Walpin: gone, but not quite forgotten—although the White House would like us to
Remember Gerald Walpin? The man the White House fired as AmeriCorps Inspector General when he had the audacity to investigate Sacramento Mayor (and Obama supporter) Kevin Johnson for his alleged mismanagement of AmeriCorps funds? The one whose firing the White House initially failed to give proper notice to Congress about in violation of statutory requirements to do so, and then offered a bunch of excuses about that haven’t held up to scrutiny? The one whose canning is being investigated by Congress at the moment?
If you do remember Walpin, you may be one of the few—in fact, not many ever heard about him in the first place. That seems to be the way most of the MSM want it, because the incident could reflect poorly on President Obama and reveal the Chicago thug behind the facade.
I have little doubt that, had the same allegations been made towards the Bush administration, the story would rate front page headlines every day. But somehow, the following news failed to make the cut at the NY Times, the Boston Globe, as well as the WaPo (although I must say that the WaPo, being among other things a DC paper, has been a great deal better about covering the Walpin case in general). Imagine, if you will, how the following would have been covered by the MSM if the administration in question had been a Republican one; I doubt that Byron York and the Washington Examiner would be the lonely voices letting us know that the Obama administration is stonewalling Congress by refusing to answer pertinent questions and figuring that they can probably get away with it.
And they are getting away with it—at least for now:
[Frank Trinity,] [a] top official of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the government agency that oversees AmeriCorps, has refused to answer questions from congressional investigators about the White House’s role in events surrounding the abrupt firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin…
“He said that’s a prerogative of the White House, so he didn’t feel at liberty to disclose anything regarding White House communications,” says one aide.
Investigators asked Trinity whether he was claiming executive privilege, something that could only be authorized by the president. Trinity answered again that it was a White House “prerogative.” When the investigators pointed out that, in the words of one aide, “there is no legal basis whatsoever” for such a claim, Trinity still declined to answer.
According to the knowledgeable sources, Trinity refused to say what contacts the Corporation had with the White House prior to the firing, or after the firing. He refused to say who at the Corporation had spoken to whom at the White House. He refused to say whether Corporation officials had discussed the specific reasons for the firing with the White House.
This is important because the White House claims to have conducted an “intensive review” prior to firing Walpin, in order to investigate what happened in Walpin’s final meeting with the Americorps board, the one at which the White House alleges Walpin acted “confused and disoriented.” But several members of the Board say they were not contacted by the administration, and Walpin asserts that neither was he nor any of his aides.
York reports that investigators “believe the Obama administration may be constructing an after-the-fact rationale for canning Walpin.” Ya think?
In addition, Trinity has brought up a whole new reason the White House says it fired Walpin—a parody newsletter written by his staff but approved by Walpin, containing some jokes the White House appears to think are insufficiently politically correct. Not only did Walpin not write the newsletter, however, but it was composed more than a year before his firing, was never cited by the Board as a problem with Walpin, and was previously unmentioned by the White House as well:
Yet at the meeting with congressional investigators on Monday, Trinity pointed to the newsletter as one of the main reasons for Walpin’s dismissal. When asked whether anyone at the Corporation had discussed the newsletter with anyone at the White House, Trinity refused to answer.
I’m no longer surprised at the decline of any semblance of press objectivity or devotion to truth in the mainstream media. This story will have to leap out and grab them in a manner much too powerful to deny in order to gain any traction whatsoever. And even then, my guess is that much of the press effort will be devoted to covering up what’s actually happening here.
Of course, it’s possible there’s a rational and innocuous explanation for the Obama administration’s actions. But nothing in the case so far points in that direction, and virtually everything indicates its opposite. But Congress—which has a dog in this fight, since they are the ones who should have been properly informed by the White House due to their duty of oversight over IG firings—will have to come up with a smoking gun to get much coverage on this one.
Everyday another outrage or another slant on a previous outrage. It’s hard to keep track.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Rasmussen numbers took another dive. His Presidential Approval Index dropped another three points to -8. I follow Rasmussed daily and this is remarkable.
People may not be able to keep track of every scandal, but they are getting a bad feeling that Obama is doing no good for jobs and the economy and they are right.
Did you see the Dave Brooks column on dignity this week? He ends by saying that perhaps Obama’s greatest achievement will be to bring dignity back. I can’t figure out how Brooks finds this kind of stuff dignified.
Brooks is nuts, but so are most of the educated elite. My sense of that column was that it was slyly constructed to paint Palin’s resignation as showing a lack of character, the rest was window dressing. But maybe I’m oversensitive.
No, chuck, you nailed it. It was a dignified hit below the belt.
The big question is starting to loom: how does Obama react as his popularity declines?
He’s only six months into his term, and the air is hissing menacingly as it implacably exits his balloon. How does a galloping thin-skinned narcissist like Obama take it when he’s no longer subject to glassy-eyed adoration, but gets even, say, 1 milliBush of vituperation?
