Inspector General Update

In light of the recent Inspector General flap(s) it might be helpful to go back to Obama's address to Congress this past February:



Overnight and transparency were the two linchpin anchors of the program, which were handed to Biden (who proceeded to forgot the website name--which doesn't work as advertised anyway). At any rate, one might think a story about inspector general firings in this arena might force the press to remember what they quickly forgot about the Gerald Walpin firing. Fortunately Stacy McCain has the memory they don't.

Follow the links--the tie-in to Biden is of course Amtrak but the main theme in all of this is how flimsy the notion of oversight was all along, something the Dems knew when they used it as a selling point. The mainstream press (and masses) have no interest in stories about inspector generals. Matter of fact, even a blog post about it will be largely ignored, unless titled "inspector general sex scandal" and maybe not even then (apologies to the IG profession but somehow it doesn't evoke much titillation).

The same old dog and pony sales pitch is being used with health care and cap/trade, and will likely be employed with immigration amnesty and a host of other lollipops from the liberal make-a-wish tree. And no, it's probably not limited to the Democrats--those in power aren't about to let a few watchdogs take down their entire hot dog factory--but we were promised change this time around.

Quietly into the Night

That's most likely where the Walpin story is heading despite other IGs being brought in to the mix. There were no questions posed to Robert Gibbs at today's presser about this, which means only two reporters have mentioned it so far. Iran and health care are getting all the ink, and both are likely to flare even more in the weeks ahead. Stories about Inspector Generals are often complicated and dry, which is probably why Walpin was typecast as confused.

Really, it shouldn't be surprising at all that the administration dropped a senile card on him--they did the same to McCain and reportedly, also to NSA Jim Jones. Maybe Walpin should look into a discrimination suit.

Anyway, assuming this story dries up the epilogue might feature several bullet points,

• Walpin was too good. IGs most probably walk a fine line and he stepped over his, despite the dirt he found.
• KJ (and probably others) bought a settlement to get stimulus money into Sacramento, otherwise they were political toast. The idea he never communicated with anyone in the White House is hard to swallow.
• Although the Congressional Black Caucus is upset at the Senate's slavery apology resolution (because it doesn't allow for reparations) Obama is tunneling underneath by increasing money to AmeriCorps and ACORN entities as a way to 'spread the wealth around' without many seeing it. Clearly, many commited liberals see the only way to save our blighted cities is by throwing money at them and Walpin was an old dinosaur standing in the way.
  

So he had to go. But he leaves with his ethics intact--the same can't be said for his adversaries.

Walpin-Gate?

It's hard for the press to concentrate on anything other than Iran and health care, but the Walpin thing is still twisting in the breeze. Still not sure whether he simply went over the edge, letting his conservatism get the best of him, or was just tenaciously doing his job. He was an IG, after all. And he kept uncovering abuses (they are calling it sloppiness, aka Sandy Berger) no matter what is being said about how he operated.

Add the fact that Obama is not displaying much transparency right now and it certainly appears possible he was fired for political reasons, at least from what's been reported to date.

But will this story get any legs? Senator Claire McCaskill says he's not following the law--HER bill (she means S-2324), which Obama co-sponsored (passed as HR-928). But the smoldering heap might actually be Walpin's very recent report on grants to the City University of New York, who's in the tank for 75 million, not a measly 400 thou. Maybe ABC News can set up their nightly news tomorrow night from the Oval Office and ask some tough questions.

MORE 6/17/09

As of this morning I had not found any questions posed to Robert Gibbs of the White House on this topic. Today was different. Jake Tapper (who else) got the ball rolling and Major Garrett picked it up:

Major.

Q Robert, just to follow up on Jake, was the White House unaware that it needed to inform Congress 30 days in advance about Mr. Walpin's intended firing?

MR. GIBBS: I need to look at what Ms. McCaskill said regarding that. I just don't have that with me.

Q But it's -- number one, it's the law of the land, and number two, Senator Obama voted for it. I'm just wondering if the White House was aware of that -- regardless of what Senator McCaskill said.

MR. GIBBS: Well, since the question came based on what Senator McCaskill said -- and I haven't seen that part of it -- let me, as I just stated twice, check on that.

Q Okay. The letter that was sent out last night was regarded by Mr. Walpin as "a total lie." And -- that's what he told us -- and he said it was unnecessarily personal and accusatory. And I wonder if you felt there was anything the White House wanted to say about that letter and the contents thereof in response to that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think this was -- let me read the first sentence of the second paragraph. "Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bipartisan board of the Corporation." These were views that were held by many people as part of that board, and certainly the administration stands behind what's in the letter.

Q Following up on that, why not leave it at that and why did the White House feel it necessary to say he was disoriented and confused?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I have occasion to watch FOX every now and again, and I think there have been commentators that surmised that maybe we needed to be more specific about the reasons. I think members of Congress have asked for that, and I think it's detailed in the letter.

The letter was of course the smear job sent to Claire McCaskill last evening providing more info, essentially that Walpin was a confused, disoriented old coot. That seemed to soothe McCaskill (it must be tough going against the big guy, even for 24 hours).

And surely the "Fox" commentator Gibbs referred to was Glenn Beck, who had Walpin on recently and had him back tonight to perform a standard govt senility test, which Walpin of course passed with flying colors. At the end Beck asked him if he thought he'd 'win' this fight with Obama, to which he replied 'probably not'--even more proof of his lucidity and his grip on sanity. Funny how speaking truth to power has gone out of fashion.