« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
It's the Bush administration's special approach to accountability: stand staunchly beside an administration official as the allegations pile up and his or her credibility dwindles to nothing, and then months later -- long after the administration could derive any credit for the deed, and it is widely assumed that they are content to let the official fester in office for the duration -- the official abruptly and inexplicably resigns. So it was with Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales. And yesterday General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan stepped down.
But Doan, who gained mucky prominence for her clueless cronyism, wants everybody to know that she's not stepping down voluntarily. She was fired. And not only was she fired, but she was fired because she refused to cave to political pressure. Or something.
"I would rather get fired for something I believe in, and a cause I was willing to fight for, rather than to believe in nothing worth being fired for." That's what Doan told Government Executive in an email last night. It's far from clear precisely what this "something" she believes in is.
What we do know is that last June, the Office of Special Counsel recommended to the White House that Doan be fired for violating the Hatch Act. And that same month, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) told Doan to her face during a House oversight committee hearing that she should resign. And now, nearly a year later, the White House summons her for a meeting and asks for her resignation.
To refresh your memory on Doan's parade of horribles: her Golden-Duke-nomination-worthy testimony came in response to a meeting in early 2007, where Karl Rove's aide Scott Jennings came to brief GSA staff on the prospects for Republicans in the 2008 elections. The PowerPoint presentation detailed which seats were "House Targets" and which "Senate Targets", which states were "Republican Offense," and which "Republican Defense." For those who've never witnessed this proud moment in administration history, Doan's initial blubbering testimony on the topic is worth a watch:
After the presentation, Doan asked Jennings in front of everyone how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates." Jennings replied that topic should be discussed "off-line," the witnesses said. Doan then replied, "Oh, good, at least as long as we are going to follow up." At least, that's the version given by "half a dozen witnesses" to The Washington Post and the Office of Special Counsel. Doan just couldn't remember saying anything like that.
And then there was Doan's alleged retaliation against employees who gave information to the Office of Special Counsel. Those were poor performers, she told investigators, and "[u]ntil extensive rehabilitation of their performance occurs, they will not be getting promoted and will not be getting bonuses or special awards or anything of that nature." In another cringe-inducing turn before Waxman's committee, Doan tried to explain away that comment by saying she had been employing the "hortatory subjunctive" -- an explanation remarkable for not only failing to exculpate her, but also being grammatically incorrect.
We'll miss you, Lurita.
Update: Government Executive reports that the timing of Doan's resignation might have something to do with her ongoing feud with the GSA's inspector general.
Josh
Zachary
Ding-Dong. One down.
April 30, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goodbye Lurita...
May 1, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite the e-mail, considering her availability for indictment under the Hatch Act. She either (a) failed to run her e-mail by her attorneys, (b) did run the e-mail by her attorneys and has stupid attorneys. Or maybe there is a (c): she is as fearful of indictment as I am of getting hit by a comet ridden by a leprechaun named Toby.
April 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will a Grand Jury be looking into this? Will there be any follow up? This woman should be prosecuted for breaking the law!
Does anybody believe in accountability anymore?
-- ARG
April 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's time for her to have a few more privat conversations with members of congressional committees regarding Karl Rove's involvement in the politicalization of the GSA via powerpoint presentations about how the GSA can assist Republican members of congress and or Republican candidates in general.
April 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
so i just watched her testimony for the first time...
goodness gracious what a crook. what buffoonery. if 'stupidity' could be harnessed as a energy source she'd be the new saudi arabia.
April 30, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I whole-heartedly agree with ARG. There's a weird looking-glass world in DC - this woman testifies months (years?) ago, her testimony CLEARLY shows she broke the law in the use of her office, and then.....the silence is deafening. I sit back, thinking, well, now they'll prosecute her for this....nothing.
We've seen this happen over and over again - Waxman or someone else holding hearings that parade pathetic lawbreakers in front of our eyes. Congressmen get to look bold as they as sharp questions.
Then the assholes dance away. No one is ever held accountable.
Where are Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton>
Hah.
April 30, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The important item to note is that the new improved democrat congress and presidential candidates have jumped on the bandwagon and have decided to put rules into effect which mandates the upcoming appointees are not just chosen because of their 100% support, but also due to their expertise in the job for which they are being appointed.
