So Much Attention To The LEGAL Firing Of US Attorneys

And so little attention to Barack Obama's ILLEGAL firing of inspectors general.

The Washington Post reveals that Karl Rove had more input into the prosecutors firings that previously known.

Political adviser Karl Rove and other high-ranking figures in the Bush White House played a greater role than previously understood in the firing of federal prosecutors almost three years ago, according to e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, in a scandal that led to mass Justice Department resignations and an ongoing criminal probe.

By the way, these prosecutors serve at the president's pleasure. He can legally fire them at any time for any reason - even if he doesn't like the way they part their hair. Bill Clinton fired scores of prosecutors and the MSM didn't raise even the slightest fuss.

Obama's firing of inspectors general, is obviously illegal. Too bad that the Washington Post and the New York Time and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc are so incurious about that.

After seven weeks of trying, investigators looking into President Barack Obama’s abrupt firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin are still unable to answer the most basic question of the whole affair: Why did the president do it?

They know the reasons the White House has given: That the 77-year-old Walpin was addled and not up to the job, that he had too many conflicts with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, that his office had once distributed a parody newsletter that contained an allegedly sexist remark.

They know all that. But they also know that AmeriCorps is one of Obama’s favorite federal programs. They know that AmeriCorps gave an $800,000-plus grant to Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, Calif., who just happens to be an influential friend and supporter of the president. They know that Walpin investigated Johnson’s misuse of that federal money. They know that as a result of Walpin’s probe, Johnson was suspended from receiving any new federal grants, a fact that caused controversy in Sacramento when leaders realized it could prevent the city from receiving millions in federal stimulus money. They know that, amid the local uproar over the Johnson affair, the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, made a deal to let Johnson off the hook, and then took the unusual step of denouncing Walpin. They know that Walpin vigorously objected to Johnson’s getting off easy. And they know that after Walpin protested, the president fired him.

Barack Obama - The Candidate Of Nothing

Ed Morrisey has an excellent analysis of Barack Obama today and points out what an empty suit the man is.

In short, Obama has run as something he clearly is not, at least not so far. He wants people to believe that he can change the game, but in the three short years he has served in national office, he has done nothing to suggest that. John McCain actually has a track record of working across party divisions and trying to reach solutions on controversial issues; Barack Obama prefers to reserve his “political capital”. All Obama has done is talk about change, and that talk has begun to wear thin, especially as people take a closer look at him and his political associations.

In a way, Obama is the Jon Stewart candidate. He sits on the edge of politics, making “wry and sardonic” comments about what other people do without doing anything himself. No wonder younger voters love him; he gets to be ironic while taking no responsibility for anything. And when people press him for action, he’d prefer to eat his waffle in peace until he can find a way to act as a commentator rather than as a real agent for change.

And what excuse has he given for that? Obama doesn’t want to become part of the Beltway culture. That sounds good, but did he run for the Senate so he could not participate in the legislative process? He could have stayed in Illinois to do that.

I'm sure that he's the Jon Stewart candidate so much as he's the Jerry Seinfeld candidate.

The Sinister Hand of Karl Rove

Cheryl Crowe has uncovered a secret plot by Karl Rove to make her look like a fool.

Interviewer: Last spring, you were held up as a parody of environmental correctness when you proposed restricting the use of toilet paper to one square per bathroom visit. What was that about?

Cheryl Crow: I think it’s a fantastic and eye-opening example of how the media is operated by political figures, of how Karl Rove was humiliated in the media and how, within 24 hours, he was able to humiliate me and take any sort of credibility away from me.

Interviewer: What are you saying? You think Karl Rove leaked the toilet-paper story to the press after you and Laurie David sparred with him about global warming at the White House correspondents’ dinner?

Cheryl Crow: I cannot tie him directly to that leak, but within 24 hours of our exchange, as we were leaving D.C., it was on the CNN ticker tape: “Sheryl Crow has proposed that we legislate toilet paper to one square.”

Interviewer: Did you ever actually suggest that?

Cheryl Crow: It was always a joke. It was part of a shtick…”