Although I'm not surprised, the "Change we can believe in" has been completely replaced with more of the same old thing. In another piece here on UE, Quickjustice laid out the recent article on "Walpin-gate." Effectively, it appears that Michelle Obama's former Chief of Staff was hired by a firm that did not like one of the Country's Inspector Generals and the inquiries being made against his agency, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)...
So, to review, Mr. Walpin on June 4 issued the second of two reports to which Mr. Solomont strongly objected. That same day, the White House announced that Mrs. Obama's chief of staff would move over to a key role at Mr. Solomont's agency. Mr. Solomont already had been lobbying the White House to fire Mr. Walpin. Five days later, Mr. Solomont met with that chief of staff, and Mr. Walpin was fired the next day, keeping him from being able to do any follow-up work on his two reports (or to finish a third report that was in the works). Yet Mr. Solomont reportedly claimed that he and Ms. Norris did not even discuss any CNCS business, much less anything about Mr. Walpin, at that June 9 meeting.
Mr. Issa is right to smell a rat, especially since White House aides reportedly cut short congressional staff questioning of Mr. Solomont when the line of questioning began to lead to Mrs. Obama.
That defensiveness and all the subterfuge are all the more reason, logical if not legal, for the judge in Mr. Walpin's lawsuit not to dismiss the case. Mr. Walpin merits the opportunity in open court to explain why his "leave" without notice amounted to improper interference with his necessary work as a watchdog against malfeasance.
...and this entire situation wreaks of hypocrisy as the American people were inundated with claims of scandal against the Bush Administration in a similar area by Democrats - when Alberto Gonzalez was accused of firing Federal Attorneys who were supposedly investigating supporters of Mr. Bush and Republicans and for other "political" reasons...
Seven U.S. attorneys were fired Dec. 7, and another was dismissed earlier in the year, as part of a plan that originated in the White House to replace some prosecutors based in part on their perceived disloyalty to President Bush and his policies. The uproar over the removals has grown amid allegations that Republican lawmakers had improper political contact with prosecutors and assertions by Democrats that the firings may have been an attempt to disrupt public corruption investigations.
...well I certainly hope that Mr. Conyers, who ran the last crusade for "truth" against the Bush Administration, is consistent in his search for the facts in a case of potential government favoritism and corruption. His efforts actually led to Mr. Gonzalez' resignation and the Congress dragged the Attorney General though expansive, politically motivated hearings.
Will the Democrats continue to display the type of political hypocrisy the candidate Mr. Obama said would no longer exist under his watch? Here's the soon-to-be President's response to Gonzalez' resignation...
"I have long believed that Alberto Gonzales subverted justice to promote a political agenda, and so I am pleased that he has finally resigned today," he said. "The president needs to nominate an Attorney General who will be the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer, and in an Obama Administration that person will first and foremost defend and promote the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution."
...Will the President avoid the clear contradiction of having a team of Inspector Generals who are not "the people's" Inspector Generals, but, instead, are handpicked by the First Lady and told not to investigate Friends of Barack? This is an especially important question considering that Obama has now hired one of the formerly "fired" prosecutors. And this, supposedly, on the merits...
The White House said in a statement Friday evening about Bogden’s nominaton: “Daniel Bogden is an experienced lawyer and prosecutor who has the strong support of Majority Leader Reid. The president believes that Mr. Bogden has demonstrated a strong commitment to serving the people of Nevada and that he will work closely with the leadership of the Department of Justice to follow the facts and the law in the pursuit of justice.”
...so will they step in a let Mr. Walpin get his job back so he can finish his investigation of the Corporation for National and Community Service? Or will they allow their political friends to escape the same types of investigations Democrats claimed needed to move forward when Mr. Bush was in office?
Ah, yes. Truly "Change we can believe in"...
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by bigrobtheactor , December 21, 2009
you know about her history at the University of Chicago Medical Center? Her raises and promotions and how they coincidentally (of course) synced so fortuitously with Barry's political career?
written by Jay Golub , December 21, 2009
http://archives.chicagotribune...70216sep27
I think most of that issue has been debunked, BigRob (nice to have you join in the conversation)...
"Michael Riordan, who was University of Chicago Hospitals president at the time, said he had planned early on for the position to evolve into a vice-president’s post as a way of showing the organization’s commitment to community outreach.
