Okay investigative journalists... this is what to dig into regarding Rove:

Two articles today appeared - and pointed the direction of what should be dug into. The WaPo and McClatchy both talked about Rove's unprecedented use of Cabinet officials getting briefings - and then going to strategic campaign stops, with candidates, to announce federal monies being given to a district. While both stories make it clear that this level of politicking via the pubic purse is unprecedented. The stories were clear that the taxpayers were footing the bill for the cabinet member, but I don't know that the full extent of how the tax payer was footing the bill is clear to the reader.

A side note: I believe that the candidate/campaign would foot the bill for a regular campaign appearance, but at least at the presidential level - IF a stop is "business" (ala awarding a big pot of money) than the costs are not charged to the campaign. This would mean that the tax payer is likely paying for the cost of flying out the cabinet member (e.g., John Snowe) and his entourage, but probably also the candidate, the candidate's entourage, and related costs. Suddenly, we the tax payer, are footing the bill for a major campaign effort in key races for the GOP. Here is one area to explore, dear journalists... just how much were we paying for these visits in 2006, or 2004? How much of pure campaign costs were bourne by the tax payer? And that is just the smallest thing to note from todays stories.

There were a couple of things that jumped out at me, after I read and then pondered what I had just read.

1. Suddenly there is a whole lot of talk, in two different high-profile articles in two publications, about how very careful - indeed meticulous - Rove was about not violating the Hatch Act. Right. Were that the case, when the Lorita Doan/GAO /Scott Jennings story first emerged before sworn testimony to congress, this talk of how careful the political operations of Rove would have been bandied about.

Instead, months later, suddenly - all over the place we hear how careful and persnickety Rove was about being clear about and not crossing the boundaries into violating the Hatch Act. No, this is b.s. defense league rhetoric. In one of the stories (WaPo, I believe) the hat gets tipped as to where investigative journalists and congress (Wax man) should look. In several places it is stated and reiterated that the granting of monies was not politicized - just the ceremonies around giving the money. See, the grants are determined by a competitive grant process, and thus beyond reproach (shhh remember Reading First and the HLS local community grants?)

Okay, I will bite. I have been a grant reader/reviewer for a state dept of education and for the federal dept of education. On the one hand, there is a regimented review and scoring process, and grantees are able (or used to be able) to request the notes of the readers if they are turned down, so that they may improve those areas the next time submitting a grant. The point is that there is a process - and there are documents that include comments and scores for grants. Generally multiple readers read each grant and a score is given based on the average of raters. It can be a fairly fair process, but it can also be manipulated (knowing that a specific type of program is preferred by those above, even if it isn't written into the regs) and outright ignored. Note that the Reading First! Controversy stemmed from an unusually high preference rate for the programs offered by (big donor) specific publishers, and that was a program that involved a competitive grant process.


It would be easy (albeit very time consuming) to:

a) track down grant programs from which grants were given that were used in the Rove election shows (that is the staged campaigning via cabinet member to announce $$ coming into the district)

b) review applications, comments, and award/no award decisions.

c) did these grants follow accepted procedure (that is - the highest scored applications got the dough) or did some grants that became part of the Rove election shows ranked lower than some unfunded applications. Is there a pattern related to political districts (esp Rove's key battle ground congressional races) per the granting and denying of grant monies.

This is an important story ... if my suspicions are correct - that this orchestrated meme of how careful Rove was - and that the money wasn't given via politics at all... because this demonstrates the degree to which this White House has worked to make the federal government operate as a political machine. The public won't demand better in the future, if it isn't fully aware of how things have been operating. It underscores how winning elections is what matters to todays GOP, not governing. That the federal government is viewed as one big source of money for cronies like some gargantuan slush fund to feed the coffers of the GOP, rather than the business of protecting the interests of and serving the good of "We the People."

There is a second, more subtle, thing per the non-denials story... this isn't suggested directly, but certainly should raise some flags as to where to do more digging into the politicization of the federal government. In the discussions of the frequency of all Roves meeting with top Cabinet officials - again at a staggeringly breathtaking frequency when compared to previous administrations. One item points to the effectiveness of these meetings describing the "success" of the Rove political shows after meeting with Gail Norton - prior to the Rove meeting she went to five cities in two months (early 2004) and then between June and November (5 months) she goes to 37 cities ... 32 of which in election markets. Mind you probably at each stop she is doling out more money. Apparently Rove was very persuasive. So lets now cut back to the DOJ scandal and Monica Goodling.

In the DOJ scandal we learned of unprecedented communications between the political office of the WH (Rove et al) and the liaison's at the DOJ. Beyond the firing scandal we have since learned that dear Monica was engaged in doling out plum internships based on political credentials, she hired civil service employees based on political credentials, and she worked to reward and punish employees in the DOJ based on political performance.

How does that story fit? Look for the comparable positions in the different federal agencies. Look for increased frequency of communication, focus on those agencies who show up the most frequently in attendance in the briefings by Rove and Jennings. I would be shocked if there are not more Monica Goodlings out there - hiring based on political credentials and disciplining on political performance - esp, but not exclusively in the granting of big $$ grants and contracts, but also in spotty enforcement of various rules and regulations and other agency business.

Today's WH meme...yes Rove was more political "and better at it" than previous WH political operations chiefs - but he meticulously stayed in the Bounds of legality... is the very set of talking points that lead to a gold mine of stories. In each, please remember to point out to the readers that the "cost" of these programs (be it a grant given to a crony in a key district - depleting the source of money to go to those more likely in need to address whatever the grant program was created to address.) In short, the biggest cost is the degradation of federal govt services where the needs of "We the People" and "We the taxpayers" are secondary to the needs of feeding and supporting the GOP. The public deserves to really understand these stories.

Happy Digging!

both in terms of centralized power that can be used against citizens with fewer and fewer protections... and in terms of trying to use all branches of the fed govt as a means to reward (be one of us) or punish... hasn't fully seeped into the public psyche... the part of the psyche that comes to be known as coventional wisdom (and believed as truth.) The stories that are aching to be investigated above... are part of the broader clothe that make it more clear for the public to fully consume, digest, and "get".

Proof that it isn't fully "gotten" yet = the GOP candidates - like tweedle dee and tweedle dumber they run around essentially clamoring to carry on the exact same policies "but better" as bushco. There is no outcry about the wholesale corruption of the operations of the federal govt ... there is no clear "Good Government" movement swellling up in reaction to the offensiveness of the behavior of this administration.

In the big scheme of things what I point out above isn't ground breaking... But it is a BIG part of the story of what has happened to our government... how intentional it was and how devastating it is to our system. There is a major shift going on in the country per understanding/perceptions of what has been happening in our name - but for that shift to become permanent - and skeptical in the future and thus more watchful and protective of our institutions - the depth of the damage being done - not just the most visible and painful such as the war - but the unravelling of our system of government.