A Whore for the White House

Today all the media coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee's "interview" session with Sara M. Taylor, former White House political director, about the firings of U.S. Attorneys has reminded me of one thing: being a whore. And it made me wonder, what would you be a whore for?

(And by "you", I mean "me", not "you, the reader." In my head I call myself "you", not "me"... as in, "You better check yourself before you wreck yourself, R." Speaking of, I had the best ever description of the phrase "check yourself before you wreck yourself" at a 4th of July party- some guy there asked me what it meant and I described it as "take an accounting of your present behavior before it leads to undesirable consequences." But I digress.)

There are a lot of things I would whore myself out for. Of course by "whoring myself out" I mean metaphorically, not literally. I consider doing things that are uncomfortable, dangerous, time consuming, against your better judgement, or otherwise compromise your moral standing to be "whoring yourself out".

Derby, for one. I am pretty sure I have been doing that for about a year now. My job, for awhile. But only until I realise I am doing it, then I try to stop. But that's about it. And definitely, DEFINITELY, not the White House. I don't care whose White House. Poor Sara, on the other hand, has been used up faster than a $5.00 hooker. Don't believe me? Read for yourself (I put the phrases that say "whore" in bold) :
From http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitolbriefing/2007/07/taylor_walking_fine_line_in_te.html

"I have a very clear letter from Mr. Fielding," Taylor began at 10:40 a.m., pointing to the letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding that has "directed" Taylor not to testify about internal deliberations and external communications while she worked in the West Wing.
Then Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tried to ask about any meetings with the president on the prosecutorial firings. "Again, I have a letter," she said. Was she aware of any decision documents signed by the president, Leahy inquired. "Again, I've been asked not to comment," Taylor replied.

And so it's going this morning at a packed hearing inside the tiny hearing room of the Judiciary Committee. Taylor is trying to thread the legal needle of honoring the committee's subpoena commanding her appearance to testify about the matter, but at the same time honoring Bush and Fielding's broad request that she not answer specific questions that they believe would violate executive privilege.

Fact-based questions are actually fair game, not something that can be shuttered away by the privilege letter. So, a question asking if she ever spoke to someone about a matter is ostensibly answerable, but what the contents of the conversation were are off limits.

In the first hour of questions, Taylor cited the letter at least a dozen times. But, after a 30-minute break for a vote on an Iraq war amendment, Leahy reconvened the meeting and reminded her about what sort of questions she could and couldn't answer. At that point he asked the same three questions about Bush again, and she realized she had to answer: and the answers were 'no' to all three, she'd never spoken to Bush or been in any meetings with him about the U.S. attorney issue, nor were there any presidential signing documents that she's aware of.

It's a tough act for Taylor today. In reality, she's under no obligation to honor the White House request, she faces no possible sanction if she answered every question openly and truthfully and there's no legal fallout for her. (If presidential claims of executive privilege were iron clad regarding former White House staff, the nonfiction aisles of bookstores would be barren, with no aides-turned-authors writing at length about their Oval Office meetings.) However, for someone who is currently without a job, she might hurt her career advancement if she were to spill all the beans about all her conversations with the president, undercutting the idea that she's a loyal Republican.

"I admire his unflinching devotion to do what he always believes is right for the country," Taylor said in her opening statement.

Democrats had been hoping she would testify about the role White House advisers -- particularly her immediate boss, top political adviser Karl Rove -- played in crafting the plan to fire the prosecutors. E-mails between Taylor and Justice Department officials showed her political office was involved in the run-up to the firings.

She has huddled for about a half-dozen sidebars with her attorney, W. Neil Eggleston, who has been given the unusual privilege of sitting next to his client at the witness table, discussing whether those questions fall under the claims of the Fielding letter.

Ah, "It's a tough act for Taylor today", indeed, Washington Post.
From where I sit, all that whoring for a bunch of middle-aged Republican assholes who make you their scape goat would cost a lot more than the pay from her 2-bit job and a footnote in the annals of U.S. history, but maybe I just have more self-esteem.