wheres the transparency on obamas ig firings guest post

Where’s The Transparency On Obama’s IG Firings? (Guest Post)

transparentThe following is a guest post from PoliGazette commenter Jay_C.

Mr. Gerald Walpin was/is an Inspector General of the United States that from all outside appearances was initially fired by President Obama for doing his job, and by all accounts, apparently illegally to boot. And not in the progressive meaning of illegal, as in, “I don’t like something so my friends and I will work around the system to make it illegal”, but actually illegal, as in “the then Senator Obama co-sponsored a bill to require all Inspector General firings by a sitting President to be preceded by 30 days notice and to provide a real reason” illegal.  Pretty bizarre, don’t you think?  I can’t help but link this story to Jason’s article “The Danger Of Giving Democrats A Pass”.  To me, this is just another straw on the proverbial camel’s back of“…a growing pattern in the media and blogosphere — giving a Democratic President a pass for policies that, even in lesser form, would have evinced howls of outrage if pursued by a Republican.”

This is no more true that in the case of Mr Walpin and his “situation”. 

Ok, before I get slammed, to be fair, after a period of a few days, what little conservative uproar there was about this illegal firing, (and questions from 2 members of Congress — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) expressing concern, President Obama backpedalled after the fact and placed Walpin on 30 days notice with pay, and at that point provided not a reason, but a 3rd hand observation of someone on the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) board where Walpin worked, that in one meeting out of hundreds, Walpin appeared “out of it”.  This seemed to appease Senator McCaskill.  However, this was not a good enough answer for Grassley.  When Grassley pushed further, the White House sent a letter indicating that the President had “lost faith” in Walpin.  But again, this is just another vague “gut feeling”, in addition I must note that they added a substantive charge, and downright damning one at that.  A member of the CNCS board indicated that Walpin was..get this..working from home when he should have been working from the office, the horror!   So, this is the end of story right, case closed, call security, and get this guy out of here, right?  Not so fast.  Next, Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with investigators on the staff of Sen. Charles Grassley at Grassley’s office. The investigators wanted to learn more details about the abrupt firing of CNCS inspector general Gerald Walpin. According to Grassley, Eisen revealed “very little”, refusing to answer many questions of fact, namely:

•    Did the CNCS Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?

•    Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin’s ability to serve as the Inspector General?

•    Was the communication about the Board’s concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin?

•    Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen’s review?

•    How many witnesses were interviewed?

•    Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?

•    Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen’s review about the events of May 20, 2009?

•    Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?

•    What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen’s review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?

•    In addition to the claim that Mr. Walpin was “confused” and “disoriented,” the letter also says he exhibited “other behavior” that led to questions about his capacity.  What other behavior was Mr. Eisen referencing?

•    If the initial and primary concern had to do with Mr. Walpin’s capacity to serve for potential health reasons, why was he only given one hour to decide whether to resign or be fired?

•    If Mr. Walpin’s telecommuting arrangements since the beginning of this year were a major concern, then why was Mr. Walpin not simply asked to stop telecommuting?

So, Eisen is clamming up, eh? What a shame, he had a chance to wipe the slate clean.  In my opinion, these questions are just the tip of the iceberg.  Just off the top of my head, I would also ask why was there such a rush to fire Walpin for such minor issues? Was Walpin ever given a verbal or a written warning in the past?  Had his superiors ever show concern, and ask Walpin to see a doctor for his condition of being “out of it”?  I think these accusations are all hogwash.

So why am I creating all this uproar over one guy being placed on leave (and who most likely will be fired anyway)?  This all smells funny to me as this all started once Walpin started nosing into a settled investigation regarding the now Mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson’s …AKA “Little Obama” use of AmeriCorps money (about $800,000 of your money) for purposes other than what they were intended, while heading up the St. Hope Academy — a “nonprofit community development corporation”.  St. Hope settled their case and will be paying back roughly half the money over 10 years, in installments, and they are suspended from receiving Federal Funds until an investigation into the use of funds for its volunteer program is completed.  What I really think had Walpin relieved from duty, was that he was not satisfied with the negations and resolutions of the United States v. St. Hope Academy case. He submitted a Special Report to Congress where he called the settlement agreement of  “questionable value, but which vacated the suspensions and precluded the debarment of any of the respondents — all without any facts to contradict the previous findings which, the Debarment and Suspension Official had found, required holding that these respondents were each not responsible, and therefore should not receive further Federal funds”

