Obama has Inspector General fired..for doing his job. Cronism????

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Page 5 of this document makes interesting reading:
http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/AuditReports/fy09/09-11A.pdf

Perhaps I'm confused and disoriented, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

[Anonymous]

I am disgusted that the White House is now trying to discredit this man who is clearly not disoriented in any shape or form. I too have seen him in interviews and he is on top of his game. He is called out bad behavior and was ousted. I also notice the focus is on putting him down rather than explaining what Kevin Johnson was called to task for. Everyone should be mad at this because his position is one that "does not serve at the discretion of the President" i.e. he is to serve between administrations and is not supposed to be political. Jeff again you are getting nasty when you are suposed to be the referee. You are going to drive out more republicans and that would really be sad because it is good to have information go back and forth.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Page 5 of this document makes interesting reading:
http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/AuditReports/fy09/09-11A.pdf

Perhaps I'm confused and disoriented, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

There were two "charges" against him before the "confused and disoriented" allegations.

One had to do with St. HOPE and Johnson, the other with an audit of City University of New York. The IG Walpin was branded as over reaching in both of these audits, and his recommendations re: CUNY were not followed (freeze funds). I thought it was clever how he used Obama's order to seek out fraud and waste to turn the tables. Doesn't seem the writing of a confused and disoriented man.

I am sure now that Walpin has been so publicly branded we will be seeing even more of him on TV - if only to disprove his critics.

[Anonymous]

PP here - I don't think Jeff is being nasty - more tit for tac. Civility is a lost art {{sigh}}

[Anonymous]

I was curious about the "confused and disoriented" charge. It could have been used as an excuse to get rid of someone Obama didn't like. But also it made me wonder if he had a substance abuse problem.

Not unusual for addicts to look like they're at the top of their game most of the time but then get caught being confused and disoriented as their addiction gets worse. There are some highly competent people out there who rely on drugs and alcohol to make it through the day.

I'd sure like to hear more from actual insiders to get a sense of whether this charge of confusion is solid or not. I don't think you can tell much from television appearances. But right now the jury is out.

[Anonymous]

Now accusing him of drug abuse? Johnson admitteded his culpability and settled-why no question on that?

[Anonymous]

This Inspector General seems like a gent. And the backroom politics on this sound like nasty dealings. Have seen some Americorps programs up close and personal; I suppose they serve a purpose though it seems odd to pay volunteers to volunteer (in the interest of citations I heard that on the radio today and it resonated). Also, just lots of waste, waste, waste in programs like these... (as I said, have seen them up close and personal). When it crosses the line into fraud people should be investigated. There is so much fast and loose before it can be called fraud, if it is it must really 'stink'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now accusing him of drug abuse? Johnson admitteded his culpability and settled-why no question on that?

Walpin was the one described as "confused." Am not accusing him of drug abuse. I'm only wondering about this charge and what led to it -- was it political expediency or is it based on something real?

I wish you'd stop with the kneejerk responses.

[Anonymous]

If there was any thought of drug abuse, it would have been followed up and documented. This was not the case so your "wondering" is just nasty and a lot of people will now muse..hmmm good point maybe he is an addict instead of the real scenario which is that he uncovered graft and the President doesn't like when people call him on things. Again not too much interest on Mr. Johnson and how he managed to get off easy.

[jsteele]

Talking Points Memo has talked to two board members of the Corporation for National and Community Service -- AmeriCorps' parent organization -- and they both confirmed that the Board unanimously asked the White House to review Walpin's performance. The board is bipartisan and its co-chaired by a Republican. So, contrary to claims made earlier in this thread, the firing was not an Obama-initiated effort to protect a buddy. Rather, it was the result of concerns shared by a bipartisan board.

In addition to the Board's action, Walpin was the subject of a formal complaint filed by the acting US Attorney, a career professional who was appointed by President Bush.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/americorps_board_member_we_initiated_ig_firing.php

I assume this information will prove unconvincing to those determined to find fault with Obama regardless of the facts involved. But for others, it should ease concerns about political meddling.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Talking Points Memo has talked to two board members of the Corporation for National and Community Service -- AmeriCorps' parent organization -- and they both confirmed that the Board unanimously asked the White House to review Walpin's performance. The board is bipartisan and its co-chaired by a Republican. So, contrary to claims made earlier in this thread, the firing was not an Obama-initiated effort to protect a buddy. Rather, it was the result of concerns shared by a bipartisan board.

Not quite sure how this proves Obama and his administration were not involved. Did you get quotes from anyone on the board who said the Obama administration was not involved?

How is that Michelle Obama's chief of staff, Michelle Norris, is being appointed to senior advisor to CNCS. Anyone else thing this is fishy?

I assume this information will prove unconvincing to those determined to find fault with republicans regardless of the facts involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume this information will prove unconvincing to those determined to find fault with republicans regardless of the facts involved.

Did anyone ever point out to you that it was Rove's favorite tactic to accuse the other guy of whatever hisguys were guilty of at the moment. For example, if some Republican Senator from, oh I don't know, maybe somewhere out west, were accused of finding jobs for his mistress's husband, Rove wouldd find some Dem who just switched jobs and raise questions about it. Then if Dems said anything about the Senator, he'd claim THEY were engaging in misdirection. God, I miss those days!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Not quite sure how this proves Obama and his administration were not involved. Did you get quotes from anyone on the board who said the Obama administration was not involved?

How is that Michelle Obama's chief of staff, Michelle Norris, is being appointed to senior advisor to CNCS. Anyone else thing this is fishy?

I assume this information will prove unconvincing to those determined to find fault with republicans regardless of the facts involved.

Of course the Obama administration is involved. It is the Obama administration that fired Walpin. That is not in dispute. The debate is over why the Obama administration fired Walpin. This thread was started with the premise that Obama was protecting one of his buddies from an inspector general who was simply doing his job. Now, Board members are saying that, in fact, they initiated the firing as a result of their loss of confidence in the IG. That means that the Walpin's firing was a result of bipartisan action, not an act of political interference by the Obama administration.

Michelle Norris is a reporter/host at NPR. If you mean Jackie Norris, when someone is removed as Chief of Staff and appointed to an obscure position at an agency of which most people have never heard, it's normally seen as a demotion. I assume the Obamas had already identified a candidate for Ambassador to Burkina Faso, or Norris would probably be busy learning French given her apparent marginalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was any thought of drug abuse, it would have been followed up and documented. This was not the case so your "wondering" is just nasty and a lot of people will now muse..hmmm good point maybe he is an addict instead of the real scenario which is that he uncovered graft and the President doesn't like when people call him on things. Again not too much interest on Mr. Johnson and how he managed to get off easy.

On the contrary, people are generally uncomfortable dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. Additionally alcoholics and drug addicts are often good at lying about and obscuring the level of their use. I suspect there are lots of times people get forced out of jobs where substance abuse is an underlying factor but no one wants to address it. Additionally, if he had been dismissed for substance abuse, it certainly would not be government policy to publicly share that.

At any rate, from the article link that was posted, it appears that the board was already to call for his ouster and that the meeting where he was "confused" and "disoriented" only confirmed their decision. Certainly, we don't know why Mr. Walpin had such a hard time with his presentation at the meeting -- could have just been a bad case of nerves -- but it does raise a red flag. You don't want to have your organizational leader unable to function effectively in important meetings.