Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have 406,344 members! Join today to learn, network, laugh, and share with nurses.
| No. 2 | 
Jun 22, 2009, 10:06 PM
 Re: Gerald Walpin Originally Posted by Momus  Looks to me like Barak broke the law, and engaged in partisan politics in order to protect a corrupt friend who was misusing tax dollars.
OMG, it's that can't-spell bug and it must be contagious, at least to conservatives!
As for Walpin, here's a history lesson: Luise S. Jordan served as the IG at the CNCS from 1994 until 2002, when she was “ quietly forced out” by the Bush administration: According to Luise S. Jordan, the IG at the Corporation for National and Community Service since 1994, she was summoned to a meeting with Ed Moy, an associate director in the presidential personnel office.
“I was told I had done a good job. I was complimented on the achievements of my office, but the second paragraph, after all these compliments and making it clear this was not a dismissal for cause, was that the corporation had decided to get a new IG,” Jordan recalled.
Congressional Republicans have accepted in the recent past that IG’s can be terminated for literally any reason, and now they charge that a Democratic administration is playing politics for firing an IG for entirely substantive reasons. That’s just so not characteristic of the GOP!  | | No. 5 |
Jun 22, 2009, 11:00 PM
Re: Gerald Walpin Originally Posted by tntrn And wasn't it Clinton who fired all of them when he was the Prez?
Huh? No I refer to the firings that occurred in 2006 under the Bush crime family.
| | No. 6 |
Jun 22, 2009, 11:06 PM
Updated
Jun 22, 2009 at 11:12 PM by tntrn
Re: Gerald Walpin
Clinton fired 93 attorneys when he became President. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp
Walpin was removed in a political firing, but Obama is just following what seems to be the accepted/expected policy of the new administration.
Bush did it; Clinton really did it. If Obama was justified in doing this, then Bush was also...after all, it was done by the President who preceded him as well.
I was going to comment on the "Bush crime" use, but decided to say instead,
"What's the use?"
| | No. 7 |
Jun 22, 2009, 11:13 PM
Re: Gerald Walpin Originally Posted by tntrn Clinton fired 93 attorneys when he became President. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp
Walpin was removed in a political firing, but Obama is just following what seems to be the accepted/expected policy of the new administration.
Bush did it; Clinton really did it. If Obama was justified in doing this, then Bush was also...after all, it was done by the President who preceded him as well.
I was going to comment on the "Bush crime" use, but decided to say instead,
"What's the use?"
Unlike Bush, Clinton had not appointed them, nor did he dismiss them mid term. If we want to play numbers Reagan dismissed quite a few when he became president. It was the method and unclear rationale to their firing that serves as the controversy..
| | No. 8 |
Jun 22, 2009, 11:20 PM
Re: Gerald Walpin Originally Posted by hillarypeace2006 Unlike Bush, Clinton had not appointed them, nor did he dismiss them mid term. If we want to play numbers Reagan dismissed quite a few when he became president. It was the method and unclear rationale to their firing that serves as the controversy..
That, to me, is just rhetoric used to justify doing the same thing you've accused others of doing. I saw Mr. Walpin on TV last week and he hardly seemed confused to me. So "unclear rationale" for the firing would be an issue here as well.
It seems to be a precedent that a President can fire who he wants regardless whether he appointed them or not. They all seem to do it, so why bother pointing the finger or defending any of them?
| | No. 9 |
Jun 22, 2009, 11:23 PM
Re: Gerald Walpin Originally Posted by tntrn
So did Reagan. He dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. The difference between Reagan's and Clinton's mass firings were that they came at the start of their first presidential term. From Foxnews: When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.
It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.
The Justice Dept. itself concluded that the decisions were heavily influenced by questions of the fired U.S. political loyalty, such as not aggressively pursuing voter-fraud cases like the Bush administration wanted. Never mind that the fired U.S. attorneys concluded that there was no evidence of fraud. See this NYT editorial. |
| 439 members
5,141 guests 5,580
|
Search Tags
World News & Politics