The letter went on to say:

“This 180-degree turnaround was based on the change of circumstances of Respondent Johnson, who had, after directing St. HOPE’s misuse of the grant funds provided to it and receiving the suspension notice, become Mayor of Sacramento. The suspension was lifted because, as one Corporation official put it, the Corporation could not “stand in the way of Sacramento” — thereby effectively stating that, while Respondent Johnson was not sufficiently responsible to receive further Federal funds in his management position as a grantee, he suddenly became sufficiently responsible when elected Mayor of a city receiving substantially more Federal funds — akin to deciding that, while one should not put a fox in a small chicken coop, it is fine to do so in a large chicken coop!”“

To return to Jason’s “If this were a Republican” idea: Why do Nixon and  the phrase “I am not a crook” pop to mind so frequently in regards to this story?  It appears that Walpin was just trying to save what little of our money he can from my point of view, and it appears he was call in to question what effect this should have had on Johnson’s becoming Mayor of Sacramento.

In addition, why do I get the feeling that CNN, MS(NBC), ABC, et. al would be clamoring with “special reports” breaking in to report on calls from Hollywood activists to have the bum impeached if this were a Republican President?

So that is it now, right?  Again, not so fast.  The Chicago Tribune reports that this firing (I mean relief of duty, with pay), may not be an isolated incident.  Were all these performed by the President?  No, but one has to wonder, why fire Inspectors General, and why now (to fill them with appointees with more compliant ideas of what the law is perhaps?  (Maybe now I understand what President Clinton meant by…it depends on your definition of “is”).  Kidding aside, tough experienced investigators are needed more than ever in an economy like we have today; their whole purpose is to find wasted tax money, our money.

I can see how some see this is as “not just about one guy”. It is the old theme of smears and a history of what appears to be the “Chicago Style politics” we have all heard about, changing the subject, and not answering questions….and once again, the theme of “Community Organizing” wriggles itself into the scene of the crime rearing the ugly side of its head (yes, I think community organizing does have a good side)  All the while there is nobody on the left, joining the fight to get the truth (and to be fair, hardly anyone on the Right either) To get the real answers.

Stories like this do not help the idea that “Obama and his friends in community organizing groups are out to change America, in their image”. As these “Chicago Style Politics” stories stack up over the months, without any real answers, I can see how some have to try really hard to convince themselves that this is still not the case.  I don’t know, call me a kook if you will, but this all just doesn’t sit well, for the time being, Don’t get me wrong, I’ll push myself away from the Kool-Aid stand thank you very much, but if this all sits well with you, and you are not a Kool-Aid drinker (from either side), please let me know how you are faring.  I am waiting for hard evidence that these worries are for naught.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon


  1. Patrick Glenn

    June 21st, 2009 at 05:54

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    The firing does look awfully suspicious. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to get much traction on this matter since the Democrats control Congress and the executive and the media are indeed giving them “a pass.”

    Democractic stonewalling will likely conceal the real facts of the case for a few years, if the facts are ever known. Therefore I have no choice but to guess what factors led to the Obama administration into strong arming Walpin: in addition to possibly protecting Chicago-style graft from being exposed, Walpin’s investigations also clearly angered folks in Sacramento who just didn’t understand why a little corruption should block federal money from coming down the pipeline. After all, why should the the entire city be penalized for the sins of one man? Many of these folks are respected members of boards, philanthropists, society types, etc. (maybe even a U.S. Attorney), who believe that the rule of law is fine and all but it should never jeopardize the X-street road widening project and those “much needed” local social programs. These people mean well, but they fail to see that corruption doesn’t always derive from slippery motives.


  2. Patrick Glenn

    June 21st, 2009 at 15:39

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    I had previously missed the following story, which is optimistic that the Americorps scandal will not just go away: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/18/americorps-scandal-wont-go-awa.


  3. Doomed

    June 21st, 2009 at 16:20

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    Even the democratic senator who wrote this bill was the one who brought it up to Obama in public and asked for an explanation.

    Cracks are beginning to form in the TRANSPARENT administraion of one Barak Obama. Approval rating down to 58 percent AS the democratic congress begins to question “the one” with this and issuing a resolution on Iran even as the president refuses to speak up. Even if they did so with the presidents approval the public will see this as the president is not sure what to do.

