Your tax dollars at work, people. (NPR):
The Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating whether a career attorney in the department was dismissed from her job because of rumors that she is a lesbian. The case grew out of a larger inquiry into the firings of U.S. attorneys and politicization at Justice under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.Who pulled the trigger on Hagen’s dismissal? The fun is after the jump.Several people interviewed by the inspector general’s staff described the case to NPR and said they came away with the impression that the Attorney General’s office decided not to renew Leslie Hagen’s contract because of the talk about her sexual orientation. Hagen received the highest possible ratings for her work as liaison between the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys’ committee on Native American issues. Her final job evaluation lists five categories for supervisors to rank her performance. For each category, a neat X fills the box marked, “Outstanding.” And at the bottom of the page, under “overall rating level,” she also got the top mark: Outstanding.
Why it was Alberto “Liar” Gonzales’s hatchet gal, the highly qualified Regent University Law School-educated Monica Goodling. The Bushies were already weeding out the Democratsin tha ranks of the DOJ, but apparently being a suspected lesbian was so dangerous to the work environment and productivity that Hagen simply had to go.
Goodling’s conversation with Scott focused on whether Republican Party loyalty factored into her hiring decisions. But by all accounts, Hagen was a GOP loyalist.Howie Klein paused to make this observation:So, what was Goodling’s problem with Hagen?
The Justice Department’s inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian.
As one Republican source put it, “To some people, that’s even worse than being a Democrat.”
Hagen was suspected of possibly being a lesbian. “People who know Hagen say she’s a private person who does not discuss her personal life.” There are still self-loathing gays and lesbians, though not many, who vote for Republicans. I met one the other day. He told me the Democrats will raise his taxes– he’s a corporate executive who makes far more than is reasonable– and that he’s voting for McCain who, he thinks, will lower his taxes further. And when I told him that McCain has a virulently anti-gay voting record and will be indebted to anti-gay bigots like John Hagee if he’s elected, this guy says “that kind of stuff only applies to poor gays, not us” and that he doesn’t care.Also:
* The Bush Administration Has 150+ Appointees From Televangelist’s Pat Robertson’s Law School
* see Nancy P.’s diary on this.
49 Responses to “Fundie Bushie sniffed out rumored lesbian at DOJ”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I wish I could say I am shocked and surprised at this behavior–sadly, this is just business as usual for this group of ass-gaskets.
The friend who plans to vote for McCain is not necessarily “self-loathing”. He simply values the governmental support for his economic self-interest above its support (or condemnation) of his sexual orientation. He assumes that his relative wealth will insulate him from any sanctions a McCain led government can bring against him. You could condemn him as selfish bastard but not irrational.
The phrase “makes far more than is reasonable” is an interesting turn also. Who is to determine what is reasonable, whatever the guy does?
The main topic, the politicization of the Justice Department, has been going on from the beginning of the Bush Administration. I certainly hope that if and when the Dems take over that the tables won’t just reverse. If a fundie Christian is doing his/her work well and the private belief system does not interfere with it, I hope our guys don’t toss that person out too.
I certainly hope that if and when the Dems take over that the tables won’t just reverse. If a fundie Christian is doing his/her work well and the private belief system does not interfere with it, I hope our guys don’t toss that person out too.
total strawman. point to one instance in the usa where someone has been fired for being a fundamentalist christian.
This describes every New England Republican (except a handful of crazy ones) that I know. Nevermind the connection that GOP privatization schemes and debt spending result in necessary increases in taxes to balance the budget… it’s all psychological. Dems = taxes.
Isn’t turnover of Justice Dept. officials standard at the beginning of a new term when the opposing party wins elections? I would assume that practice is ubiquitous among senior positions and not just characteristic of the multiple regional US Attorneys General. I think the issue of concern for most Dem politicians would be that the people in Justice are Republicans, not their religious affiliation… though I could just imagine that being some sort of litmus test for the pro-religious pol to prove he/she is religion-friendly.
A fine example of the positive impact that Regent University graduates are trained to bring into government service. Like Nixon and his Jews, the bête noire of today’s neocons are the GLBTs undermining America’s rebirth as a Christian Nation. What else would one expect from what is essentially a Christian diploma mill. Regent graduates are better qualified for litigating the frivolous cases championed by the Thomas Moore Law Center.
