I was chatting with a friend last weekend and he mentioned, not at all off-handedly, that he sat beside Hans von Spakovsky during a recent luncheon. My friend is a lawyer who regularly does election law for his big corporate overlords. I will refer to him as Corpulent Juris. For those of you who need a refresher, von Spakovsky is the Civil Rights Division muck up who was up in front of the Senate on Wednesday trying to win approval to serve on the Federal Election Commission.
CJ said that Hans "is even more dislikable in person than his picture, or his name, suggests."
Really? Go on...
"He was a smug, I'm smarter that you, sanctimonious puke."
Is this true? I have no doubt that he is smarter than my friend. Being the 'smartest guy in the room' in a room that includes CJ is (as the old phrase says) like being the world's tallest midget. But is Hans von Spicklehammer a dislikable sanctimonious puke?
Mike Pitts says "Yes!" Rick Hansen posted a letter from Pitts over at Election Law Blog on Thursday. Pitts, who is now an assistant professor of law at Indiana University, is also a former DOJ civil rights attorney who worked under von Spastic. He writes that he hadn't really opposed Hans' nomination until he watched the hearings and read the letter his former colleagues had sent in opposition to von Spittakes' nomination to a full term.
Pitts says that there are three reasons to "question Hans' fitness to serve on the Federal Election Commission": his lack of open-mindedness, his "needlessly antagonistic" managerial style, and his "targeting" of those who disagree with him.
Describing the antagonistic managerial style, Pitts says:
If one were to subpoena the e-mails Hans sent to career lawyers it would be clear...that he was typically an advocate for a particular viewpoint, actively worked to convince his superiors (to the extent they needed to be convinced) of his viewpoint, and did this in a very hostile, adversarial, and slash-and-burn manner. When Senator Feinstein asked Hans why so many career lawyers had signed a letter opposing his nomination...in my opinion, a truthful answer would have been: Because I was a real jerk to a lot of career people."
But, then, Pitts also says that Hans' antagonism "stood in contrast to his affability on a more personal level". Which now just makes me question Corpulent Juris' entire characterization of his discussion with the man.
CJ said that he asked von Spksvmelijy about the controversy surrounding his tenure at the DOJ. Hans' response was that "it's very typical of Democrats to criticize the voting rights policy of a Republican administration."
What a puke.
