The latest word(s) on Paulose
November 20th, 2007 – 7:00 AM by Dennis J. McGrathAfter 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?
23 Responses to "The latest word(s) on Paulose"
We gots bloggers on both the right and the left arguing about whether or not her job and personnel decisions were politically motivated . None of these people really knows.
Then we have the people from within her office who have either resigned or stepped down. They say she was far too politically motivated, among other mistakes.
Maybe they aren’t shooting straight either. But their opinions certainly carry more weight than TalkLeft or PowerLine.
Paulose’s efforts against crime were both agressive and effective. If loyalty to Bush Admin ideology was in any part to blame, it’s a tragic waste. And hardly the first one.
Certainly, Paulose’s management mistakes were the primary factor here. Being placed in charge of a U.S. Attorney’s office is not the ideal place for an inexperienced manager, and there’s little doubt that here political loyalty played a significant role in her getting the position at this time in her career.
Much ado about nothing. In fact, I would suffice to say that most people don’t care about this story.
What???? Who saw this coming. Wow. Shocking.
Hey, wasn’t this discussed in the past at this forum?
By Mark Brunswick, Star Tribune
Last update: November 20, 2007 – 11:10 PM
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie now says that he personally gave his campaign a list of participants in a state-sponsored “civic engagement” program so it could send them a campaign newsletter that asked for a political contribution.
Misterrobertgrant,
Whatchoo talkin’ about?
Is Ritchie misusing his office, even if it’s legal?
October 29th, 2007 – 11:24 PM by Dennis J. McGrath
misterrobertgrant,
Very good question. Let’s look around for a discussion about that.
Paulose defenders are coming out of the woodwork. Fun to see blogs become so popular, but they are often misused as just another propaganda source. My conservative buddies have probably already pointed that out.
But I see that they continue to defend her poor management by citing her record on crime. Seems like that would instead defend her record on crime, which really isn’t being attacked.
Let’s see how long the Red Star continues to focus on this non-story.
Great job, people.
How’s business?
Rachel P… hum, lets see
female, check
minority, check
well educated, check
young, check
change agent, check
liberal, uh, oh… i get it
no? throw her under the bus,
good job… time to celebrate!
the emperor has no clothes
You’re too smart for ‘em, Bill.
Let’s find a liberal candidate with a predisposed ideology and poor management skills who’s not quite qualified for the top job. That should put the whole controversy to rest.
(geezuss!)
wishlwuz2… oh, you mean Hillary? Of course!
Sen. Coleman’s job approval hits 53%
How about this topic Dennis, or should we continue to push this losing paper’s personal agenda?
Charles Krauthammer: Iraq is now winnable, but critics can’t say that word.
Hmmmm. Interesting.
Dennis,
How’s Mark Ritchie doing?
Hope all is well. I assume since this topic is not discussed by your fair and balanced Newspaper that everything is just fine.
Demonstrations in Gaza protest peace conference.
There are more than 40 nations involved in this historical event brokered by Bush, yet you clowns focus on 15 peta like freaks. Now why do you suppose you paper is failing?
Go Nancy Barnes!!!!
misterrobertgrant,
Bush is the second coming of Christ.
Breathing easier now?
As one of the few remaining subscibers to this rag, I value your opinion as much as I value the insightful reporting from this very reliable “news” source.
Keep fighting the facts!!
The appointment of Tim D. Wermager to a new First Judicial District trial court bench judgeship in Dakota County was announced today.
This is an outrage!!!
A white, successful, Republican attorney. Let the shelling begin.
Debate: 4 DFLers throw elbows while agreeing on a lot
‘Women for Obama’ form committees
For high court, Pawlenty picks a friend
Lott’s resignation casts a further pall over minority Republicans’ prospects
Any of you sheep see a pattern?
Dennis,
Read this headline/story and tell me if you see the hypocrisy concerning the headline I’ll post in a minute. Perhaps you could take this to your editors and show them why your paper is failing and in such pathetic shape.
Nov. 22, 2004: Wisconsin shootings kill 5 11/22/2004
Terry Collins; Chuck Haga; Larry Oakes; Chao Xiong; Richard Meryhew
This story first appeared on Nov. 22, 2004. At least five people were killed and three wounded in a multiple shooting in northwestern Wisconsin Sunday afternoon. After a confrontation over the use of a deer stand, a 36-year-old St. Paul man appare…
White hunter gets 69 years for killing Hmong man
I post this example so that when this paper is restructured, which it most certainly will be very soon, you all can sit back and reflect how each of you and your liberal thinking destroyed a once decent news source.
Dennis,
Please clarify.
Sentencing today for murder of suburban cabdriver
Sentencing is scheduled for today for Brandon Cox, the Omaha man who was convicted in the February killing of a cabdriver in Brooklyn Center.
Dennis,
I’m curious why your editors didn’t word this story differently. Perhaps, “Black man to stand trial for killing white man.” Also, will this be considered a “hate” crime?