“that kind of stuff only applies to poor [X]s, not us” is the Republican operant mindset. Xs can be gays, dems, minorities, woman, doesn’t matter. If you’re rich and any one of these, you’re in the club, but have a few “quirks”.
“Stuff” in this context also means laws.
deep6,
The problem with the non-renewal of the lawyer in this case was that she was describes as a “career attorney in the department”, which means that her continued employment should NOT have anything to do with politics of any kind. Upper levels certainly rotate out when administrations change, but this administration has reached far below the levels of party turnover.
I’m not saying it has. I’m suggesting that the Bush administration’s use of political, sexual and religious considerations for hiring and continued employment for supposedly non-political positions in the Justice Department is unprecedented. I’m expressing a hope that Dems won’t follow the same methodology, with simply different litmus tests. If some Reagant U. grad has performed well in a “career position” I hope he/she isn’t tossed for political reasons. I only used the “fundie Christian” example as the most despised type around here.
deep6, there are a large number of positions that are supposed to be insulated from these political considerations. One of the reasons Ms. Goodling demended immunity during her testimony before Congress was because some of her hiring decisions ran afoul of the Hatch Act, which is supposed to protect members of the civil service (even within the justice department) from being hired or fired for political considerations.
I don’t know the laws that specifically covered Ms. Hagen’s job, but her job is referred to as a “career attorney” position, AND the inspector general is involved, so it’s pretty clear that her job was supposed to be protected from the whims of the fundamentalists.
On a more general note, the problem here is that there are a lot of cases of politicall-motivated hiring and firing within the civil service that HAVEN’T been discovered or prosecuted during the past 7 years, and these less-than-qualified sleeper agents are now posted all through the government, and we will have a hard time getting rid of them. This causes a lot of long term damage, as anyone who lives in DC can tell you, as the same problem occurred during Marion Barry’s mayoralship, which stacked the local government with unqualified patronage give-aways, who are now secure in their position for the rest of their careers.
Civil service laws were created specifically to prevent the sort of damage that Ms. goodling has caused.
Though importantly, “fundamental Christian” is a set of beliefs whereas sexual orientation is not. Ones beliefs might be important or relevant to the job or that might contradict with the mission of the Justice Department. Who one goes home to at night does not, unless you wish to have an official policy of discrimination in which case–be clear about it. Now, if your beliefs do not interfere with your job then fine. But it’s a bit specious to act as if those two things are identical.
I’m suggesting that the Bush administration’s use of political, sexual and religious considerations for hiring and continued employment for supposedly non-political positions in the Justice Department is unprecedented. I’m expressing a hope that Dems won’t follow the same methodology, with simply different litmus tests.
well that sounds like concern trolling to me. is there any evidence to suggest that the dems have done this in the past or are determined to do this in the future?
seriously, someone gets fired from her federal government job, possibly due to discrimination on the basis of her orientation, or more accurately office gossip about her orientation, and the best you can manage is concern that the dems not do this?!
Actually, “SixtiesLiberal”, it would only help the government and the civil service if Democrats used the force of the law to investigate who, exactly, was inappropriately hired in violation of the Hatch Act and force all of these people to reapply for their jobs. If they aren’t qualified for their jobs compared to competing candidates, they shouldn’t be rehired.
First, this will purge the stain on the civil service caused by Ms. Goodling and her cohorts, and next it will be a “show of force” to demonstrate that there are consequences to violating civil service laws.
We are still living with the consequences of not sufficiently punishing and purging holdovers from the nixon administration, so I think vigilance is warranted.
Tyro, I think that kind of review would be useful. I do think some care should be taken not to back door political considerations in the evaluations of “qualified”. I’m not quite so confident of the purity of heart of Democrats as others are..
Really? Nixon resigned in ‘74, so the youngest of his DOJ hires would have been ‘73 law school graduates at the latest, making them 60 years old now at least. Are there really any career hires that have been there that long which have caused damaging consequences?
I’m suggesting that the Bush administration’s use of political, sexual and religious considerations for hiring and continued employment for supposedly non-political positions in the Justice Department is unprecedented.
Which is funny, because it actually is precedented.
Weeding out the ‘homosexuals’ working in the government was a big part of the purges of the McCarthy era.
My first thought upon hearing about this was that what we all joke about really has come to pass — the right wing really is scaling back civil rights by 60 years.