    Graft. Corruption…Chicago…they all go hand in hand. Always have and I’m sure Obama brought a lot of it with him to the White HOuse.


  4. Terry Ott

    June 21st, 2009 at 16:52

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    @Patrick Glenn

    Thanks for the article Jay_c. Patrick: I think you have hit the nail on the head.

    I’ve parsed these developments, and IG Walpin’s history, for many hours over several days. Let’s drop from our consideration two parallel and irrelevant pieces of data: (1a) Barack Obama is an Illinois/Chicago “product”, and (1b) Walpin is a Federalist Society member. Other pairings to drop out are: (2a) Bush appointed Walpin and (2b) Obama does have the authority to “unappoint” (fire) him more or less at will as long as a process (which I think is inadequate) is followed. Then (3a) IG Walpin may have been out of line in terms of “going public” when he did, and (3b) the Administration was out of line to urgently/ summarily fire a person over the phone and then fumble around for a couple of days trying to get a story together about the rationale for dismissal.

    The whole thing about him being “dazed and confused” is ridiculous, regardless of what his appearance and conduct might have been in one particular meeting, which (he has said) he entered without enough sleep and not feeling well in general. The thing about his not being in the office enough will, I think, turn out to be ridiculous. A version of that i read says: At his age, he was ready to hang it up. He is approaching 80, has been married 53 years, wanted to be spend less time gone; staffers intervened and got him to agree to stay on if he could work out an agreeable arrangement for telecommuting. It was approved by the same board that now says he’s incompetent. How to explain that?

    If he is a political hack, how does one explain his open support for the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor? How come he is pictured with Justices Ginsburg and Stevens receiving a coveted Professionalism award (2003) from the Inn of Courts?

    Why would someone (I think it was Eisen, perhaps) say that Walpin was trying to “advance his career” or his “reputation” or words to that effect. He’s HAD his career and it has been quite illustrious. What agenda does Walpin have at this point other than to be a tough-minded IG, which is what ALL IGs should be. The Obama administration, on the other hand, DOES clearly have an “agenda” in terms of expanding the funding and activities of AmeriCorps. Whether that’s a good idea or not is not for me to say. But since that agenda IS out there for all to see, it makes sense that it will be to the Administraion’s advantage (short term) to have a compliant IG, one who doesn’t turn over too many rocks. I say “short-term” because in the long term it seems to me it is in the interest of AmeriCorps mission to have an IG who’s diligent so that taxpayers do not come to the realization, or even the perception, one day that the program is a boondoggle operation.

    On the one hand, you have generalized statements about Walpin being a right-wing hack. And on the other hand you have a man and his record. On the one hand you have allegations that Walpin mishandled the investigation (one among several by the way); on the other hand you have the fact that SOMEONE ordered or approved the investigation in the first place, and that the resolution of it is that about half the money needs to be returned, by mutual agreement.

    Advantage Walpin at this point. Not that the matter was over. I’m just saying which court I think the ball is in right now.


  5. Kastanj

    June 21st, 2009 at 17:11

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #6

    “To me, this is just another straw on the proverbial camel’s back of“…a growing pattern in the media and blogosphere — giving a Democratic President a pass for policies that, even in lesser form, would have evinced howls of outrage if pursued by a Republican.””

    The same media that let the latest republican president get away with the Iraq War is now being even more lenient towards Obama?

    I’m sorry, but the fact is that if the media had done it’s job the Iraq war would have been properly lambasted and laughed at even before its tragic inception. I’m not saying that Obama can be let off the hook, but I am saying that the howls of outrage the right-wing blogosphere now desires were missing when the last president was up to no good, and they weren’t complaining back then.

    I think the facts about the firings should be disclosed. I don’t think it is good for Obama to not feel any pressure – he may be mature and decent to a high degree but he is far too chilly and committed to his own tempo to be allowed free reign by either side.


  6. Doomed

    June 21st, 2009 at 17:17

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #7

    I’m sorry, but the fact is that if the media had done it’s job the Iraq war would have been properly lambasted and laughed at even before its tragic inception.

    Wrong….76 percent of the American people wanted to go after Saddam Hussein.

    Wrong….65 percent of the American people love Obama. Polls mean a lot…to both politicians and newspapers…if you want to sell newspapers you print whats popular anymore. Too much comptetition with blogs and online journalism and cable news to not too. Just ask US News and world report who have decided after years of trying to just throw out the facts…they now are an opinionated, agenda driving magazine to SELL subscriptions.


