First, I’m not fan of grand-standing investigators, prosecutors, or other “authorities,” who use their positions of privilege to publicly humiliate the citizens or organizations they have been empowered to investigate. Second, I am not a conservative; in fact, I can’t even hold a conversation with the average conservative without a strong alcoholic beverage in my hand. So when I say I do not approve of the way Obama fired Gerald Walpin, the inspector who investigated Mayor Johnson’s St. Hope organization, I say it for no other reason than to express my extreme disappointment in Obama’s handling of the situation.
The good news is that people are not letting this story die. Nor should they. Clearly, and I do mean clearly, based on the press reports alone, this termination appears to have been politically motivated, and–in my opinion–no matter what side of the partisan fence Walpin grazes, his decades of public service should not have been the toilet for what sure seems to be nothing more than Obama’s political defecation.
I thought we were going to get change we could believe in? If this is change, you can have it back, O. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t recall Bush firing a high profile Democrat so coldly and so publicly for something as meniscual as meeting behavior reported by colleagues..? What the–?
Obama’s brashness here leads me to believe he either: A) Thinks he can now do whatever he wants without being accountable; or B) Thinks the American people are too stupid to see beyond his empty excuse about having lost “confidence” in Walpin. Did Obama even really have confidence in Walpin to lose? How much time did he spend with him? They obviously weren’t too close because Obama didn’t even show him respect enough to fire him personally (one of his staffers did)! What is up with that?
Every clue we’ve been given so far about this seems to point to Obama having an axe to grind with Walpin. And THAT is absolutely enough reason to investigate what appears to be a very wrongful termination and get to the bottom of Obama’s reasoning. After all, as a senator Obama himself supported legislation to prevent this very thing (hasty, unsupported terminations) from happening!
I have read countless articles from both conservatives and liberals on this, and from them I have identified an absolute certainty: Had Walpin been fired in the private sector for the same lame reason Obama belched out, there would be hell to pay…. hell being a wrongful termination suit of substantive proportion.. and pay being a substantive settlement to square up the public humiliation the employee weathered.
Why? Because we have a code of conduct for professionalism and fairness in this country, and professionals, true professionals, are expected to follow it. It’s called ETHICS. Better, it’s called INTEGRITY, and Obama SHOULD know all about it considering the number of times he tried to sell it to us last fall. Remember? He was the going to be the great redeemer.. the one who gallantly restored integrity, honor, and decorum to our White House. He has exercised NONE of these things in his handling of the Walpin issue.
In rebuttal, people may argue Walpin deserves what he got because of his less-than-professional handling of Johnson’s case. I agree that the timeliness of the investigation and the “news flash” touting of it on Walpin’s site was overzealous at best. I say “at best” because being overzealous is not–at least to my knowledge–a crime… yet. Granted Walpin showed a more-than-routine interest in this case, but it’s not like he did a Duke LaCross number on KJ. Personally I never construed Walpin’s press statements to be defamatory. And anyways, innocent people RARELY pay $400,000 to make a problem go away… so I’m at least inclined to believe there was more than just a little misappropriation of funds. In other words, Walpin’s investigation was not a farce by any stretch…
Again, I agree Walpin can be a bit of a Biden when it comes to saying idiotic things, but is being “confused” in a meeting grounds for termination in the world YOU live in? For a 78 year old man? Doesn’t Walpin deserve better for his decades of public service? Doesn’t it at least SEEM like Obama fired him because he was pissed off at him for coming down on KJ so hard?
I know Obama’s “can-do-no-wrong” pass has been been getting stronger every day since he took office, thanks in large part to his devoted congregation (whose adoration for him appears to have nothing to do with his politics whatsoever). The blind support of his ideas (and now behavior), is both incredible and startling at the same time. But sensible people know power corrupts; and that is why Obama, or anyone in his position (i.e. someone given the king’s crown with relatively no leadership experience), MUST be held accountable to answer SATISFACTORILY for his decisions.
That is also why I strongly feel Obama’s firing of Walpin should be subject to an intense inquiry by congress. Obama may have received the crown, but this country is NOT a monarchy and he is NOT the king, and he should NOT be able to fire high ranking officials with a wave of the hand and no plausible reason. That would be a DICTATORSHIP, not a democracy.
In closing, this isn’t about Mayor Johnson to me; I trust the truth (good or bad for KJ) will emerge in all of its glorious splendor sooner or later. For me this is all about ethics, and presidential decorum. Obama himself is the one who decried ethics violators to win the White House. Time to walk the talk, Mr President.
