Trying to read between the lines, the second Obama comment on the IG firing suggests that he showed up drunk (or similar). Of course, that may or may not be true, but it's doubling down. If the IG is a drunk, I suspect he'll be sorry about the mess soon enough. If not, more likely Obama will be sorry.

This seems to be more of a rundown on bad media and partisan stamping, but I found this while having morning coffee, and thought I would post.

Salon has a rundown on the events leading up to the firing, and how the white house should have explained the firing

Some of the language is a little too political for me, but here is the important part of the article:

It is true that Johnson and St. Hope have acknowledged that they must refund roughly half of the money that the group received from Washington. But it is also true that Walpin... went well beyond his official mandate last year by publicizing supposed "criminal" wrongdoing by Johnson in the days before the Sacramento mayoral election.

And it is true as well that Lawrence Brown, the United States attorney in Northern California who received Walpin's findings, decided not to bring any criminal charges against Johnson and instead reached a settlement with him and St. Hope.

Just as salient as the accusations against Johnson, however, are those brought by Brown against Walpin. A Republican named as the acting U.S. attorney by Bush, Brown filed a sharply worded complaint against Walpin with the oversight office for the federal inspectors general that charged him with ethical violations in an overzealous assault on Johnson and St. Hope. The U.S. attorney said that Walpin had "overstepped his authority by electing to provide my office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth" -- in other words, Walpin had failed to provide substantive exculpatory facts to the U.S. attorney, while trying to push the government into opening a criminal probe of Johnson. During the election season in Sacramento, Brown noted that Walpin had sought publicity for his findings against Johnson in the local media before discussing them with the U.S. Attorney's Office, "hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."

Andrew, from what I read it sounded like he was coming down with a cold or something and was a little worse for wear. That's hardly a good reason to fire somebody...

Before and since by all accounts he's been doing a good job - perhaps a little too good.

"Trying to read between the lines, the second Obama comment on the IG firing suggests that he showed up drunk (or similar). Of course, that may or may not be true, but it's doubling down."

That's one way to read it. Another way is that that was a post-facto justification invented to shut the man up.

I do like Walpins retort, however. Something along the lines of- if having a bad day justifies losing your job, maybe Obama should be out for not knowing how many states there are (and don't even start on Biden).

Alchemist, the headline for the Salon article isn't filling me with warm confidence...

'An Obama "scandal" as phony as Whitewater

The right finds a fake martyr in Gerland Walpin, a Bush holdover and right-wing ideologue fired by President Obama'

I'll read it and digest, however...

Marc

Yeah, I concur, the tone is over the top. However, the two paragraphs I linked too are the 'meat' of the story... everything else is filler.

There's a sort of "death by cliche" method of getting rid of people these days.

Someone appears to lose their job for political reasons, under circumstances that would have required explanation back in the Bush days, or even Clinton days. The MSM ignores it completely, as do the liberal blogs, so it is reported only by conservative and libber bloggers. From there it gets picked up by FOX or Limbaugh.

At which point the politically reliable folk cry out that the person in question is "the darling of the far right" or "poster child of the far right", or - what the hell - "the darling poster child of the ultra-extreme religious right." End of discussion.

I expect to see this a lot.

Ok, here's a better article here that accounts for both sides in the argument.

Secondly, Glen I suggest you google walpin, firing and news. There are a lot of major news outlets following this story. My link goes to ABC. You can also check the chicago tribune, wapo, LATimes, (etc). There is currently no news cover-up.

Sorry to be OT, but why is the BMW parts ad "interesting"? (Or were you hacked?)