An odd way to boost ‘morale’

By this point, we know all about the partisan, political briefings the White House conducted in government buildings for government employees, despite clear prohibitions by the Hatch Act.

The briefings were about as subtle as a sledgehammer — administration officials needed to know which congressional races were most important, so they could in turn misuse their offices to help GOP candidates in need. It’s why, at the end of one such briefing, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help “our candidates,” according to half a dozen witnesses. The Hatch Act was written to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.

That said, watching Scott Jennings, Karl Rove’s top aide, explain the purpose of the briefings yesterday struck me as quite amusing.

Today, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) took advantage of Jennings appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee to question him about the briefings. And Jennings, like Rove’s former aide Sara Taylor, was right on message.

The talking points, it is painfully apparent from both Jennings’ and Taylor’s testimony, involve heavy recycling of “thank employees,” “informational,” and “political landscape.” As in Jennings from today when Kennedy asked if he thought his briefings would help Republican candidates:

“I felt that my briefings would help boost the morale of appointees and serve to thank them for their service to the president and give them information about the political landscape for which they were trying to enact the president’s agenda.”

Now, this has always been the White House’s response. The Rove/Jennings briefings were about “team building” and “morale boosting.” Heaven forbid anyone suspect them of exerting any kind of political pressure — Jennings was reluctant to admit yesterday that specific candidates were even mentioned — because this has nothing to do with politics. It was just briefings from the White House on which races and candidates were most important to Karl Rove in upcoming election cycles. Purely informational.

But the more I think about the Bush gang’s argument, the funnier it sounds.

There are two ways to look at this — from the White House’s perspective and from the employees’ perspective.

On the prior, we’re to believe that the White House, in the middle of a war, is so deeply concerned about morale within various federal bureaucracies, that Karl Rove’s office took it upon itself to arrange detailed campaign briefings. It’s all about morale. Officials in the West Wing, who ostensibly are busy folks with huge responsibilities, are just that focused on whether middle-managers at the General Services Administration are feeling good about their jobs. From NASA to HHS to the Small Business Administration to Homeland Security, Rove was this concerned about the spirits of federal employees. What a prince.

As for the employees, why, exactly, would employees at, say, the Peace Corps feel better about their jobs based on one of these briefings? I’m hard pressed to imagine the scenario in which an employee says, “I was feeling kind of discouraged about being stuck in an ineffective and incompetent bureaucracy, but now I know that the White House is focused on Michigan’s 9th congressional district. Wow, I feel better already!” Or maybe, “I wasn’t sure if Bush appreciates my tireless service, but now I’ve been briefed on several competitive House races in Florida. Thanks, Mr. President!”

Yes, this sounds pretty silly, but this really is the Bush gang’s argument. Indeed, it’s their only defense to giving legally-dubious, partisan, political briefings to government employees in government buildings. In order to find the White House’s argument credible, you have to believe they sincerely believe that Rove was this worried about bureaucratic morale and federal employees were this easily motivated.

I’m sometimes amazed at what these folks can say with a straight face.

Jennings refused to tell Leahy what he does in his tax-payer paid job. Yes, you heard it, his job description for Karl is top secret, executive privilege type stuff. Is there no way to ever have these people taken in handcuffs? What is the endgame here as the Rethugs run out the clock on destroying our country?

(Meanwhile, good lookin’ site, CB.)

  • and how in heaven’s name would this be a morale boost to an employee who happens to be a democrat?

  • I’m sometimes amazed at what these folks can say with a straight face.

    Liars lie. These guys are liars. This isn’t news anymore.

    I’m more amazed at how Nancy Pelosi can say with a straight face that she would rather pass legislation (that everyone knows Bush will veto) than remove the criminals who have taken a jackhammer to the foundations of our democracy.

    It’s like she works for them.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/pelosi_08-02.html

  • The Hatch Act was written to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.

    Correction: The Hatch act was written to prevent that kind of abouse by FDR. IOKIYAR

  • Yes, this sounds pretty silly, but this really is the Bush gang’s argument. Indeed, it’s their only defense to giving legally-dubious, partisan, political briefings to government employees in government buildings.

    I have to differ with this comment a bit, CB. This is the jumping off point for another part of their defense. I believe I heard Mr. Jennings contend not just that these briefings were for thanking and boosting the morale of the bureaucratic troops, but this was merely a continuation of a practice that had gone on under a previous administration – meaning, I believe, Clinton.

    Just as they relentlessly contended (and continue to contend) that firing the USA’s earlier this year was no different from “what Clinton did,” they will contend that these briefings are SOP under all administrations. Now, I do not know whether this allusion by Jennings has any truth to it. I do not know whether members of Bill Clinton’s administration held similar briefings to boost morale in the bureaucratic ranks. But, I can see this strategy working with some members of the public. BushCo needs only to obfuscate this Hatch Act matter a bit to take away the slender hooks by which the public at large might grasp this story. I think the recent stories about the Roanoke, VA USA who got a call about his Oxycontin case is a much easier narrative with which to engage the public and bring them along as to how Bush and Rove set out to co-opt and corrupt the DOJ.

  • Jennings own language is bad enough.

    “help boost the morale of appointees and serve to thank them for their service to the president

    To the president?! That is so creepy….ewww.

    They are there to serve the people of the United States, not the President. He appoints them, but they don’t ‘serve’ him. Or at least they aren’t supposed to. They swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not His Royal Highness the President.

    “give them information about the political landscape for which they were trying to enact the president’s agenda.”

    So, the explicit purpose of enacting the President’s agenda is not to govern in the interests of our nation, but to maneuver on a political landscape? As government employees their primary role is to assist the President politically? They need this political information because affecting these race is the reason “for which they were trying to enact the president’s agenda”??

    Jennings is such a well-indoctrinated cadre that he can’t even spin it. Friggin’ GOP Leninists.

  • I’m obsessed with the 9th district in Michigan, but that’s because that rubberstamp Republican Knollenberg is my Rep. Honestly, this doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

  • One need not merely believe Rove was worried about bureaucrat morale, one is asked to believe that briefings on Congressional races was seen as a sensible way to do so.

    Catered lunch?
    Certificates of appreciation?
    Unpaid title promotions?
    Knocking off 20 minutes early Friday?

    Nah. Gimme a slide show about a congressman from some obscure district in Bump Huck, Kentucky.
    I guess that stuff about running government like a business isn’t always the Republican cause celebre.

  • From watching some of the Jennings testimony, I could easily see him as a one-party state type of guy. It became obvious to me that Mr. Jennings is a person who is afraid to debate issues on their merits, as he represented himself as a coward who only wants to play with the people he finds to his likings. Oh, and by the way, I found his demeanor to be incompetent. -Kevo

  • I was looking to skewer this guy, but on this issue, I see absolutely no problem with his answers. Just because any of us might not like Bush’s policies, that does not stop the fact that he is the president and that he has the right to appoint political appointees to his administration. Why should anyone be surprised that these appointees want to hear how they can better implement the president’s agenda? Change the names to your favorite president and his underlings and see if you still feel this way.

  • Comments are closed.