  7. Doomed

    June 21st, 2009 at 17:23

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #8

    IG Walpin may have been out of line in terms of “going public” when he did, and (3b) the Administration was out of line to urgently/ summarily fire a person over the phone and then fumble around for a couple of days trying to get a story together about the rationale for dismissal.

    Out of line???? Seriously? When the righties were out of line for writing books or going public with things about the Bush Administration it was perfectly acceptable and SHOULD be what happens in the governmental process to ensure government accountability….According to the left when it was Bush in charge.

    Now…thats all changed?…

    I agree its his right to fire him. Its his right to appoint his own. Obama and the democrats are learning the lesson that all administrations learn……LOYALTY to the administration is very, very important….if you have unloyal, loose cannons you get rid of the.

    Wheres the CHANGE…Obama promised….Where?> In the toilet the day he was sworn in. Its politics….not Sunday School up there.

    I agree totally he has the right to hire and fire at will….they just knew he had more graft and corruption and was zeroing in on a whole lot of Obama smut…they had to get him gone and get him gone NOW….take the heat for it knowing full well the MSM would be absorbed with IRAN and not Walpin.


  8. Kastanj

    June 21st, 2009 at 17:27

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #9

    “Wrong….76 percent of the American people wanted to go after Saddam Hussein.”

    If they were feeling so spunky and optimistic, why didn’t they bother to make their elected officials have their noble agenda carried out in a less idiotic and systematically flawed manner? Because they wanted something for nothing, and the price was paid mainly by the people of Iraq and the thousands of dead US soldiers. The media, having essentially braided itself together with the news racket, didn’t have any inertia whatsoever and was pulled along.


  9. Jason Arvak

    June 21st, 2009 at 17:52

    I love how leftists champion “the will of the people” whenever a poll supports their own position but shamelessly turn on a dime and condemn it whenever it diverges.

    As usual, Kastanj provides an excellent demonstration of the intellectual dysfunctions of purist left. He’s spunky that way.


  10. Patrick Glenn

    June 21st, 2009 at 18:11

    Terry Ott: nice analysis. As you explain, part of the reason that Walpin is turning out to be such a tough customer is that he has nothing to lose. He’s well into his seventies. For Eisen to suggest that Walpin was trying to advance his career does not make sense.

    The only plausible reason – at least that I can think of – why Walpin might have pushed things beyond what some might consider to be appropriate is if Walpin were highly partisan and/or had an ax to grind against the Board or the Obama administration. If Walpin were highly ideological, for example, it’s at least plausible that he had friends calling him up, encouraging him to go after any and every lead that could discredit opponents with furious vengence. That would surpise me, though. He just doesn’t seem the type. And, as you note, the 2003 American Inns of Court Professionalism Award suggests otherwise.

    Besides, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have an ideologically motivated person performing in the watchdog/whistleblower role when one party has so much power and control, as long as he follows up on every lead regardless of its source. Didn’t the left go balistic in defense of Plame/Wilson, who were obviously ideologically motivated? And, in the case of Walpin, we have no reason to question his honesty.

    Again, at this point, all we can do is speculate. But I do wonder, though, to what degree the firing might have been driven by bigger picture issues – as you suggest, needing a more compliant IG to pursue future policy goals – versus local politics. It appears that Walpin’s principled stance against Johnson was threatening to hold up Sacramento’s stimulus money, which was bound to bring a lot of heat from diverse parties, not just the sketchy ones.


  11. Jay_C

    June 22nd, 2009 at 04:17

    The silence from any major media outlet (besides Fox), or the Obama administration means to me 1 thing lots of digging for bones in Walpin’s closet. Put out enough smears on the guy, or worse, and he either loses all credibility, regardless of the validity of the accusations, or he just suddenly goes silent and the accusations suddenly fade away and are pushed to the back burner of the national spolight.


  12. Steve Clyburn

    June 22nd, 2009 at 16:38

    Terry Ott: I like the way that you have been clearing away the chaff on this discussion. To continue the process you started, here are a couple of things that I have read. First, the contract of the IG at the International Trade Commission is up for renewal in July. Is not renewing her contract a firing or a normal transition action? Further, even if there is some political motivation behind replacing the ITC IG, the IG position is, after all, a political appointment. A new administration has the right to appoint whom they please to such a position (subject to advice and consent of the Senate). Nothing sinister there or worth commenting about.