Occam: That’s exactly what I keep wondering.
Yes, I saw that Brooks column.
But Obama is also the guy who flipped off Hillary and McCain while campaigning, made the “lipstick on a pig” remark, appeared on the David Letterman show, and bowed as President to a Saudi king.
David Brooks is one of those bright people who should know better but has become a sycophant to and an enabler for Obama.
Excuse the serial posts. The blogging software was screening me out, who knows why.
The problem is that Obama doesn’t seem to have deep and abiding values that will let him function independent of social approval/disapproval, as Bush did.
Obama’s very much a focus-group kind of guy, someone who would be (and probably is already) severely wounded by withdrawal of popularity. What does he do when he gets lustily booed by an audience?
(FWIW, I taught in a university that has a tradition of undergrads booing whenever a professor says something unpopular – e.g., announcing an exam. Even though it’s traditional, and good-natured, it still kind of hurt the first time or two, and that was only a few hundred students. I can’t imagine being booed by thousands, as politicians and pro athletes must sometimes endure.)
“And they are getting away with it–at least for now”
And they will continue to unless and until this story gets more exposure by the MSM, which it won’t. Except if there is some type of criminal culpability. Only then will this case get any real wide coverage. But then again, it will probably be to spin against a media that is ‘biased’ against Obama.
It’s hard to believe that such a wide swath of the MSM is totally bereft of integrity. If the press were doing its job, Obama would be on the ropes by now. More accurately, he would not have been elected. How did the Russian in the street deal with Pravda? At some point won’t the public figure out the con?
Brooks will be the last to get the memo that the party line has changed. He just wants to be loved by the Obamaphiles at the Times.
I am vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard. It will be awhile before my family and neighbors here understand that they are in bubble, cut off from information about the outside world. They would not have any way to process this information.
Have you seen the picture of Obama that’s on the Drudge Report right now?
I’ve had one motto I’ve always lived by: Dignity. Always dignity.
— Singin’ in the Rain
Well, the Big O at least has taste when checking out the talent, even if he’s a wee bit obvious.
Meanwhile, here’s O cold-shouldering Berlusconi — refusing to shake the proffered hand, then smiling at Berlusconi’s discomfiture.
Nice. Berlusconi is a democratic ally, but apparently that’s the problem. Obama’s respect is for Saudi kings, Iranian mullahs, and Central American strongmen.
If Grassley keeps making noise about the IG firing it might eventually turn into something.
wonderful obama pic…
OT – sorry
Check this out:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PxZyE6Jgabo/SlYJ1frvFuI/AAAAAAAAEbI/Xz8rntX6o6Q/s1600-h/obi.gif
Funniest dang political cartoon in a long time.
Occam’s Beard – 1 milliBush. Loved that.
Mr. Frank, the alert Russian citizens learned to decode Pravda, such as “We are winning glorious battles closer and closer to Moscow. Hmm.” Among Party followers, this could become extremely subtle, noting in what order people or events were listed or the relative intensity of descriptive adjectives. Yet even at this, much was left out of the news – PR by subtraction is always the most effective – and even those opposed to the government were influenced.
We toss around comparisons to Pravda quite freely, but a better example would be the European newspapers, which are quite partisan. Our peculiar difficulty here is not the amount of bias so much as the continuing myth that there is none. For your comfort, I will note that the credibility of such entities as Time or NBC news is not only slowly eroding, but slowly aging. My adult children’s friends regard Newsweek, for example, as some irrelevant old-people’s magaizine found only in dentist’s offices.
The Obama pic is not something to jump on Obama about.
His policies are horrible.
His policies are shared by many Democrats.
Unless he does something really gross we can’t make it personal about Obama.
you mean like doing it several times to different women on camera?
Of course, it’s possible there’s a rational and innocuous explanation for the Obama administration’s actions
No, It isn’t possible. For the very simple reason that even an administration about which the most transparent thing is the packaging around its lies would have given a rational and innocent explanation were one to exist. One doesn’t.
Since the MSM is now MIA, perhaps the various special interest groups and bloggers should start their own news distribution activities focused on whatever commercial time can be purchased from the networks. air time on cable/satellite channels, and some sort of standardized commercial on blogs.
For instance, I could see a one or two minute commercial run repeatedly for about a week detailing the firing of Walpin, giving the details without hysteria and without any slant to attempt a political advantage – just put the facts out there for all to see and then watch the MSM try to spin it’s way out of not reporting it.
I could see the commercial going so far as to point out the lack of coverage by the MSM, simply as a way of shaming them and forming the kernal of doubt in the minds of viewers as to what they’re actually being provided in the way of “news” and begin the process of removing the mask of seriousness from the clown the MSM has become.
As long as there is no slant, and the facts are explicit and undeniable, there isn’t much that could be done by the MSM except grudgingly move into damage control mode and provide some tepid coverage of the firing.
It would be fun to watch, anyway…
Pingback:Maggie's Farm