<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who is Rachel Paulose &#8212; Revisited</title>
	<atom:link href="http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/</link>
	<description>Harangues that just make sense</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:43:28 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-261129</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-261129</guid>
		<description>&quot;You don’t get a job like US Attorney without someone advocating for you, and the Star-Trib article says that Sen. Coleman’s office submitted two other names for the job (for the permanent job, not the interim job), but it still went to Paulose eventually. To turn down the home state Senator in favor of someone of the limited experience of Paulose is quite curious to me.&quot;


&lt;b&gt;Star Tribune
Last update: April 18, 2007 &lt;/b&gt;

Coleman spokesman Luke Friedrich said that he erred when he told the Star Tribune on April 10 that Paulose was not one of the two candidates Coleman recommended last year to replace Heffelfinger.

Paulose was one of those he nominated for the job, Friedrich said on Tuesday. The other person was Clayton Robinson Jr., a longtime friend of Coleman&#039;s who works as an assistant director in the Ramsey County attorney&#039;s office.

&quot;Sen. Coleman is concerned about any efforts to politicize the U.S. attorney&#039;s office, including by the House Judiciary Committee,&quot; said spokesman LeRoy Coleman. He noted that she had gotten bipartisan support from the Minnesota legal community and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in December&quot;
So, stop raising our BP by putting out inaccurate information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You don’t get a job like US Attorney without someone advocating for you, and the Star-Trib article says that Sen. Coleman’s office submitted two other names for the job (for the permanent job, not the interim job), but it still went to Paulose eventually. To turn down the home state Senator in favor of someone of the limited experience of Paulose is quite curious to me.&#8221;</p>
<p><b>Star Tribune<br />
Last update: April 18, 2007 </b></p>
<p>Coleman spokesman Luke Friedrich said that he erred when he told the Star Tribune on April 10 that Paulose was not one of the two candidates Coleman recommended last year to replace Heffelfinger.</p>
<p>Paulose was one of those he nominated for the job, Friedrich said on Tuesday. The other person was Clayton Robinson Jr., a longtime friend of Coleman&#8217;s who works as an assistant director in the Ramsey County attorney&#8217;s office.</p>
<p>&#8220;Sen. Coleman is concerned about any efforts to politicize the U.S. attorney&#8217;s office, including by the House Judiciary Committee,&#8221; said spokesman LeRoy Coleman. He noted that she had gotten bipartisan support from the Minnesota legal community and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in December&#8221;<br />
So, stop raising our BP by putting out inaccurate information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Maviva</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-260150</link>
		<dc:creator>Al Maviva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-260150</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;But, what it does suggest is a lack of “adult supervision” of the inexperienced “kids” at play at the top of DOJ. &lt;/i&gt;

You are going to find a lot of things like this in D.C.  Government work for most politicals is a cash-in opportunity.  You have very young Hill staffers doing committee work, based on their in-depth experience of frat service day, and a year or two on the Hill.  You have 25 year-old lawyers who land a good federal clerkship, roll into an honors program for a year or two, work at a top tier firm for a year, then bounce into an assistance secretary position, then roll out of government just as fast to cash in.  It is a cult of youth.  Couple that with the Texas inner circle at the top - which has some first raters but an awful lot of second or third tier minds - and you have a recipe for a loss of control, major confusion and a lack of accountability.  I&#039;ve also heard a lot about the WH staff having had little turnover for 6+ years, and just being &#039;tired.&#039;  Apparently so, and in the case of DOJ I suspect that they are reluctant to trifle with the Bestest Lawyer in the Country. 