Somebody asked me what I thought of Bush firing a number of U.S. Attorneys for flimsy reasons. I responded that I was shocked that there was politics involved!
Seems Obama and Bush are both politicians cut from the same ethical cloth.
The Inspector General did a good job in finding fault with Johnson and his school, any fool could see that, the firing was about helping restore credibility for the mayor. The standards of public trust and ethics are so low now, that it is now tolerable to fire an investigator who uncovers wrong doing, while the person who tries to screw you or your taxes gets off with minimal or no punishment, and all you Obama lovers, what a pathetic joke that you believed he was to usher in some new era. He has always been a fraud.
Joe,
You have absolutely nailed it. It’s as if you were living inside my brain (plenty of room up there, I hasten to add) and popped out to write your piece about Walpin.
Y’know, the hatchet job characteristics of this might just be the work of Rahm Emmanuel — simply speculation on my part. It strikes me that Barack has a few other things to spend his time on, and might not have been fully involved from the get go. Nevertheless, if Barack is still using the same office space once occupied by Harry Truman, the buck does come to rest there. And he DID put Rahm in the job of gatekeeper, whip cracker, and enforcer (whatever his title might be).
At this point there is plenty of time for Obama to have gotten involved, though, and be statesman-like and a little more apolitical than some of his staff is prone to be. So, we’ll see.
Thanks for the cogent summary.
I agree with your observations 100% Joe. I agree Obama’s decision to fire the inspector makes him look like a he had a vendetta to play out. I thought he was going to be better than that
There is more to this story than just Mayor Johnson, read: http://hoguenews.com/?p=1116
I am saying this as a guy who did not vote for Obama. And also as a guy who like to see someone like Walpin really expose Kevin Johnson (who contradictingly I did vote for … simply on the wobbly hope KJ would be tougher on crime then Fargo).
But what is an unjustified termination to one guy is expediency and getting the job done to another. Since Jackson’s time (Andrew…not MJ!) the victor has received the spoils. In many ways the presidency is cleaner now than at any point in US history, although it doesn’t seem that way. Yes, I too would love it if a candidate would come along and dazzle us with honesty, integrity, transparency and forthrightness. But candidates that actually try that get eaten alive pretty quickly. I mean, Ross Perot really did have some very useful budget information on the flip charts, you know!
Obama is flexing a little muscle, firing a guy, and protecting some people who helped get him to office. Pretty much par for the course whether its a (R) or (D). And besides I honestly can’t tell if Obama made bigger promises of transparency and change than past candidates, or whether more attention was given to the same old candidate stump speeches.
So I guess my point is that stuff like Walpin’s firing is obviously distasteful. But I am not sure rises to the level of congressional inquiry, or should be that thing that causes you to lose hope in your candidate.
In the next year Obama will be severely tested by the economic situation, foreign policy, and even his own Congress. This Walpin firing will look pretty trivial in a month or two and will have faded from memory in a year. I am okay with that.
Not sure if my earlier post is up, because on my screen it says it is “awaiting moderation”.
Why I am so focused on this:
(1) Critiquing the administration for becoming more Bush-like than like what Obama led us to expect (less partisan, transparency, fiscal stewardship). On that last point, one of the few specific campaign “promises” made by Obama was that he’d go through Fed Govt spending, page by page, line by line, program by program, and see to it that taxpayers interests were being served by the spending. My ears went up, my eyes jolted open, and I wrote a note to myself to see how that was going to play out. Based on that, and that alone, he became “my candidate”.
(2) Walpin seems to be one of those rare birds that “has it made” (hugely successful) but is willing to leave comfortable retirement for public service, where he doesn’t owe anything to anybody; all signs say he has integrity and has been cited for his professionalism.
(3) I do not expect much of anything personally from government beyond physical security, protection of property, education of the general public to the highest possible standard, and a court system if I ever need it. I have few “friends” in government sector looking out for MY interests, which are simply (a) that tax money be handled prudently and (b) that public officials are not on the take and instead are looking out for the taxpayers. One part of government that I DO feel aligned with it is the “watchers” … e.g., my heroes John Ross, William Roth and William Proxmire in their days, the IGs, the brave and rare whistleblowers. I think Walpin was one of those, and his removal for no good reason is bound to have a chilling effect on the rest of them, given that they presumably (unlike Walpin) have to worry about their careers and connections and whose toes they step on.
