AP compared Obama's hiring of progressives at DOJ to Bush administration's alleged illegal hiring practices
SUMMARY: In an article about criticisms of President Obama's nominations for Justice Department positions based on the nominees' "backgrounds" and "past clients," the AP's Devlin Barrett wrote: "Accusations of political manipulation at the Justice Department are not new. Over the past two years, the Bush administration has been investigated and excoriated by Democrats for making firing and hiring decisions based on political considerations." But there is no comparison between Obama's appointment of progressives to political jobs at DOJ and the Bush administration's alleged illegal use of political criteria to fill career DOJ jobs.
In a February 5 article about Christian conservatives' criticisms of President Obama's nominations for top Justice Department positions based on the nominees' "backgrounds" and "past clients," Associated Press reporter Devlin Barrett made a false comparison between those complaints and complaints Democrats made about Justice Department hiring and firing decisions under the Bush administration, writing: "Accusations of political manipulation at the Justice Department are not new. Over the past two years, the Bush administration has been investigated and excoriated by Democrats for making firing and hiring decisions based on political considerations." In fact, there is no comparison between Obama's appointment of progressives to political jobs at the Department of Justice and the Bush administration's alleged illegal use of political criteria to fill career Justice Department jobs.
In a July 28, 2008, report, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) noted the distinction between restrictions on hiring procedures for political and career staff, writing: "It is not improper to consider political or ideological affiliations in making hiring decisions for political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations."
The July 2008 report, titled "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General," found that former Justice Department White House liaison Monica Goodling "improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, in violation of federal law and Department policy." The report further concluded:
The evidence also showed that Goodling "often used political or ideological affiliations to select or reject career attorney candidates for temporary details to Department offices, including positions in EOUSA [Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys] that had not been filled by political appointees. Goodling's use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates."
In addition to Goodling, the report concluded that "[former chief of staff to the attorney general Kyle] Sampson, [former Justice Department White House liaison Jan] Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs [immigration judges], which are career positions protected by the civil service laws."
From the February 5 AP article:
Christian conservatives are challenging President Barack Obama's picks for top Justice Department positions, charging that past clients like Playboy taint their resumes.
The criticism comes ahead of a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing Thursday for David Ogden, Obama's pick for deputy attorney general, the No. 2 position at the Justice Department.
Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, was confirmed by the Senate on Monday and started work the next day. As he waits for confirmation of his top aides, many on the religious right are questioning the nominee's [sic] backgrounds, saying they have promoted far left, pro-abortion, pro-gay policies.
[...]
Some Republicans believe a tight embrace of social conservative values turns off independents and moderates, but many Christian right leaders resist compromise and contend that, if anything, the GOP has strayed too far from its principles.
Besides Ogden, conservatives also have taken aim at two other Justice picks -- Indiana University professor Dawn Johnsen for her association with an abortion rights group, and Thomas Perrelli, who represented the husband of Terry Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a right-to-die case that energized evangelical groups across the country.
Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a past colleague of the three during the Clinton administration, said the conservatives' criticism of the trio is unusual and unwarranted.
"Usually, you may have a fight over who the attorney general is, but this is not par for the course, picking off next to the attorney general three of his top appointments," Greenberger said. "This is harassment and it is an attempt to reverse the election."
Accusations of political manipulation at the Justice Department are not new. Over the past two years, the Bush administration has been investigated and excoriated by Democrats for making firing and hiring decisions based on political considerations.
Tom Minnery, a vice president at Focus on the Family, charges that through the nominations, the new Democratic administration is not depoliticizing, but re-politicizing the Justice Department.
"They take our breath away the more we learn about these people," said Minnery. "This is left-wing politicization of the Justice Department. This is not a Justice Department that looks like America."

















"This is not a Justice Department that looks like America."
White, Christian, right wingers who place religion and ideology above country?
Exactly. I was just reading this article, and was wondering if MMFA would post this one up. How ridiculous are these guys? They are mad because Obama nominated someone who defended Playboy? Heck, that's not even really porn, and aside from that, it's called freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Who shouldn't argue for that? As well as not having to install filtering software in libraries, same thing. And, oh no, someone supported gay rights? Better not bring him in, because he treats all people the same, and wants everyone to have the same rights under our Constitution.
