One way to keep a non-story alive: explain the critics’ arguments without examining the merits.

Today the Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe gives an update on the Gerald Walpin saga. He provides some trivial backstory and zero insight:

Lawmakers almost immediately raised concerns about the dismissal of the organization’s inspector general, suggesting the White House failed to follow proper procedure in removing the appointee of President George W. Bush and did not provide proper reasons for the dismissal. The White House outlined its concerns in a letter to lawmakers, suggesting that Walpin appeared confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions at a late-May board meeting of the corporation.

This week, corporation staffers delivered even more evidence suggesting a difficult working relationship with Walpin, sending the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee several e-mails, memos and even a mock newsletter for review.

Was Walpin fired because of some newsletter he sent out? No, so why should we care?

More importantly, only a select group of Republican lawmakers remain concerned with Walpin’s dismissal. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) initially had questions about the firing but later said in a statement that she was satisfied by President Obama’s further explanation of the reasons for firing Walpin:

“Last night, in response to my request for adequate information on the firing of Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service Gerald Walpin, the White House submitted a letter to Senators Lieberman and Collins that now puts the White House in full compliance with the notice requirement in the law.  The next step for Congress is to use the 30 days provided by the notice to seek further information and undertake any further review that might be necessary. The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded.”

McCaskill, who authored the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, maintains that President Obama fully complied with the law.

Because I don’t want to beat a dead horse, here’s a thorough explanation of what the Act demands and how Obama fulfilled the two rather basic requirements of the law.

Why doesn’t O’Keefe tell readers the truth and that the Walpin firing was legal? That’s just not juicy enough, I guess.