The Monica Mess

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:52 AM

For a woman who wreaked her share of havoc at the Justice Department, Monica Goodling has a sweet face, a small voice and the demeanor of an eager-to-please college student.

Despite her earnestness, Goodling admitted that she took into account the political views and background of lawyers applying for DOJ jobs -- which, she said with well-coached regularity, she certainly regretted.

This 33-year-old woman who had previously worked at the RNC was the senior counsel to Alberto Gonzales. She had a strong role in deciding who got hired, fired, promoted or passed over. When she deemed attorneys not suitable, they were said to have a "Monica problem." And she shared her views with the White House.

"Normally if I found out something negative about something, we wouldn't hire them," Goodling told the House Judiciary Committee.

What did negative mean? Just yesterday, The Post reported that she tried to block the U.S. attorney's office here from hiring an EPA lawyer and Howard University law graduate as "too liberal." She regretted that too, Goodling testified.

Sometimes, she said, she "crossed the line." Sometimes she checked on political contributions. She couldn't recall whether she did this with U.S. attorneys. Was it illegal? Goodling offered no opinion, but, of course, she had refused to testify without immunity.

As an old Justice Department reporter, I find this sort of thing more disturbing in a way that the uproar over the fired U.S. attorneys. They are political appointees who can be dismissed by the president for any reason; the administration's problem was in insisting they were ousted for performance reasons when in most instances that was not the case.

But to be making decisions about career prosecutors based on political affiliations strikes at the heart of a nonpartisan law-enforcement system. At that level, there should be no Republican or Democratic hires, and if someone like Goodling inquired about who an applicant voted for in the past, that amounts to putting a thumb on the scales of justice.

At the hearing, the Democrats pressed her for specifics, while many of the Republicans made speeches praising her and said it was no big deal if government appointments involved politics. Some of them seemed unaware of the existence of civil service rules.

N.Y. Times: "A former top Justice Department aide testified on Wednesday that she had 'crossed the line' in considering the political beliefs of applicants for nonpartisan legal jobs and suggested that earlier testimony by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and another top official about the dismissals of federal prosecutors may have been flawed.

"Monica M. Goodling, the former Justice official, told a House panel that she regretted favoring applicants with Republican credentials for lower level prosecutor jobs or prestigious postings at Justice headquarters, actions that could violate federal employment laws.

" 'I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account,' Ms. Goodling said. 'And I regret those mistakes.' "

May have gone too far? Is that why she initially took the Fifth?

L.A. Times: "Monica M. Goodling, until now the mystery woman in the scandal involving eight fired federal prosecutors, came out of the shadows today and fingered former Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty -- but not Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales -- for possible wrongdoing.

"In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee today, Goodling, who resigned in April as the Justice Department's liaison with the White House, denied a major role in the firings. She acknowledged seeing the list of U.S. attorneys recommended for termination as early as January 2006, but she said the list was a product of D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff at the time."

Boston Globe: "Goodling's admission that she considered party affiliation when vetting candidates for civil service assistant prosecutor jobs added to a growing picture of politicization of the nation's law enforcement system under Gonzales, critics alleged."

I'm trying to decide who's madder: liberals steamed at the Democrats for the war-funding compromise, or conservatives angry with the Republicans for the immigration compromise. First, the libs, such as Americablog's John Aravosis:

"In my view, they blustered and they blinked. Yeah, it's nice that the Dems attached the minimum wage, and I'm happy about that, but that's not really the point is it? We're in a war that is destroying our country. $7.25 an hour isn't going to fix that. It's also not why the Democrats were elected."

HuffPoster William Jackson makes the blood-on-their-hands argument:

"Democrats in Congress would like to bring an end to America's role in the war without being held primarily accountable for how it ends. They want President Bush, under the pottery barn rule, to be stuck with owning the war because his administration has made a tragic mess of it. However, he clearly wants to pass the baton to the next administration, on the backs of the men in the field, and preserve a tattered legacy. Democratic senators and representatives will share ownership when they fund putting men in harm's way and keeping the war machine going into 2008."

