Open season on Mike Brown

September 9, 2005

The revelations about FEMA Director Mike Brown’s background in yesterday’s New Republic were, alas, not the end of the story.

Since Hurricane Katrina, the FEMA director has come under heavy criticism for his performance and scrutiny of his background. Now, an investigation by Time has found discrepancies in his online legal profile and official bio, including a description of Brown released by the White House at the time of his nomination in 2001 to the job as deputy chief of FEMA.

“Discrepancies” is a very charitable way of saying that Brown lied about his professional career. Badly.

Brown said he “oversaw” the emergency services division for the city of Edmond, Okla. The truth is he was an intern for the city manager. Brown claims to have been an award-winning poli sci professor for Central State University. The truth is he not only didn’t win any awards for his teaching, he never taught at the school at all.

There’s more than just the political embarrassment here. Mark Kleiman suggests knowingly falsifying one’s background for a senior administration job is a felony.

So, he’s a gonner right? Slate’s John Dickerson explained well yesterday that Brown does serve one valuable purpose — by taking a beating, Brown is helping keep some heat off of Bush.

The only functional responsibility Brown retains is that of chief punching bag: Editorial writers and politicians continue to call for his head, and petitions on the Internet advocating his resignation or dismissal flourish. […]

If Brown hasn’t yet packed up his “me” wall, it may be because of his political utility as a scapegoat. As a focal point of public rage, Brown remains useful to Bush as a fall guy.

There’s a limit to this, of course, because after a while, questions will become burdensome to the White House about why the president keeps an incompetent around in such a key position. But in the meantime, it helps explain why “Brownie” has lasted this long.

And we can all thank Joe Lieberman for this idiot, too.

I think there should be legal penalties for not checking the resumes of people applying for positions such as this. This is a deadly serious screwup on the part of Lieberman, and of course criminal incompetence (at best) by BushCo.

  • “after a while, questions will become burdensome to the White House about why the president keeps an incompetent around in such a key position. But in the meantime, it helps explain why “Brownie” has lasted this long.”

    Yes, but how does it explain how “Bushie” has lasted this long?

  • Sorry, had to come back and post this. You’ll enjoy it if your a fan of Steve Carrell and “The Office”.

    “Brown’s biography on the FEMA Web site said he had once served as an “assistant city manager with emergency services oversight,” but Time quoted an official in Edmond, Oklahoma, as saying the job was actually “assistant to the city manager,” with little responsibility.”

  • Thing is, though, the President can take heat off himself by making a good personnel decision and replacing Brown with someone who is qualified and experienced. And, in so doing, he’d give the impression that he’s a leader. Right now, Brown’s continued presence makes Bush look weak and corrupt, just like Rove’s continued presence after having been discovered as the leaker of Plame’s CIA status.

    The “punching bag” analogy is plausible, but I keep sensing something more behind this. Remember that Brown was hired into a patronage gig first and foremost, and not because Bush anticipated needing someone to take heat for a potential future mistake. In other words, Brown may still be hanging in there because he has allies that Bush fears offending. Or, maybe, Bush really does have a bizarre loyalty bond with those he adopts as clients–regardless of what happens, the worst thing is to betray a client. As long as Brown is loyal to Bush, Bush will stand up for his guy.

    Anyway, there seems to be parallels between Rove and Brown that preclude the punching bag comparison.

  • All true…

    But remember two things:

    1) “Brownie is doing a heck of a job”
    2) Bush’s psyche.

    Added together you get…

    A stubborn unwillingness to listen to the will of the people that borders on megalomania.

    I liken Bush’s posture to that of a Mafia Don who absolutely insists on having things his way. He hates to lose any battle of the wills, –even when he is dead wrong.

    So I argue that Bush wants desperately to keep Brownie.
    It is completely out of character, and against his inner will to fire him.

    Mafia Dons give orders and criticism, they don’t take them in….

    Consider for example Bush’s recent private meeting with New Orleans Major Nagin:

    Prior to the meeting Nagin had been absolutely livid with the federal government. So then… what was said in their private conversation that so shut Nagin’s criticism down? It is as if Nagin emerged from that face to face with his balls cut off.

    Bush hates to lose.
    Hates to be told what to do.
    Hates to be criticized.

    He is the Capo di tutti capi.

    So standing down on Brownie will make Bush sore-eyed, even vicious.

    All told: When Pelosi said Bush was “Oblivious, in denial, dangerous.”

    She was only 1/3 right.

    He is Dangerous.
    As dangerous as a mafia don.

    God only knows what sort of knives and axes this thug waves under the table…

  • I think this works in Bush’s favor, if I understand
    the facts correctly. Instead of being guilty of
    hiring a complete incompetent, Bush was
    bamboozled by the guy’s resume. So Bush,
    if Rove orders him to fire the guy, looks good
    in the public’s eye. Whatever, Brown is
    clearly serving a political purpose, in that
    eveyone is focusing on him and not the
    real villain.

    At least Rumsfeld was a big fish, when everyone
    called for his resignation. This guy’s a guppy.

    • Comments are closed.