Rachel Paulose--Persecuted for Being An Aggressive Bush Loyalist?

Yesterday I read some things about Rachel Paulose that seemed to indicate she was a brilliant but callow youth unequipped by either training or experience to handle her job. Much like a young West Point graduate in over her head, she tried to compensate with a dictatorial style alienating all the people around her. In the Army old sergeants and captains teach young lieutenants the fine points of leadership. Nothing in her resume indicates she ever encountered a wise old sergeant. In short, it could be argued that the problems in Minneapolis are nothing more than a bright rising star running into reality. In time she will either learn how to lead or will be sent back to private practice. Nothing unusual about the situation. Every administration, indeed many organizations, have bright young stars who are pushed too far, too fast. Most of them learn. Those who don't, fail. An isolated problem. Not really tied to the US Attorney scandal.

This morning's New York Times article suggests that Justice Department headquarters sees the matter differently. Ms. Paulose has been victimized by her subordinates. According to Paulose's unnamed supporters at Justice Department headquarters, the "older lawyers had difficultly dealing with a young, aggressive woman who had tried to put into place policies important to Mr. Gonzales like programs to combat child exploitation."

In short, the problems in Minneapolis are caused by professional jealousy and immaturity on the part of the rebellious lawyers. She is just doing her job with zeal. The career professionals are rebelling against headquarters polices as much as they are rebelling against Ms. Paulose's lack of leadership skills. The employees are the problem, not the supervisor.

Three observations. First, the "rebellious" lawyers are career professionals. They have years and years of experience. They were there when Paulose arrived. They were there when her predecessor arrived. When both Ms. Paulose and Mr. Gonzales are gone in two years they will still be there. They are all smart and realize that their Paulose or Gonzales problem will be solved in time. They have been there, done that. They all know how to get along with political appointees, even aggressive political appointees.

Second, blaming the career professionals doesn't help Ms. Paulose learn to be an effective leader. In fact blaming the career professionals reflects an immaturity on the part of the Ms. Paulose’s defenders at Justice Department headquarters. Who might those defenders be? How about her former boss Paul J. McNulty. Didn't his decision to trash the fired Gonzales 8 really start Mr. Gonzales' woes. In this case the buck stops with Mr. Gonzales for not telling Paulose' unnamed defenders at Justice Department headquarters to stifle. If MrNulty is one of Ms Paulose's unnamed defenders, maybe it is time for him to go. If I were Gonzales, I would be asking for the names of the "unnamed defenders." Maybe he already knows. If so, given his tenuous hold on his department, he is a fool for allowing the comment.

Third, isn't everybody against child exploitation. Just what other department policies has she embraced with "a single-minded zeal that cost her the confidence and trust of lawyers in her office." How about prosecuting Democrats to the exclusion of Republicans? That seems to be a popular headquarters policy career professionals don't seem to embrace with much vigour. Most of the career professionals believe in the Rule of Law.