    Second, the Treasury Department appears to be engaged in a rather civil disagreement with the TARP’s special IG over the position he holds in the Treasury organizational structure and what this means to his office. My experience is that this kind of dispute goes on all the time in every level of government from the smallest municipality on up. The TARP special IG’s power and position is an important issue, but it is being pursued in the right way, with each side presenting its arguments to the Department of Justice for a legal opinion.

    So, let’s put both the ITC IG and the Treasury IG cases to one side and continue the discussion.

    Regarding Walpin’s telecommuting, no one in this discussion string has mentioned that he is telecommuting from New York City to Washington. Probably not the biggest deal in the world, given the Internet and advanced communication. However, Walpin heads an important office so maybe he should be around a bit more than he has been.

    As for the silence of major media outlets, I asked three politically savvy people (two of them former Congressional majority staffers in the right committee when it was led by Republicans) their opinion on the Walpin case. Their response was that this has happened before in Washington many times and that no one inside the Beltway really thinks it is news.

    So, let’s hear some more discussion focused on the core issues of the Walpin controversy: First, was he or was he not out of line to the extent that he should be removed from his position as IG? Second, is the administration out of line (legally, politically or as a matter of public perception) in how it is handling the whole thing? Third, is the public controversy around real issues of concern or is it “gotcha” politics?

    Finally, Patrick, I have to say something about your comment “Didn’t the left go balistic in defense of Plame/Wilson, who were obviously ideologically motivated?” The difference: in the Plame/Wilson affair, in trying to sell Americans on invading Iraq, members of the Bush Administration lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (specifically, Saddam’s trying to buy yellowcake from Niger), tried to cover up the lies and exposed the identity of a covert CIA agent (a felony) in an attempt to discredit Wilson. Thousands of Americans have died, taxpayers have seen hundreds of billions of dollars a year go to a war no one in their right mind wants and terrorists still abound in the region.

    In the Walpin affair, we are talking about a program that misused $800,000-not a good thing, certainly, but nobody died. If the current administration is wrong in in firing Walpin, then they either made a mistake or misused the power of the presidency-but no one is going to die because of that.

    My personal theory is that some on the White House staff, still new to the business of running a nation, didn’t quite understand the gravity of actually firing an IG. Any thoughts?


  13. Buckeye

    June 22nd, 2009 at 18:38

    Steve: I’m afraid I made my point a little too brusquely, which was supposed to be confined to an observation that whistleblowers will often be ideologically motivated, but that we still value the roles they play in general if not in particular cases. Moreover, partisans tend to vigorously defend whistleblowers against charges of ideological bias, especially when the whistleblowers are uncovering injustices that they find particularly troubling – i.e. one man’s whistleblower is another man’s investigatory hatchetman.

    Case in point is the Plame/Wilson affair: Republicans tend to think that those two were lying hacks; when Democrats state as a matter of fact that the Bush adminstration “lied” about WMDs, Republicans tend to argue that description is either imprecise use of language or historical revisionism.

    Perhaps your point is that national security matters, which often involve life and death decisions, should be subjected to more vigorous public vetting than how Americorps dollars are spent. Thus it would be more important to ensure that a national security whistleblower is properly heard (and defended from character assassination) than it would be for an IG investigating the use of federal grant monies. And you’d have a point. Except that, as I suggested above, I think we tend to underestimate the damage that can be done every time rules of law are set aside in the interests of political priorities, even when it is done with the best of intentions. Likewise, the notion that rules of law are secondary to constituent demands is dangerous, too.

    Again, I can only speculate, but for purposes of argument let’s assume that the main reason that Walpin was fired was that the Obama administration was getting a lot of feedback from politically connected persons in Sacramento and California as well as their allies that “this Walpin guy is holding up the stimulus funds” to Sacramento. In fact, it was the Mayor who was responsible for violating the terms of his grant agreement and was therefore debarred from receiving future federal funds. Yet it probably would have been much more difficult and messy to remove the Mayor than to fire some old IG who was past typical retirement age. Removing Walpin would not be ethical but, “hey, that’s politics . . . that’s how it’s always been done.” Yes, we’ve always had corrurption in American politics – that runs very deep. But I’m not sure that the American public and its “guardians,” the press, have ever been so resigned to it before.