Cog’: great commentary as usual, and I agree with you to an extent; however, I don’t think we should excuse Obama’s rash/baseless decision to fire this guy on the strength of expediency. Personally, I don’t trust Obama. Why? Same reason I would distrust a new employee: trust is EARNED, not a birthright. I am not convinced Obama is an honest, ethical, noble man yet. In fact I think he might even be a liar. Now that may not appear to be a revelation; after all we accept that our politicians are liars–BUT Obama ran on integrity. That was his platform. That is the difference between him and so many other liars who run for public office.
Yes, being honest, forthright, and transparent is indeed HARD WORK. Yes, people will persecute you for being those things. It’s called the high road. It’s a bitch. And yes, only the strongest amongst us can climb up to it, let alone stay on it. But I have faith this stype of greatness is attainable–at least to a large extent, given the limitations we all face as imperfect humans. I have known people who meet this rigorous honest standard. Such men exist. There are very few of course, because again the high road is too demanding for the average shortcut taker. But I think we should hold our president to such a standard. He asked us to, in fact
Yes, Obama askjed us to keep him honest. Remember? So that’s what I’m doing here; my own little part in the big play. Obama said he was going to be different than Bush and the evil Republicans who did everything in a shroud of secrecy. That is is how he rallied the people… YES WE CAN… give the government back to the people! Remember?
In closing, I’m surprised you’d even question how big of a part TRANSPARENCY played in his campaign. That’s what his whole platform was built on. Now he’s being secretive. I find it insulting personally, and he–for what it’s worth–he doesn’t get a pass from me
Thanks for your thought provoking comment
Terry, thanks. I tend to think Obama was in the know on this… with a celeb like Johnson involved and all… it appears to me as though this was a personally vendetta.. Obama getting back at a good old boy for dissing his friend Johnson. Until it is proved otherwise, that’s how it appears to me.
Hogue.. as they say, follow the money. You are probably right; it’s probably all about money, as it always is. But that still doesn’t excuse Obama’s secretive non-transparent BS. I am holding him to a different standard.. after all he asked me to!
PS: it’s “little Barack”
Joe, we have to get together for lunch…since I am the conservative, I’ll buy your first two drinks. LOL (reference Joe’s statement he needs some sauce to sit with conservatives.)
Hogue.. ok deal! Let’s shoot for mid August after I get through moving hell.
WOW, I love the ARTICLE and I LOVE your comments posted–especially: “Personally, I don’t trust Obama. Why? Same reason I would distrust a new employee: trust is EARNED, not a birthright. I am not convinced Obama is an honest, ethical, noble man yet. In fact I think he might even be a liar. Now that may not appear to be a revelation; after all we accept that our politicians are liars–BUT Obama ran on integrity. That was his platform. That is the difference between him and so many other liars who run for public office. Yes, being honest, forthright, and transparent is indeed HARD WORK. Yes, people will persecute you for being those things. It’s called the high road. It’s a bitch. And yes, only the strongest amongst us can climb up to it, let alone stay on it. But I have faith this stype of greatness is attainable–at least to a large extent, given the limitations we all face as imperfect humans. I have known people who meet this rigorous honest standard. Such men exist. There are very few of course, because again the high road is too demanding for the average shortcut taker. But I think we should hold our president to such a standard. ”
I ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY AGREE. I don’t yet know if I trust the man. I like to keep hope alive but he has yet to earn trust–and funny you mention revelation- ( “Now that may not appear to be a revelation”); isn’t it in revelations of a man that so many will trust will turn out to be the anti-Christ. Now I’m not saying that man will be Obama but surely it will cause me not to put my trust in every man soley because he is trusted by so many…. Trust is earned! and time will tell….
Joe, Rhonda, Terry- I completely support your comments 100%.
Terry- I agree that Mr. Walpin is a good man as I have researched him extensively. I have also researched the whole IG scandal extensively and I can tell you, this is very, very wrong and you can bet the MSM will not cover it for the hope that it will die.
As for the folks who say all politicians are corrupt and this is no big deal, it’s sad that you have this attitude. It’s attitudes like yours that promote corruption. I mean, if you can get away with it, why not. That is how Kevin Johnson, an incredibly corrupt man in my opinion, came to rise so far so fast. It’s all the little things that people dismiss. Where do we draw the line for positions of power and influence? Is there no line? There should definitely be a line…
Here’s an editorial written by Gerald Walpin’s daughter. I think the way she and her father do. I’m sure many of us are out there, right? Hello? Is there anyone out there?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/16/honesty-what-a-concept/?feat=article_top10_shared