The Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen suggest in an interesting piece today that the [tag]prosecutor[/tag] [tag]purge[/tag] scandal has helped “transform” Washington politics.
Republicans are fretting, and Democrats are fantasizing, about what the debacle foretells for the next year and half.
“We’ve only had subpoena power for the last six weeks and every tree that we’ve barked up so far has had a cat in it,” said a senior Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly. “Imagine where we’ll be after six months.”
That’s true, but I also wonder where we would have been after six years of subpoena power.
A friend of mine called me last night and asked what this purge scandal is all about. She’d heard a bit about it, but didn’t see what the big deal was and wanted to hear to the whole story. After I explained it, she said, “What made them [administration officials] think they could get away with this? Didn’t they think someone would notice?”
I’ve been mulling over this scandal for several weeks now, but the question caught me slightly off-guard. What did make the Bush gang think they could a) politicize U.S. Attorneys’ offices; b) fire those who failed to play ball; and c) lie about it?
The only explanation I can think of is that the Bush gang has been getting away with it for six years and became so arrogant, they were no longer worried about getting caught.
Think about how many scandalous stories we’ve heard since Bush took office, controversies that, under normal circumstances, would have led to hearings, resignations, special prosecutors, congressional investigations, etc. I suspect we’ve all lost count by now.
But to borrow the metaphor from The Politico article, the White House and its Republican-led Congress knew that Dems could bark at every tree, but without a ladder, it wouldn’t make much difference. With that in mind, why not start purging prosecutors? As far as Bush’s White House and Justice Department were concerned, they’d already gotten away with similar conduct before.
Indeed, let’s not forget that this scandal almost didn’t happen. The purge occurred last December, appropriately enough, on December 7 (a day that will live in infamy?). It generated exactly zero headlines. Some local media outlets took note of individual prosecutors offering their “resignations,” but no one noticed the larger trend. There was no outrage from Democrats on the Hill, no media interest, and no controversy. The process unfolded exactly as the Bush gang had hoped.
A week later, some blogs noticed an article out of Arkansas that said Bud Cummins had been replaced with a Karl Rove protege. Odd, some folks thought.
Two weeks later, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the “Bush administration has quietly asked San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, best known for her high-profile prosecutions of politicians and corporate executives, to resign her post.” Hmm.
Then there was another in Nevada. Some Dems started to take note, but more because of the confirmation process, not because of the broader pattern, which still hadn’t emerged.
Paul Krugman and the blogs noticed what was going on here, but as Time’s Jay Carney acknowledged this week, the rest of the media thought the story was meaningless. Dems on the Hill were “concerned,” but the story wasn’t a priority.
I mention this not to give the blogosphere another pat on the back, but to note that the White House came this close to getting away with yet another scandal. No one even thought to bark at the tree; they didn’t know to look for a cat.
What made them administration officials think they could get away with this? They grew accustomed to accountability-free politics. And even in this case, that arrogance was almost proven right.