Oops... I forgot... that will never happen, will it?
The central problems will remain the same because the same mob will be in office... it will just be a different branch...
April 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are those two thugs sitting behind her?
They look like they're from central casting placed as low level mafioso goons.
April 30, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
her attorneys and she called on them a few times.
a lot of good they did her. She did look sharp trying to bob and weave her way around the interview. Can we say a crook and liar? The whole bunch of them, from the top down.
April 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly believe that the "something she believes in" is advancing the Republican party and fighting to keep lesbians from working in government. THIS IS NOT SNARK. However snark-worthy and despicable she may be, she is, in fact, proud of her crimes. To her, her crimes are "ethical" and "moral."
She doesn't even understand the extent to which she is a corrupt, smirking hack.
April 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm at a loss as to how any Bush appointee can be willing to remain in office. This long parade of criminals placed in office by Bush surely tells everyone that every single oneof Bush's appointees is a crook. Those appointees have to realize this too - they all stand exposed as crooks. Not intelligent crooks, either. Masochists? Probably that explains it.
April 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you know???...Pelosi did away with accountability when she said "impeachment is off the table". She competes big time with Bush as the biggest trasher of our constitution. So why blab about this little buffoonish partison paper cut out who has Pelosi as her guardian angel.
April 30, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hortatory subjunctive???"
Can't we impeach her for crimes against grammar? While we're at it, add Bush in there too.
April 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha...good one ! (-:
April 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel almost as ill watching the video reprise of this smirking snot's testimony as I did when I first saw it.
I have tried to accept the reality that absolutely nothing will be done about the fact that the government has been highjacked from top to bottom by delusional small minded louts. They have, and will, continue to throw the feces in our faces.
I often post cracks about "nothing shy of a revolution" will alter the inevitable repercussions to come for generations. Indeed, I think these brazen cons know just that; we are not truly the sorts to throw the bums out and that's what it would take. God knows, our representatives won't due anything other than try to shame the offending parties (party) publicly. THAT will show 'em!
Hell.
April 30, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ONLY question I have is why it took the WH this long to get rid of her?
April 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'something she believes in' appears to be removing oversight from govt. procurement bids; questions were raised about a Sun Microsystems contract that was alleged to be inflated by several million dollars--from Sourcewatch:
Her high-horse letter to Sen Grassley is beautiful double-talk, where she takes the position that oversight is nice in theory, but not necessary, and actually 'dangerous' to the process. Also, political pressure is something that someone else applies, but surely not her!
Also, there was a matter of a $20,000 no-bid contract she illegally gave a friend.
No matter--clearly well versed in the art of pork (as is her husband, Douglas, a veteran DHS porker), and Bush Pioneer donor to the tune of $220,000, she will continue to find ways to 'help our candidates,' wherever she may land.
April 30, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it's depressing to think that she's not in leg irons, this RedState post from just prior to her testimony brightens my day.
Doan has put together a comprehensive defense -- her opening statement totals more than 6,000 words -- and has said for weeks she welcomes the opportunity to set the record straight. Having met Doan earlier this month, I think Waxman will have his hands full this morning. This woman means business.
The comments are great too.
April 30, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
the second paragraph was supposed to be in blockquote as well- while I may be stupid enough to screw up the coding, I'm not stupid enough to defend Doan.
April 30, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I worked for GSA for 25 years, and we had a saying about changes of Administration: "Same circus, different clowns."
The sub-Cabinet-level agencies usually end up with the dregs of the political appointees, no matter which party is in town.
April 30, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on, it was worth it in entertainment value alone. Especially after she immediately got an improvised grammar lecture from Rep. Sarbanes, who apparently majored in Obscure English Language Moods in college.
April 30, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, sorry, that was supposed to be in response to lenko's comment about the hortatory subjunctive.
Let us all resolve to use the hortatory subjunctive today, in commemoration of Doan's exit from government service!
April 30, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's only one of many of the Bush "Stepford Wives" running public agencies. What matters is not their competence or their desire to serve the public good, but their blind allegiance to Bush & Co.
May 1, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink