’s not a promotion — it’s a way out.”
TalkLeft:
“Now, how hard was that? Should have been done months ago.”
Norwegianity:
“Only with the Bushies do failures fall upwards. Pathetic.”
Power Line’s Scott Johnson, a friend of Paulose, reacting to an early StarTribune.com story about her resignation:
“Let’s see. She’s a Republican. (The position of United States Attorney is a political appointmet.) She was appointed to the position by the Bush administration. (No one other than the president and the Attorney General had the legal authority to make the appointment.) She knew Monica Goodling. (Liberals used to oppose guilty by association.) And former United States Attorney Tom Heffelfinger might have been fired if he had not resigned when he did. I understand completely.”
Lazy Gopher Pachyderm blames the media and Sen. Norm Coleman for abandoning her:
“Minnesota Republicans’ own wind-tossed strand of boiled linguini, U.S. Senator Norm Coleman, abandoned Rachel Paulose, his successful nominee for the U.S. attorney’s office in St. Paul. Bowing to unsubstantiated, even false media speculation, Coleman pulled his support, which I’m guessing is what likely led to the end of her tenure in St. Paul.”
Indiablogs:
“After the New York Times hatchet job on Rachel Paulose last week, we never had any doubt that her departure was imminent.”
Mark Cohen at Minnesota Lawyer blog says that Paulose is smart, charming, conservative in belief but not political in how she ran the office. He says she was neither the Wicked Witch her detractors claimed nor the St. Rachel that conservatives held her up to be:
“It has always been my belief that it was a management situation causing the disruptions at the office. Paulose has sterling academic credentials and a highly impressive resume for her age. But she had little real management experience.
“Intent on impressing her bosses and no doubt believing in her priorities, she plowed ahead and redirected the office without getting buy-in from the troops. She was also reportedly sometimes dictatorial in manner and abrasive toward subordinates. These are rookie mistake frequently made by inexperienced managers. But when that manager is in charge of 100 talented individuals at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and operating in a fishbowl, there is little room for error.”
What’s your analysis?