As for the shaky immigration deal, the Washington Times reports:

"The bipartisan immigration bill being pushed by the White House and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, is fracturing rather than 'saving' the Republican Party nationally, according to angry party leaders and new poll findings.

"Arizona Republican Party officials have received 'hundreds and hundreds of calls, e-mails and letters from Republicans angry about the bill,' state party Chairman Randy Pullen told The Washington Times. 'They were saying, "I am going to register independent and not give you any more money" -- and that's the base of our party saying that,' " Mr. Pullen said."

At Salon, Thomas Schaller begins his post by quoting Rush Limbaugh:

"At the end of the day here, what we're talking about is the marginalization, if not the destruction, of the Republican Party. Look, it's time to be blunt here. I said I'm going to stop carrying the water last November, and I'm not carrying the water. The current crop of Republican leaders has not only lost the Congress, the current crop of Republican leaders is on the way to destroying the base by signing on to this kind of legislation. . .

"As soon as the details of the painstakingly negotiated bipartisan proposal began to trickle out last week, talk radio and the right half of the blogosphere went ballistic, saying the bill meant de facto amnesty for illegal aliens. Furious members of the Republican rank and file began talking about last straws and using 'impeachment' and 'Bush' in the same sentence.

"For the past three decades, Republicans have carefully sidestepped the kinds of issues that could divide a party's followers from its Beltway elites -- and expertly deployed the same wedge issues against the Democrats. Now the party's 2008 front-runners are in trouble, one of Karl Rove's long-term strategic goals is in doubt, and the foot soldiers are close to open revolt, all thanks to one uniquely radioactive wedge issue."

Some Democrats are conflicted as well, including the governor of New Mexico:

"Mr. Richardson initially said he would support the immigration compromise announced earlier this week," the NYT reports. "But on Wednesday, he said that after reading it in detail, he had decided to oppose it, saying the measure placed too great a burden on immigrants -- tearing apart families that wanted to settle in the United States, creating a permanent tier of second-class immigrant workers and financing a border fence that Mr. Richardson had long opposed."

Or maybe he just came under too much pressure.

Does Hillary have a national security image problem? Check out this Baltimore Sun post:

"Sen. Barack Obama drew the most positive responses, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came in for rough treatment, during the first in a national series of focus-group discussions sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania's non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center.

"When the suburban Baltimore voters were asked who would be the safest choice to lead the country in these uncertain times, nearly all, including Democrats and independents, picked Republicans: former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Sen. John McCain or former Gov. Mitt Romney.

"Only two chose Democrats: Obama and former Sen. John Edwards. None mentioned Clinton.

"Veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who led the two-hour session, said it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of homeland security in the 2008 election, calling it 'a hidden underlying issue.' "

Al Gore (who's not running for anything except best-selling author) chatted up some bloggers, and James Boyce has a highly positive report:

"Al Gore reached out and had a conference call with some bloggers (the call was on the record) and here's some of the highlights.

"He was witty, friendly and answered question after question. He quoted Johnny Cash.

"He responded to Tony Snow's demand that he fact-check the book. 'Unlike the president's State Of The Union address, this book was actually fact-checked.' . . .

"Al Gore is probably too decent a man to run for The White House again."

We don't deserve you!

Gore continued his media blitz with Larry King, and Dick Polman admires the artistry:

"It's a win-win for Gore; he perpetuates the tease, by signaling that he really has no interest in running, while stopping just short of a Shermanesque refusal. (Gore to King: 'I'm not thinking about being a candidate . . . I haven't ruled it out for all time.') Then it's on to the next venue. Why on earth would Gore want to revisit the indignities of 2000, and risk new ones? . . .

