The Politics of Vindictiveness

It’s pretty apparent that interfering with Obama and his cronies is not to be tolerated.  Led by Rahm Emmanuel, the White House actively applies Chicago-style politics in dealing with its enemies.  Anyone who crosses this administration will be dealt with harshly and potentially ruined for life.  Just ask Gerald Walprin.

Republicans aren’t satisfied with President Obama’s explanation that he fired a controversial inspector general because he was “confused,” “disoriented” and generally uncooperative. 

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., released a statement Thursday calling for a “fuller and more complete explanation” as well as more evidence of the “reasons and process” that led to the firing of Gerald Walpin, former inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Basically, the administration claimed that he was crazy and waived the typical 30-day notice requirement involved in the firing of an inspector general.  They were ready to get rid of him post-haste.

While firing an investigator who uncovered the abuse of funds by a political ally might be considered an act of ‘political courage’ in Chicago politics, for most Americans it raises troubling questions,” Issa said. Before his firing, Walpin had investigated Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, for allegedly misusing federal funds. A settlement was reached in that case under which Johnson’s organization was to repay some of the money. 

As Michelle Malkin notes

Implying that Walpin has lost his marbles is desperate and lame. Walpin has been consistenly lucid and laser-sharp in every TV and radio interview I’ve seen or heard — including on the Laura Ingraham show yesterday, where he noted that evidence in the Sacramento mayor/NBA star/Obama crony Kevin Johnson case was destroyed.

Far from being “confused” and “disoriented,” Walpin is clear as day. Anyone who actually reads through his audits and investigative reports knows that. You can, should, and must read Walpin’s reports both on CUNY funding abuse and on the Johnson scandal here.

Walpin’s crime was uncovering the truth.  Add to that the fact that Michelle Obama might have ties to this entire incident.

A top Republican senator is asking whether First Lady Michelle Obama’s office played any role in last week’s firing of former service program Inspector General Gerald Walpin. 

The concern, one of several surrounding Walpin’s sudden dismissal, stems from the timing of a staff switch in the first lady’s office. Just days before Walpin got the boot, the White House announced Michelle Obama’s chief of staff would be appointed senior adviser to the agency Walpin was responsible for monitoring. Michelle Obama said at the time she and her outgoing staffer, Jackie Norris, would work closely going forward. 

Anybody remember First Lady Hillary Clinton and the Travel-gate affair?  It’s almost dejavu. 

It’ll be interesting to see how this works out.  My prediction is that the MSM will blow it off after finally accepting Robert Gibbs’ denials as gospel.  The question is whether Republicans will continue to push the issue or if they will let it die like they did with Nancy Pelosi’s accusations that the CIA had lied to her.  It’s about time that the GOP follows through on some of these abuses.  And they need to stop Little Chicago from taking root in the White House before it destroys too many people.

***  According to this article from the Chicago Tribune, we might have a pattern developing with the Obama administration. And they dare to question Bush on firing 8 US attorneys?  What hypocrites.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The Politics of Vindictiveness

  1. Well, I guess leave it to the right wing to make something out of nothing. This is all very nice fanfare, but I’m just wondering when someone on the right is going to mention the fact that acting US Attorney Lawrence Brown, who is a Bush appointee, agreed with his predecessor’s decision (McGregor Scott, also a Bush appointee) NOT to press charges against Johnson. And seeing as how that decision was made in November of 2008, the charge of interference by the Obama Administration doesn’t hold water. I think it should also be noted that Brown (you know, the Bush appointee) had filed an official complaint over this character Walpin’s conduct in the Johnson case:

    http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Brown_letter_to_Kenneth_Kaiser.pdf

  2. “Anybody remember First Lady Hillary Clinton and the Travel-gate affair?  It’s almost dejavu.”

    You mean the case that never was? Isn’t this the one where Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered? Yes, let’s ignore all forensic evidence that it was a suicide, and pin it on the Clintons. Yes, they pulled the trigger with Foster’s thumbs…

    “And they dare to question Bush on firing 8 US attorneys?  What hypocrites.”

    Yeah, except Bush fired the attorneys because they refused to take part in his political witch hunt. You know, the one where Karl Rove was instructing attorneys to prosecute only democrats for corruption? The one were democrats were investigated by more than a 2 to 1 margin over republicans, and they STILL only found dirt on the republicans? Talk about poetic justice…

  3. “Yeah, except Bush fired the attorneys because they refused to take part in his political witch hunt. You know, the one where Karl Rove was instructing attorneys to prosecute only democrats for corruption?”

    Again with this? U.S. Attorneys serve at the will of the Chief Executive. Pres. Bush did not need a reason to fire them. This is how at will Federal employment works.

  4. “Attorneys serve at the will of the Chief Executive. Pres. Bush did not need a reason to fire them.”

    Yes, exactly. EXACTLY! But Bush went out of his way to give a reason for firing them. Reasons which turned out to be fraudulent. He said they were fired for poor performance, but further inspection showed that they each had stellar performance reviews. They said they fired Carol Lam for not prosecuting enough immigration cases, but immigration prosecutions went up almost twofold under her. They fired David Iglesias for not showing up to work, ignoring the fact that he was a reserve in the national guard, serving his country in two different capacities. This fiasco would never have seen the light of day if Bush had just kept his mouth shut. If he would have simply fired them without reason, which was totally his prerogative, no one would ever know these people’s names…

  5. “Yes, exactly. EXACTLY! But Bush went out of his way to give a reason for firing them.”

    And why did he do that? Because a buch if disappointed people did not understand it was his perogative to fire them?

  6. “And why did he do that? Because a buch [sic] if disappointed people did not understand it was his perogative [sic] to fire them?”

    No, because he gave unsolicited reasons for their terminations. You can’t tell someone they’re fired because their performance sucks when in fact they have stellar performance reviews. It tends to raise the eyebrows of the ones who knew their performance was not lacking…

  7. Just on the funny basis alone that firing them for no reason versus firing them for a reason but it was a fraudulent reason according to the democrats (yet nobody has made a peep about Ronnie Earle in the case of Tom Delay who first had to empanel six grand juries to win an indictment and years later still has not delivered a conviction to the people of texas)is the most laughable thing.

    Who in the hell would say “go home, fred – no special reason – just, go home!”?

    Unless of course it was a decision mothered by Sotomayor.

    (Sorry for the weird fonts, I’m on vacation doing this from my blackberry)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s