THE PLANK DECEMBER 2, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Speaking of the Desiree Rogers piece, am I to understand that Rogers is facing extra scrutiny over the Salahi debacle because of her reputation as too high-profile and glamorous?
No one seems to seriously be questioning Rogers' competence or work ethic. (There is, in fact, a reference to her rep as an overachieving perfectionist.) Rather, the entire piece is about how Rogers has been raising eyebrows around the Beltway from day one with her unwillingness to fade into the background, to operate behind the scenes, to--bluntly put--know her place. Other social secretaries have always understood that they should avoid the limelight, the WaPo points out. But Rogers was a kick-up-her-heels, high-flying society type back in Chicago, we are reminded, and political watchers have long wondered if perhaps she is ill suited for the ways of Washington, where supporting players are supposed to be more self-effacing and discreet. (Er, has anyone told Rahm Emmanuel about this mandate?)
If a screw up by Rogers indeed led to those socialite freakshows getting into the state dinner, by all means slap her for it--hard--and let the White House deal with the fallout. But the sense you get from the WaPo is that lots of folks have been positively drooling in anticipation of a chance to take Rogers down a peg for her failure to observe some b.s. standard of Beltway decorum.
How sorority row can you get?
2 comments
Ron Kessler, in a Washington Post online chat, was pretty much close to the mark when he said that if any high-level official gets the sack over this, it should be Director Sullivan of the Secret Service, not Ms. Rogers (or for that matter, the DOD liaison who tried to get the happy couple an invite). But Sullivan of course, is not flashy and conspicuous (and not black or female either...)
- sjberke1
December 2, 2009 at 1:22pm
No one who's not within twenty miles of the Washington Monument gives a hoot who, if anyone, gets canned. That, in contrast, many folks within the 20-mile smelling distance apparently do give a hoot goes a long way toward explaining the low-level, background loathing that most of America feels (quite rightly, in my view) about the federal government. No sane person wants Obama harmed. That said, everyone I know is ecstatic that, for one brief instant, Toto pulled back the curtain. An administration that can't even keep strangers from accosting the most important person in the world wants to send another 30,000 boys and girls into harm's way. And here's the thing: any administration could have fucked up thusly. That's the beauty of the federal government--it's quite capable of fucking up one day and sending tens of thousands of us off to die the next. I mean, some people reacted to George W. Bush as if he'd invented fucking up. They ALL fuck up. They ALL hide behind the curtain. There is no Wizard. Which all of the rest of us have known for a long time, which is why, as I started off saying, we don't give a hoot.
- williamyard
December 2, 2009 at 9:50pm