In Our Opinion without any

Really, there’s nothing too egregious here. However, it appears that the SASTEB has taken to heart my recent criticism - there are very few claims in the entire piece. So few, indeed, that there really is no opinion developed.

Behold, the timidness that is: “Political briefings push legal envelope” (Apr 30).

In the bad old days of machine politics, government workers were often coerced into contributing to political campaigns of the party in power and working for its candidates. In response to such charges surrounding New Deal relief programs, Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939.

Fascinating. Reading the Standard-Times is almost as much fun as reading my high school US History Textbook.

The Act is intended to insulate federal civil servants from political pressure by broadly barring them from partisan political activity and prohibiting the use of federal offices and supplies for political purposes.

Thanks for the background. I can’t wait to hear exactly what the SASTEB thinks about the act.

Federal investigators are probing whether the Bush administration crossed that line. Following a briefing on the midterm elections by a White House political operative, the head of the General Services Administration asked how the GSA could be used to help “our candidates.”

Interesting. Tell me, is this an opinion piece or a news brief?

The GSA is often described as the government’s landlord and provides a variety of services intended to improve federal workplaces.

Honestly, was this space padding necessary? (Hint: the answer is: NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!)

At this point, the article moves from dull to simply absurd in its inability to express any real opinion. We are now six sentences into a twelve-sentence editorial without even the slightest semblance of a true opinion.

The White House has disclosed that there were as many as 20 such briefings at 15 federal agencies. White House officials insist the briefings were appropriate, but it doesn’t look terribly good that they’re only disclosing them now that Democrats with subpoenas are breathing down their necks.

Yes. Most people, after committing a crime, are not overly eager to admit to committing said crime. It’s basic human instinct. Also, if the White House believed the meetings were “appropriate,” then why would they report them? That fact in no way works against the administration.

In addition, the SASTEB made it 7 sentences without an opinion. That’s 7 sentences where 2 or less would do. The SASTEB: where word economy goes to die. Plus, the last sentence doesn’t really appear to be much of an opinion - more like a random observation.

All administrations chafe at the Hatch Act and try to push the legal envelope. This White House argues that its briefings were purely informational and open only to the agency’s political appointees. But as the Abramoff lobbying scandal and the firing of the U.S. attorneys have demonstrated, this administration doesn’t have altogether clean hands when it comes to politics.

Wow! There still seems to be no real opinion advanced by the SASTEB. Also, the ties between Bush and Abramoff are sketchy at best. The only real ties were between Abramoff and Gale Norton, the then-director of the Interior Department. The real scandal was in Congress.

Even if the briefings were within the letter of the Hatch Act, it doesn’t make them right.

WHAT???? You haven’t shown why they were wrong! You can give all kinds of reasons. Let me do your job for you:
Using government bureaucracies for political purposes:
1) Kills Separation of Powers
2) Causes uneven enforcement of justice (e.g. attorney scandal), which makes a mockery of democracy
3) Decreases effectiveness of bureaucracy
4) Unfairly persecutes parties not in office
5) Causes parties who get in office to stay in office due to of sheer inertia, which is bad for governmental efficacy.

All of these would be acceptable arguments. Yet the SASTEB makes none of them. If you make an article entitled “In Our Opinion,” please have one.