I'd be willing to bet that these folks look a lot more like "America" than the Bush DOJ did. You know, the one filled with highly underqualified religous zealots, who were not picked because of their law acumen, but were picked because, well, they were hard core Christians and wanted to inject religion into everything.
I think a lot of them graduated from Pat Robertson's phony law school. Every one of those Troglodytes should be flushed out.
Yeah?
Well I bet those progressives went to "phony" law schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
So there. Consider yourself "nailed", my friend.
Watch it, youse guys. You're asking for a grandmotherly scolding about your religious bigotry.
Bring 'em on.
Religion doesn't have anything to do with The Constitution.
I'm fine with Obama putting progressives in there, and the more conservtaives whine, the more I like these guys. (And I've got nothing but disdain for most of Bush's hires.) But I'll admit that all that's just my own political philosphy and personal sense of rigth and wrong at work.
All the same, this statement:
"It is not improper to consider political or ideological affiliations in making hiring decisions for political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations."
Is an absurd logical contradiction in this day and age. It is impossible to reconcile this in any reasonably principled way.
it's not a contradiction. The federal law says it's ok to consider ideology when hiring political positions, which serve at the discretion of the president, rather than career positions, which do not. This is a good piece by mmfa, there is no comparison between Obama and Bush on this.
Oh... OK, I get it now. I guess I missed that distinction. It's OK for one category of hire (appointments) but not for the other (career track.) Now it makes sense.
(For some reason I was reading that as being "OK to consider political ideology, but not OK to consider party affiliation."
Thank you for schoolin' me.
no schoolin'. it is a little confusing, I had to read it a few times before it made sense to me too.
There must be snowballs being thrown around in Hell. jamesB has just agreed with something that Media Matters for America has done. You feeling alright there, jimmy?
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I just sent Mr. Barrett an e-mail...
It's hard to believe anyone other than a right-wing hack could make a mistake like this. ...But, who knows.
The most important question you had to answer to work on the Iraqie reconstruction was to give your opinion on Roe vs Wade.
This sort of reporting from the AP of late is dangerous and irresponsible. There is no way to compare a litmus test that is improper, unethical and not legal to picking nominees that share the views of the President of the US.
These people do not represent the US? The AP prints that garbage without taking responsibility for spreading crap? These are the people that the U.S. people VOTED for. This is a diverse country, not a whites-only Crhistian nation.
Goodness sake ...
Slightly off topic, but related: It's been announced that Justice Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer. I wish her well, but THAT is why I voted for Obama.
If she does step down or pass on (god forbid), the howls from the righty radio/tv liars will be deafening no matter who Obama nominates.
You are correct on that point, but I'm pretty sure Obama won't be asking Focus on the Family as to who is an acceptable nominee or not (thankfully).
The louder those scumbags cry, the more I like the candidate. If the governor of NH wasn't such a principled sort, the Dem's would have there 60 votes in the senate and then maybe we see some progress. (Or at least they'd not have even a scrap of an excuse not to get thing passed over the impotent howls of the minority.)
I do think it fair, that NH replace a republican with a republican. The voters elected a republican, he should be replaced by one.
Greenburger is exactly right. This is an attempt (another attempt) to reverse the election. Obama won. He has the right to appoint whoever he choses. The article isn't really that bad though. These people ARE accusing Obama of political manipulation. It should point out that these people are batsh!t crazy but other than that it's not too bad.
These people are relentless--and shameless. They just don't give up. Every opportunity to criticize and oppose they take. Even when it's completely senseless and baseless like it is in this instance. If the Democrats were 1/100th as aggressive as these people are, things would get done. Political appointments such as Deputy Attorney General and other top officials at the Justice Department are normally filled by people who share the political views of the President. The positions that the Bush Administration rightly got in trouble for were career positions that--by law--cannot be filled due to political leanings. There simply is no comparison here. Devlin needs to do some research before he writes for the Associated Press. He should cover elementary school class elections and then work his way up.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
"This is left-wing politicization of the Justice Department. This is not a Justice Department that looks like America."
And when Bush was firing US Attorneys who dared prosecute Republicans (or dared not prosecute Democrats) where were their complaints then?