Interesting story. What is Mulhollan's background?
I assume he is a Bush appointee; may I also assume that he is an expert in horse's asses like Brownie?

Would they dare fire Fisher, on such a flimsy pretext? The man is a research service unto himself, and one helluva prolific scholar.

Mr C- would it be out of line to substitute BITCH for GEISHA? I will bow to your much greater expertise sir, but I must remind you that when one is dealing with the type of disengenuousness being continuously displayed by this group of decievers, My choice of terms might just be at least slightly more appropriate.
billjpa@aol.com

it's all part of a coordinated strategy... this past week, georgia10 at kos detailed bushco's proxy attack via rep. hoekstra on Alfred Cumming, the CRS Specialist in Intelligence and National Security, for debunking the administration's so-called justifications for warrantless domestic spying...
On Feb. 1st, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to the Director of the Congressional Research Service whining about how Cumming's reports were partisan in nature and not based in law or fact. The letter was the last in a series of attacks on Cumming. On January 25th, the Washington Times ran a hit piece on Cumming, saying he was a registered Democrat, a former Democratic staffer, and he committed the gravest of sins--donating some money to Kerry's presidential campaign. Right wing blogs have picked up on this, and FOX News has done its part as the obligatory megaphone for baseless propaganda.
This modus operandi is standard for the right-wing, but the fact that they resort to attacking a superbly qualified researcher proves they're scared shitless. Just like the smears with Kerry, Wilson, Murtha, and countless others, anytime the right-wing pounds the table this hard, it means they sure have something devastating to hide.
this is all orchestrated, no doubt, by the dark lord himself, the one-who- must-not-be-named, karl rove... you may not be able to see the fingerprints but you can certainly tell by the smell...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2006/02/shooting-congressional-research.html

It's over children, can't you take your medicine as proper and mannered servants should? All hail America's Caesar! Long live our Imperially Glorious Leader! Congress prostrated itself before our Monarch quite a while back. Congress made the coronation possible so, time to take your medicine America. Long live our queer moron child King. Isn't that what you wanted? Isn't that exactly what you asked for? Well of course it is. Suck it up and serve!

There are two things that make a CRS analyst a real national treasure (and I won't argue that all of us who work here are treasures, but some of us are). First, we are known as being true experts in our policy areas. We have historical knowledge and analytic capability that is sorely missing from the regular staff on Capitol Hill, and generally missing from most others in Washington. We are a blend of academic and think-tank knowledge with practical experience. The second thing that sets us apart is our reputation for non-partisan and unbiased analysis. This makes it possible for us to work for all members of Congress and all staff, even those who would hate being in the room with us if they knew how we truly feel on a particular subject. I've won praise from Members across the political spectrum, and I've heard criticism from some arrogant staffers who don't like it when I won't confirm their personal opinion. This doesn't mean we don't have personal opinions, or that we can't call a spade for what it is, but just that truth is more important than diatribe. Its a matter of personal honor for me to be able to tread across the whole pond this way, without losing my reputation on the hill and off as an expert in my area.

So, difficult as it may be, I need to defend Dan (as we call him here at CRS) a little bit. And its difficult because his internal personnel policies and managemant style grates on us all the time.) But, in defense of Dan and CRS, an analyst won't be worth much to the service if his own personal opinion is so well-known that at least half of the members of Congress stop calling and asking for his advice. We are allowed to write in public and speak in public and express our opinions, but we all know how to tread the line and be "experts" without undermining our abililty to be "CRS analysts". What makes Fisher different is that he has a long history of putting himself as the expert above his job as the CRS analyst. He is very, very well-known and he uses that. But I'm also very well known in my field, and I can manage to have everyone in the room respect me, and even think I agree with them, no matter what room I'm in (from the Pentagon to the lefty think tanks.) It is possible to meet Dan's expectations, Fisher just doesn't want to.

Also, the Al Cummings situation is sharply different. First, Dan has defended Al in a letter to the Wash Times, and no one has asked Al to do any less than his job. Second, most of the criticism in the Times and from Hoekstra is way out of bounds, in part because it credits a Memo written by the lawyers in the American Law Division to Cummings, who didn't write it and had no part in reviewing it. Hoekstra was wrong in many ways, but he really needs to remember that Congress appreciates CRS analysts because we ARE experts in our field (and we work for Congress), so to accuse one of us of writing about something we don't know about is a real insult.

Anyway, I've gone on too long. The personal dust-up between Dan and Fisher should never have gone public because its far more about style than substance. Fisher could get the substance of his views out without complaint if his style weren't so "in-your-face" to Dan.

Mulhollan is not a Bush appointee; nor is he a tool of the administration. He's a Democrat and has been since he started at CRS in the 1970s. He's been at the helm of CRS for a long time. So, all this business about this being part of a Bush administration crack down is poppycock. In fact, Mulhollan is under pressure for the right in Congress (Pete Hoekstra, James Sensenbrenner) about CRS writing memos that question Bush's claims of executive authority. Here's a suggestion, folks- do some research before spouting off and muddling the debate.

Let's grant that anon is right that Dan Mulhollan is simply feeling pressure from Hoekstra and Sensenbrenner. Isn't it his job to resist that pressure rather than give in to it?

Louis Fisher is one of the finest scholars in the field of American constitutional law and history. All of us in the field respect his work and him enormously. Even if Mulhollan is simply doing the bidding of powerful Republicans in the House, he's doing Fisher and the nation a disservice, and he's damaging the credibility of CRS as a nonpartisan research institution.

By the way, I heard you on Brian Lehrer's program this morning and I compliment you on a cogent and good-humored discussion. I hope that you will appear on his show again soon.

-- R. B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School, and author of THOMAS JEFFERSON [Oxford Univ. Press 2003; pbk 2005]

Let's not confuse the Fisher controversy with another (the criticism of CRS by Sensenbrenner, Hoekstra, the Washington Times, etc. over the CRS wiretapping memo.) These are two different controversies. The latter controversy is nakedly political while the Fisher controversy is a lot more complex than a lot of folks understand.

And let's be clear about why Fisher got in trouble: he said things in Government Executive that struck CRS management as editorializing (he commented on whistleblowers in government shortly after publishing a CRS report on the topic). When CRS management rebuked him, Fisher wrote a memo to CRS's top manager, Mulhollan, that said, in effect, "I refuse to have my work reviewed by my supervisor(Dilger) because he rebuked me." Fisher then took the fight outside of CRS and now you have folks howling that CRS, at the behest of a far right cabal, is trying to silence the great Fisher. One may question CRS management over their interpretation of Fisher's Government Executive comments. I didn't find them to be improper. Provocative, yeah, but not outrageous or partisan.

But here's the big question: Even if management was wrong about his Gov Exec comments, does Fisher have the right to tell his boss "Screw you, you've no right to review my work?" I can't think of many jobs where workers have the right to opt-out of the organizational structure unilaterally.

And it's worth keeping in mind that as head of CRS, an agency that works for Congress, not the public, Mulhollan has a responsibility to keep Congress happy and, by the way, do what he can to keep CRS from getting its budget chopped by some pissed off Congressman or Senator.

Of course, none of this is to say that Fisher should be fired. He is a great scholar. Nobody knows more than he about his subject matter. Heck, has anyone outside of CRS ever heard of any CRS workers other than Fisher? Maybe, but Fisher is obviously head and shoulders above all other CRS scholars in receiving nation- and world-wide recognition. He helps make CRS a place that is held in high esteem by many.