Last night, I was arguing with a friend who kept telling me it's unfair to call for Rove's firing, because all Clinton did in the 90's was sidestep similar calls...
I couldn't remember at the moment, but I was desperate to recall the FBI File scandal. The reason: I knew that Clinton had forced the resignation of the player at the center of it... This morning, I dug him up: Craig Livingstone...
Now, I'm not smart enough to know if we can hold up Livingstone as an example... But man, it would be sweet to be able to say, "hey George, our guy knew how to handle this...." That's why I want the smart Kossacks to feel this out... Let me know if we have a decent parallel...
So here we go...
From a Washington Post story in 1996:
The Clinton White House's beleaguered director of personnel security, Craig Livingstone, announced his resignation yesterday, saying he took responsibility for the unjustified collection of FBI files on hundreds of Republicans. But he denied any malign intent.
Here's a link to the full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960627.htm
At first thought, it seems to me that when faced with a roughly similar issue - a staffer disparaging the integrity of government operations - at least here Clinton did what Bush WON'T... got rid of the guy...And he didn't wait for the final investigation results... (I know he was under pressure - but so what?)
And for all the talk about "waiting out the investigation" , see these blurbs from a story in today's NY Times:
"Mr. Bush's insistence on Monday that he would wait for a final legal verdict on his staff members seemed to set a standard of accountability for Mr. Rove that is different from the standards applied elsewhere in the government, some experts say.
Elaine D. Kaplan, who from 1998 to 2003 was head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that investigates complaints of prohibited personnel practices, said: "Government employees and officials who are negligent with classified information can lose their jobs for carelessness. They don't have to be convicted of intentionally disseminating the information. Crime has never been the threshold. That's not the standard that applies to rank-and-file federal employees. They can be fired for misconduct well short of a crime."
Beth S. Slavet, a former chairwoman of the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent agency that adjudicates federal employment cases, said: "The government can fire a Civil Service employee if it can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would 'promote the efficiency of the service' to do so. The person does not have to be guilty of a crime. You can be dismissed because you didn't submit paperwork on time, you didn't follow instructions, you repeatedly showed up late for work or you yelled at supervisors and fellow workers."
Feedback is appreciated...