What did Lenin say? “Constant pressure, constantly applied.”
Is a “SixtiesLiberal” really that naive?
How about this one? : “Deny, Degrade, and Destroy.”
Though importantly, “fundamental Christian” is a set of beliefs whereas sexual orientation is not. Ones beliefs might be important or relevant to the job or that might contradict with the mission of the Justice Department.
Actually, I believe the Civil Rights Act prohibits termination on the basis of religion. So, A) what I quoted above is totally wrongheaded, and B) no, actually, there is no way in hell that the Democrats would openly fire anyone on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is not covered by the Civil Rights Act.
Yes, you too can lose your job if it is rumored that you are homersexual. Spend too much time not yukking it up with the menz makes you a lezzie. Outing 241 at Storefront U teaches you to find all those evil homersexuals. Just look for the competent ones. They don’t have kids or dream of Prince Charming so they has to be gay. Intellectual proficiency is the work of the metrosexual homersexual community! If they were straight, they’d be in foootball or cheerleaders (gender normative). Having an IQ in the high triples guarantees homersexual tendencies.
Besides, if the smart kids are gone, we can pick our friends to work here.
Are there really any career hires that have been there that long which have caused damaging consequences?
I don’t know about the DOJ, but I’ll give you a softball.Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Now, about those damaging consequences……
I love the smell of lesbian in the morning.
“Nixon resigned in ‘74, so the youngest of his DOJ hires would have been ‘73 law school graduates at the latet, making them 60 years old now at least.”
Because the pus was never fully drained from the Nixon boil, there have been wingnuts ever since who have promoted the idea that he had exactly the right techniques but was stopped inappropriately by The Traitorous Libruls.
While the youngest wingnuts don’t have first-hand knowledge of Nixon, there are plenty of older Nixon hands that have maintained political careers, waiting for their chance to rise again. And then Bush Jr. came along…
well that sounds like concern trolling to me. is there any evidence to suggest that the dems have done this…and the best you can manage is concern …
In that case, isn’t the whole post a concern then? There isn’t any proof,just speculation, that this woman was fired because she’s a lesbian.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
Anyone else remember the commercial jingle from years ago?
“Follow your nose- it always knows- the flavor of fruit”… trying to remember the product and cannot and am trying not to resort to Google!
Was it Fruit Loops, the cereal?
Mary Cheney must be so proud. Oh wait she’s a rich Republican lesbian so she has nothing to worry about.
/snark
louise
April 3, 2008 at 12:41 pm
It was Fruit Loops
Tucan Sam sang it
To quote Boston Legal’s Alan Shore:
Everyone together now: “Lesbian, lesbian, lesbian…”
Oh, for a day when someone’s sexual orientation is not a firing offense.
yeah, thanx
True and I stand corrected. I should have said unprecedented for the last 30 years, the time I’ve been a lawyer in the D.C. area. I’m sure exceptions can be found but there was a tradition for awhile, through administrations of both parties, to keep career positions in DOJ merit based.
I’m sure exceptions can be found
Wait, so if firing a governmental employee due to their sexual orientation used to be quite common, and still happens from time to time, then HOW exactly, is this phenomenon “unprecedented”?
I think there have been a few cases regarding ambiguity in terms of “reasonable accommodation” for Christian women wearing skirts in a workplace that otherwise required pants. But I’ll bet that as with most of these cases, it’s Christian v. Christian. (As was the case in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board.)
Well, opoponax, you tell me. Is Bush II’s record of upholding a tradition of merit hires in career DOJ positions markedly worse than any other administration or is it just more of the same? Are you saying there in fact is no tradition of merit hires at that level in DOJ? If one instance of discriminatory behavior in that area occurs in each administration can we than say they all do it and no generalization can be made? Did I really have to say that the level of Bush II’s use of this discrimination has been unprecedented for the past 30 years to mass muster with you? Or do you just want to attack me?
Actually, it’s Froot Loops. Intentionally misspelled words in product names is a pet peeve of mine.
I think SixtiesLiberal and opoponax are talking about apples and oranges here. SL is speaking about DOJ lawyers, and he is correct that it’s unprecedented for DOJ lawyers to be fired for purely political reasons to the extent that this administration has done.