  14. Jay_C

    June 23rd, 2009 at 04:45

    “I think we tend to underestimate the damage that can be done every time rules of law are set aside in the interests of political priorities, even when it is done with the best of intentions. Likewise, the notion that rules of law are secondary to constituent demands is dangerous, too.”

    Very good point Buckeye, and I thin after 8 years of Bush, the US has in a sense reached a tipping point in terms of sensitivity to making sure the law is being followed, as well as “disturbing trends” are starting to get more of the hairy eyeball. As I have said before in other posts here, I get a sense that in general “the other guys did it before / so hey, that’s just politics” is starting to wear thin as an excuse to most Americans. Unfortunately for the current administration, the public is much more sensitive to and vocal about breaking the rules these days. I also get the sense that the simplisitic arguments angling against “the democrats” or “the republicans” is also losing it’s luster with the American public.


  15. wilky

    June 23rd, 2009 at 06:31

    Jay_C, you really think that it’s after 8 years of Bush that we are “much more sensitive to and vocal about breaking the rules?” I’ll submit that it’s after eight years of Bush and the beginning of the Obama administration that kept or supersized Bush’s faults.

    I mean how bold do you have to be to nominate someone for the head of Treasury that not only cheated on his taxes, but refused to pay some of the back taxes citing the statute of limitations. He’s to big to fail.

    And rules are for the little people.

    Judging by how the bigs act.


  16. Jay_C

    June 23rd, 2009 at 20:48

    Yes, I really feel that way wilky. Don’t get me wrong, I voted for Bush…TWICE! and I would probably do it again if it were just the option of him vs Obama (if that were an option, (lesser of 2 evils policy thing), but a “lesser evil”, is still an “evil” that needs to be fixed. I and many, many others would be complaining about Bush just as much as I am Obama. Both Bush and Obama are “Perform big-government intervention because we need it, and we need it yesterday” types. Granted, for different reasons (actually, some intervention was for the same reasons), but the net result to me is the same. Less of MY money in MY pocket (greater national debt), less individual rights, less liberty and less freedom.


  17. Jay_C

    June 23rd, 2009 at 21:08

    Steve Clyburn :My personal theory is that some on the White House staff, still new to the business of running a nation, didn’t quite understand the gravity of actually firing an IG. Any thoughts?In the Walpin affair, we are talking about a program that misused $800,000–not a good thing, certainly, but nobody died. If the current administration is wrong in in firing Walpin, then they either made a mistake or misused the power of the presidency–but no one is going to die because of that.

    Perfect example of why I link this story to Jason’s article “The Danger Of Giving Democrats A Pass”. :)

    Ok, not exactly passes, but a definite watering down of the impact of what happened here.. Also, the point of this article is to display the *lack of transparency* of the Obama Administration. THat was one of the flagship points (and probably got them a lot of moderate votes, which ties into my point in my last quote to wilky about Bush’s 8 years…How about an at least an “opps, we flubbed, Ok, he is on 30 days notice now.” Again this just another example, of a string of instances where a pass has been given by the media for these types of stories being turned around to somehow blame the accuser, blatantly ignoring the problem, or somehow trying to rationalize the problem without details as to how that rationalization came about.


  18. wilky

    June 24th, 2009 at 16:22

    Yea, I agree about the lesser of two evils thing. Problem is, it stopped me from voting for a long time. Had to vote the last couple of rounds but it was what got us Bush. I was even looking for a reason to not vote for Bush the second time, but John Kerry, just couldn’t do it. I believe this is why we have such low turn outs for elections, most people want to vote for something, not against.

    Still, I think your giving Obama a pass. This sentence, “Unfortunately for the current administration, the public is much more sensitive to and vocal about breaking the rules these days” is, in my opinion, wrong and mostly what promped my comment. A majority of the general public only knows what the headlines say and the media is giving the current president a pass.

    Its probably just me but when it come to domestic policy, I see Obama as Bush on steriods.




NOTE: PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to basic standards of civility and topicality.

We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which are in our judgment egregiously and
gratuitously uncivil. We also reserve the right to delete all comments which are off-topic,
including those that grossly distort the topic of the post or serve merely as vehicles for
spamming.

Complaints or concerns about deleted or edited comments should be sent by email only. Complaints
posted as comments will be deleted.

Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate the comments policy may be banned.