Obama '08?

Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe
By ANN SANNER and PETE YOST, AP writers
Fri Jun 12, 7:06 pm ET

WASHINGTON – An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs. Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Obama said he had lost confidence in Walpin and was removing him from the position.

Walpin defended his work on Friday. "I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act," he said.

Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter late Thursday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.

"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.

Walpin said he gave the integrity committee "a full and complete response" that was also signed by several people who worked on the case. "I have no question but that we acted totally properly," he said in the interview.

Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.

Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job."

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
MORE HERE:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general

As this was happening, the matter was also under consideration by the local U.S. attorney's office after Walpin referred the matter to the office for a criminal inquiry. Since January of this year, the office has been headed by an acting U.S. attorney, Lawrence Brown, a career prosecutor who took over after the departure of the previous, Bush-appointed U.S. attorney. The office decided not to pursue criminal charges against Johnson, but also entered into settlement talks with Johnson and St. HOPE. What resulted was, according to Walpin, highly unusual.

...
Walpin was very unhappy. ...

Walpin told the Corporation's board of directors of his opinion. He told other officials. And he sent a report to Congress. "I was bringing Congress in to try to get its assistance in putting a spotlight on this," he says.

Walpin's actions undoubtedly angered top officials at the Corporation, and most likely at the White House as well.

Good afternoon. Every couple of weeks since the 1st of March, I have been posting polling results on President Obama's approval ratings as gathered by the polltaker Rasmussen. Here is the latest update:
The 1st set of numbers is the % of respondents who STRONGLY APPROVE of Mr Obama's performance vs the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The 2nd number is the index obtained by subtracting the DISAPPROVE from the APPROVE. The 3rd set is the % of folks who APPROVE vs DISAPPROVE, dropping the word "STRONGLY."

3/1/09: (38%-30%) = +8 (58%-40%)
3/15/09: (37%-31%) = +6 (56%-43%)
4/1/09: (37%-29%) = +5 (56%-44%)
4/14/09: (35%-32%) = +3 (55%-44%)
5/2/09: (33%-32%) = +1 (54%-45%)
5/16/09: (34%-30%) = +4 (56%-43%)
5/31/09: (36%-26%) = +10 (58%-41%)
6/16/09: (36%-32%) = +4 (56%-43% )

On 6/5, President Obama's index hit -0- for the 1st time since taking office (34%-34%). That was, I think, when it became clear GM was going into Chapter 11 and the government was putting another $30B. The majority of folks feel we should sell our shares, take the loss and move on. I infer that to mean that the majority feel GM will never become profitable, and we should get out of the car business.
The index got up to +9 on 6/9 but has been flat around +4 or so.
The health care debate isn't causing much movement so far. 41% like a public sector health insurance option while 41% say it is a bad idea.

Dropping the STRONGLY adverb, broader support for Mr Obama hasn't varied much.

I don't think it very important what Maher says about anything. Unlike Limbaugh, Maher is a not a leader of his party in any sense -- he is just a comedian.

Quote:

I don't think it very important what Maher says about anything. Unlike Limbaugh, Maher is a not a leader of his party in any sense -- he is just a comedian.

The few times I have tried to listen to Limbaugh, I thought he was a comedian also.
But if it is so important to so many on the left what Limbaugh says, it should matter what Maher also says.

it is important to the left what Rush says because "the base" listens/believes Rush.