"Nobody with a yen for traditional political combat would write a book like The Assault on Reason. The typical candidate tome, appearing on the eve of a presidential primary season, is filled with poll-tested swill and boilerplate passages such as 'I believe that America's best days are ahead of us' and 'Together, we can forge a new tomorrow,' or whatever. Gore's book, by contrast, is a scathing putdown of the prevailing American culture, everything from television's obsession with celebrity trivia, the average citizen's couch-potato propensities, and the average politician's willingness to play on voters' fears with the help of propaganda techniques perfected by 'a new generation of media Machiavellis.'"

CBS's Kimberly Dozier speaks out for the first time about the Iraq bomb that nearly killed her and her long recovery. My piece is here.

I've also got an item in the Politics column about a war of words between John Edwards and his former adviser, Robert Shrum.

Here is a great soap opera involving New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and his ex-girlfriend, union chief Carla Katz, who continues to personally lobby him. We learn that a) after the split she rented a Hoboken apartment two floors below his; b) she threatened to hold a news conference that would embarrass him; and c) he gave her a $6-million settlement, including a Volvo SUV.

Could Hillary stiff the caucus? "Hillary Rodham Clinton's deputy campaign manager wrote a memo this week urging the Democratic front-runner to bypass the Iowa caucuses, in order to spend time and resources in New Hampshire, South Carolina and several larger states hosting primaries next Feb. 5," the AP reports.

The New Republic's Ryan Lizza is skeptical: "Perhaps it is a controlled leak to lower expectations for Hillary in Iowa, where -- what a coincidence! -- she has been cratering in the polls recently. Just raising the idea that she might skip Iowa changes the perception about how well she has to do there, and it is precisely that perception that needs changing right now. Politics is weird."

Newt, having trouble with women? Sad but true. Politico's Anne Schroeder has the scoop:

"Newt Gingrich's latest media tour has left the ladies of the airwaves decidedly unsatisfied.

"On the heels of a disappointing appearance with heavyweight radio personality Diane Rehm, Newt Gingrich has turned around and done it again.

"Last Tuesday Gingrich cut short an hour-long interview with Rehm, leaving her holding the bag for 20 minutes of dead air. Although Gingrich's team insists Rehm's camp knew about it, her side swears it didn't agree to the abbreviated time. The usually stoic Rehm was highly 'disappointed' and 'angry.' Gingrich's excuse -- reportedly that he was tired -- probably didn't help smooth over matters. (It's not you, baby, it's me.)

"But it seems he didn't learn his lesson. A mere two days later on a different show, and with a different gal, Newt again failed to perform. This time it was with Laura Ingraham, a big Newt fan who slotted 25 minutes for the former House speaker on her show, which in the GOP world ranks in the top four, after Rush, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage . . .

"But 11:35 a.m. came and went with no Newt. As did 11:40 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Eventually the man of the hour called in to the show at 11:58 a.m. -- two minutes before the show comes to a close.

"Needless to say, the Ingraham folks are none too pleased with Gingrich and, we hear, have banned Newt until a proper apology has been issued."

Looks like flowers are in order.

I mentioned yesterday that Oprah is upset about her dad writing a book. Dinesh D'Souza says she's essentially being hoisted on her own petard:

"Oprah found out about the book from a newspaper report, and she is shocked! She can't believe he would do this. But why? He probably got the idea from watching Oprah. The premise of Oprah's show is that we should let it all hang out. Keep nothing inside. Share your personal demons with the American people. Benefit from Oprah's solicitude and self-help lessons. Watch patiently as the audience applauds every banality offered by Oprah's guest therapist. The whole process is thought to be elevating for all concerned.

"So why shouldn't Oprah's dad, who seems to have some unresolved issues with Oprah, fill us in on the details. Was Oprah a spoiled, ungrateful brat? Did he have untoward feelings for her? Did she molest him? Is her female Dale Carnegie routine a big act? I don't see why anything should be out of bounds, if we're going to use Oprah's standard for public relevance."