“I knew where I wanted to go with this position,” said Riordan, who now is the top executive of the Greenville Hospital System in South Carolina. “I wanted to identify someone to grow into it.”
Riordan said Obama’s promotion had nothing to do with her husband becoming a U.S. senator.
“She was hired before Barack was Barack,” Riordan said. “She is worth her weight in gold, and she is just terrific.”
...Although it is ridiculous that someone can get paid $300k for a ceremonial, community outreach job, it isn't fair to call that a pay-off.
Honestly, even if the Obamas were able to redirect funding to the hospital once Barack became Senator, that still wouldn't be a demonstration of corruption or "pay to play." That's his home district - he should be trying to deliver for it. And she should be trying to make money while helping her community.
Additionally, it is the dream of EVERY elected official on the political Left (and many on the Right as well) to hire everyone they know and love to make them rich. This is not seen as "pay-to-play" as they see it as their "right" to do so. Remember the sentiments of the infamous Tammany Hall leader, George Washington Plunkett, when it came to making money off of government spending. He called it "Honest Graft."
The broader point of this thread is that Obama and his crew will hire and fire just as "politically" as Bush did - this is what happens. The Democrats were being disingenuous when attacking Bush, Rove and Gonzalez. Unfortunately, Bush and the last Congress controlled by the GOP didn't live up to the standards many in the Party are demanding of the Dems today, so their attacks will not stick.
But, pointing out hypocrisy creates apathy. Apathy, in the Obama generation's voting ranks, will enable the Republican Party's true support nationwide to be demonstrated.
Barack has helped create a big opportunity for the nation - and the GOP. And although I would never wish a President of my country to fail, success in his first year would have kept a large new group of voters around for 2010. Instead, his failure has almost guaranteed that the new Obama-motivated registrants from 2008 - the difference in so many races across the nation and especially here in NYC in 2008 - will not be coming out to vote in 2010.
If the GOP wants to set itself up for success in the next decade, success this year couldn't possibly be more critical. Fortunately, the Obamas are turning out to be a gift that just keeps on giving...
written by kalpal , December 22, 2009
I came to this country at the end of 1962. Since then I have observed the politics of this nation.
I regret to inform you that all bad habits of the left came from watching and aping the right wing.
America's conservatives are by far the most mean sprited humans I have ever met anywhere in my travels.
written by Robert Hornak , December 22, 2009
Glad to see that you are being specific in your accusations, kalpal, and are avoiding sweeping generalizations.
Mean spirited-ness is not subject to party registration. I have met many liberals who exhibit that trait in my many years of activity in politics. And most of the conservatives I have met have been very good people with good hearts.
As for Michele's promotions, it is easy for Riordan to claim that, but was there any paper trail to back up his claim? It all looks fishy to me.
written by Jay Golub , December 23, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/n...vGLB3EanyN
Goodwin must be reading UE...
The health-care debacle alone would make a classic Capra morality tale. The naked vote-buying that enabled Reid to get 60 was the very sort of insider corruption the three-time Oscar-winner despised.
His reel heroes, including Jimmy Stewart, Jean Arthur, Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck, would be denouncing the bill as crooked and stacked against honest, ordinary Americans.
Yet there was Obama, who promised to change the culture of Washington, heralding the sleazy outcome. How fitting that the end of his first year also marks the end of any pretense he is a reformer.
He is now the very opposite of what he promised. To support the health payoffs is to support corruption.
...oh so true. What a pathetic excuse for a "reformer" Mr. Obama and his friends on the Left are!...
Reid unwittingly admitted Obama has had no impact on Washington by saying there was nothing unusual about the deals that secured the health votes, even though the bill is one of the largest ever passed -- and comes in a job-killing recession.
Obama's endorsement covers the $100 million deal to pay the full cost of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska, getting $100 million for a hospital in Connecticut, exempting seniors in Florida from benefit cuts, and replacing a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic-surgery procedures with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning.
The first three came in vote deals with individual senators, while the last came at the behest of the American Medical Association, which promptly endorsed the bill.
High-cost medical plans of favored unions were also exempted from a 40 percent excise tax that was supposed to help reduce the cost of health care. As The Wall Street Journal editorial page put it, controlling costs is important "unless it is provided by an important Democratic constituency."
...ouch! What a sellout this bill has turned out to be...
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