And just to throw a few more logs on the bonfire, this isn&#039;t the last time you are going to see this.  Many of the Dem Hill staffers likely to come in with President Hillary will have been seasoned for a year or two in the Dem congress, at best, and will bring their considerable wisdom and experience to bear in the same manner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>But, what it does suggest is a lack of “adult supervision” of the inexperienced “kids” at play at the top of DOJ. </i></p>
<p>You are going to find a lot of things like this in D.C.  Government work for most politicals is a cash-in opportunity.  You have very young Hill staffers doing committee work, based on their in-depth experience of frat service day, and a year or two on the Hill.  You have 25 year-old lawyers who land a good federal clerkship, roll into an honors program for a year or two, work at a top tier firm for a year, then bounce into an assistance secretary position, then roll out of government just as fast to cash in.  It is a cult of youth.  Couple that with the Texas inner circle at the top &#8211; which has some first raters but an awful lot of second or third tier minds &#8211; and you have a recipe for a loss of control, major confusion and a lack of accountability.  I&#8217;ve also heard a lot about the WH staff having had little turnover for 6+ years, and just being &#8216;tired.&#8217;  Apparently so, and in the case of DOJ I suspect that they are reluctant to trifle with the Bestest Lawyer in the Country. </p>
<p>And just to throw a few more logs on the bonfire, this isn&#8217;t the last time you are going to see this.  Many of the Dem Hill staffers likely to come in with President Hillary will have been seasoned for a year or two in the Dem congress, at best, and will bring their considerable wisdom and experience to bear in the same manner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vnjagvet</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-260094</link>
		<dc:creator>vnjagvet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-260094</guid>
		<description>I should have added that I, like Captain Reynault, am &quot;shocked, shocked&quot; by this development.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should have added that I, like Captain Reynault, am &#8220;shocked, shocked&#8221; by this development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vnjagvet</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-260093</link>
		<dc:creator>vnjagvet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:11:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-260093</guid>
		<description>This is, unfortunately, an example of the spoils system in its Republican form.  Face it.  The Republicans have constituencies which want to see young men and women of the &quot;proper&quot; ideological credentials and other characteristics get to the top, just like the Democrats do.  This has happened during previous administrations of both parties.  And with US Attorneys too.

I wonder when both parties will honestly admit that they indulge in affirmative action at all levels of appointive positions -- even at the cabinet level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is, unfortunately, an example of the spoils system in its Republican form.  Face it.  The Republicans have constituencies which want to see young men and women of the &#8220;proper&#8221; ideological credentials and other characteristics get to the top, just like the Democrats do.  This has happened during previous administrations of both parties.  And with US Attorneys too.</p>
<p>I wonder when both parties will honestly admit that they indulge in affirmative action at all levels of appointive positions &#8212; even at the cabinet level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew J. Lazarus</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-260076</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew J. Lazarus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-260076</guid>
		<description>You&#039;ve made a good case that Monica Goodling was Paulose&#039;s champion. I think, however, that it&#039;s unlikely that Sampson was responsible for placing Goodling in her position. I suspect he was told to take her. I would look instead to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;senior members of the Bush Administration from Regent University&lt;/a&gt; as &lt;i&gt;Goodling&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; champions. Goodling also had credit with Darth Rove, having worked in oppo research earlier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;ve made a good case that Monica Goodling was Paulose&#8217;s champion. I think, however, that it&#8217;s unlikely that Sampson was responsible for placing Goodling in her position. I suspect he was told to take her. I would look instead to the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full" rel="nofollow">senior members of the Bush Administration from Regent University</a> as <i>Goodling&#8217;s</i> champions. Goodling also had credit with Darth Rove, having worked in oppo research earlier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: semanticleo</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-260069</link>
		<dc:creator>semanticleo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-260069</guid>
		<description>This whole thing is redolent of Abu Gharib, wherein,
when blame is assigned, it is to the lower echelon.

Will the ball of contention roll only to Sampson&#039;s?  Will the firing of Iglesias be lain at the feet of the hapless Domenici, or Heather Wilson?

That seems to be the end game here. It is clear Domenici had designs on removal.  He got it.
Quid Pro Quo?  Curiouser and curiouser.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole thing is redolent of Abu Gharib, wherein,<br />
when blame is assigned, it is to the lower echelon.</p>
<p>Will the ball of contention roll only to Sampson&#8217;s?  Will the firing of Iglesias be lain at the feet of the hapless Domenici, or Heather Wilson?</p>
<p>That seems to be the end game here. It is clear Domenici had designs on removal.  He got it.<br />
Quid Pro Quo?  Curiouser and curiouser.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MayBee</title>
		<link>http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/comment-page-1/#comment-260057</link>
		<dc:creator>MayBee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patterico.com/2007/04/16/who-is-rachel-paulose-revisisted/#comment-260057</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;To me, that reflects a lack of judgment and seasoning.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Ok, and....???
Maybe we should go over the US Attorney appointments for the past 20 years to see if this actually means anything, in context.  Is she the first or only USA that seemed light in resume at the time of her appointment?
I&#039;m of the opinion that one can turn anything into a scandal.  I wonder what those that have turned &lt;i&gt;this&lt;/i&gt; into a scandal are hoping to gain (or divert attention from).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>To me, that reflects a lack of judgment and seasoning.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ok, and&#8230;.???<br />
Maybe we should go over the US Attorney appointments for the past 20 years to see if this actually means anything, in context.  Is she the first or only USA that seemed light in resume at the time of her appointment?<br />
I&#8217;m of the opinion that one can turn anything into a scandal.  I wonder what those that have turned <i>this</i> into a scandal are hoping to gain (or divert attention from).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