Opoponax is referring to the McCarthy era, which was a unique (let’s hope so, anyway) period in modern American history. Gays were actually a small part of the victim group; the McCarthy people went after “Communists,” which in their view really meant liberals and internationalists. And, though they concentrated on the State Department, the persecution extended to all levels of government; one of McCarthy’s most celebrated cases had to do with an Army dentist, for Christ’s sake!
Intentionally misspelled words in product names is a pet peeve of mine.
You’re making me think of this classic wartime New Yorker cartoon where a bunch of American foodstuffs with names like Kix, Snax, etc. are sitting on a wharf, and two utterly bewildered Russian soldiers are poring over a Russian-English dictionary.
Between this and the post above, I’m really showing my age, aren’t I?
Between this and the post above, I’m really showing my age, aren’t I?
The New Yorker put out a coffee table book a few years ago with every single New Yorker cartoon ever published. So you don’t so much show your age as your New Yorker fandom.
The New Yorker also put out books on just dog and just cat cartoons; I got the dog one for my husband for Christmas a few years ago:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Yorker-Book-Dog-Cartoons/dp/0679416803
“If you lie down with pugs, you wake up with pugs…”
the youngest of his DOJ hires would have been ‘73 law school graduates at the latet, making them 60 years old now at least.”
As a 53-year-old ‘78 law School grad, I think your calculation is slightly off . . .
I spent 6 hellish years as an upper-level civil servant in another agency during this administration, and I am totally unsurprised by this story. The pressure to remain firmly in the closet was unreal…I had a gentleman friend of mine pose as my “boyfriend” for several parties, just to keep the rumors down. (And I was not the only one to do this.)
I thank God every day that I am out of that toxic environment.
I would’ve thought that a practicing lesbian would be the archetypical “loyal Bushie.”
Has it alwasy been mispelled? Because I back in the 60’s I don’t think it was or both my mother and grandmother (English teachers) would have howled and not bought me the cereal.
Back in the 70s (yeah I’ll show my age) when my junior high school (another age is showing phrase) put on a yearly musical a line “1776″ had the word “sex.” The boy cast for the part couldn’t say it.
So the teacher in charge of the production (music and drama teacher) had him stand in the auditorium and yell “SEX! SEX! SEX!” many times — unfortunately the principal walked in ;-P
It work though, he could say the word during the preformance.
maybe “LESBIAN! LESBIAN! LESBIAN!” would work too
I think my old teacher, now friend, would help with that endeavor, he came out of the closet 10 years ago. If I remeber right, though, I was told to keep it quiet until he retired.
The fact that it was Monica Goodling adds insult to injury.
clymenestra, the Kellogg’s web site has an ad from 1964 that calls them “Froot Loops.”
Oh, and one from 1963 too.
Intentionally-mispelled homonyms for common words (e.g. - “Froot” for “Fruit”) allows the cereal maker to copyright the name; that’s the single reason for all of those oddly-misspelt product names.
Hell, I missed my own provided opportunity to say “please, won’t someone think of teh othered cereals??”, as well as ask MikeEss what Rev Wright’s views are on all matters breakfast-related. Phooey.
Good story, clytemnestra.
When I think about how many hospital coworkers I had that were openly gay years ago, how professionally they performed their jobs, and how very VERY little anyone gave a damn about their sexual orientations, I get so riled up about stories like this.
The country seems to be sliding backwards in regards to this matter from where it was in the 80s-90s…
“That’s a good job, there, Goodling…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling
I-cannot-wait-for-these-people-to-be-kicked-out-for-an-overdue-floor-to-ceiling-fumigation-of-DOJ…the vermin infestation is bad…
You should be fearful. My supervisor when I was working for PA government actually tried to hire based on religious preference. He and the manager for the dept were trying to have a ‘Christian’ staff. If not for oversight from some pretty cool cats, they would have succeeded. Oh, if you were ‘christian’, you didn’t get fined. The Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus could count on enforcement.
Given the fundie proclivity for incompetence, the gov can reduce headcount, but they need to know we have their back on this.
You must have been precocious rea. I calculated 22 y.o. at college graduation, plus 3 for law school, plus 35 from 1973.
I’m a little skeptical of damaging impact from a Nixon hire in the DOJ who never went anywhere else his/her entire career. Not a big point really. Long term damage comes more from a pattern of practice carried forward than it does from individual hires in the career ranks. Broad changes in law enforcement occur from the top down and these are the political appointments. the is those controlled by each incoming administration.