4 ms·

I disagree. For example: The Obama administration has already failed to respond to more FOIA requests than the Bush administration. http://www.rcfp.org/newsit

by harold 16y ago

I disagree. For example: The Obama administration has already failed to respond to more FOIA requests than the Bush administration. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11758 http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11758 Obama Administration Aides meet with lobbyists off the White House grounds to avoid logging meetings: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html More than 40 former lobbyists work in top positions in the administration, including three cabinet secretaries and the director of Central Intelligence. http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-senior-obama-administration-positions http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-seni...

jbooth 16y ago
On your links: #1) Your first link makes absolutely no reference to the Bush administration. It supports my point, though, Obama created stricter guidelines instructing the agencies to fulfill more FOIA requests. And the agencies are falling short for whatever bureaucratic reason, seemingly that they can't work through the pile fast enough. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. Thanks for the link though, I didn't know Obama had done that. I approve. #2) Some aides met with lobbyists off of white house ground to avoid logging the meetings? You mean to avoid the policy that Obama put in place and that had never existed before he was elected? Seems like he's working in the right direction, to me. Now we just need Congress to implement a similar rule. #3) Yeah, again, not perfect just yet. Want to compare/contrast with the number of former lobbyists who worked in the Bush white house, on the McCain campaign, or on John Boehner's staff? If you're reasoning backwards from "I've decided I don't like Obama", you can believe whatever you want. But the guy's history and all of his public pronouncements since taking office have been on the side of openness, and consistently against the influence of lobbyists. He's actually created a bunch of initiatives for more openness, the lobbyist visit thing and the data.gov thing being two of them. It's just plain disingenuous to claim that Obama is less in favor of openness than Dick Cheney. EDIT: Wow. Not usually one to whine about the voting but the guy's links actually say the opposite of what he's claiming. And he's upvoted. Just goes to show, you can believe whatever you want and vote that way too.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  I was a huge Obama supporter towards the end of the campaign, primarily because I believed -- and still believe -- that he was a much better choice than McCain/Palin, and because there wasn't enough of a margin of error to vote third-party. That said, I naively expected Obama to do a much better job of holding to the platform that he ran on than he actually has. Aside from the Wall Street Scandal, there are regular stories of various parts of the Obama administration selling out to special interests or making decisions that are simply not in the best interests of Americans (e.g. TSA tactics & body scanners; net neutrality; etc.). I am hugely disappointed in the President's administration in that regard. As a voter, I have no options left; I have to conclude that there is no hope of the Federal government acting in the best interests of Americans, regardless of which party is in charge. He may not be as bad as Cheney, but that's a long way from adhering to the principles of his campaign.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    One time FDR was meeting with some activists who felt really strongly about an issue, but the status quo had dug in and it didn't look easy to affect the change. He told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." In the current environment, Fox News is one half of the discourse and CNN is the other half, while the pundits split the difference in the name of "balance". If you want change, get active, make him do it. We all live here.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      But if you get active, assume that the media will characterize you and your picked group as being radicals and use the one-or-two whackjobs who attach themselves to every group to make everyone look like and idiot. Also, don't expect your "intelligent" friends to not believe the media in this regard.
    - Jach 16y ago
      What poll numbers are Obama and the others in government waiting for? I believe it was around 77% in favor of a public option for health care, why didn't they put that in? How are we supposed to "make them do it" besides letting them know through poll numbers, protests, etc. what the public is feeling? They're elected to be representatives who in most cases side with a clear majority except where that would overstep their authority. If FDR wanted to have real democratic voting processes on specific issues, for which he is mandated to carry out whatever the final result is, he should have said so. (I also don't like the false equivalency of Fox News and CNN/MSNBC/NPR/whatever-alternative-to-Fox, but that's another issue.)

by harold 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

On your links: #1) Your first link makes absolutely no reference to the Bush administration. It supports my point, though, Obama created stricter guidelines instructing the agencies to fulfill more FOIA requests. And the agencies are falling short for whatever bureaucratic reason, seemingly that they can't work through the pile fast enough. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. Thanks for the link though, I didn't know Obama had done that. I approve. #2) Some aides met with lobbyists off of white house ground to avoid logging the meetings? You mean to avoid the policy that Obama put in place and that had never existed before he was elected? Seems like he's working in the right direction, to me. Now we just need Congress to implement a similar rule. #3) Yeah, again, not perfect just yet. Want to compare/contrast with the number of former lobbyists who worked in the Bush white house, on the McCain campaign, or on John Boehner's staff? If you're reasoning backwards from "I've decided I don't like Obama", you can believe whatever you want. But the guy's history and all of his public pronouncements since taking office have been on the side of openness, and consistently against the influence of lobbyists. He's actually created a bunch of initiatives for more openness, the lobbyist visit thing and the data.gov thing being two of them. It's just plain disingenuous to claim that Obama is less in favor of openness than Dick Cheney. EDIT: Wow. Not usually one to whine about the voting but the guy's links actually say the opposite of what he's claiming. And he's upvoted. Just goes to show, you can believe whatever you want and vote that way too.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
I was a huge Obama supporter towards the end of the campaign, primarily because I believed -- and still believe -- that he was a much better choice than McCain/Palin, and because there wasn't enough of a margin of error to vote third-party. That said, I naively expected Obama to do a much better job of holding to the platform that he ran on than he actually has. Aside from the Wall Street Scandal, there are regular stories of various parts of the Obama administration selling out to special interests or making decisions that are simply not in the best interests of Americans (e.g. TSA tactics & body scanners; net neutrality; etc.). I am hugely disappointed in the President's administration in that regard. As a voter, I have no options left; I have to conclude that there is no hope of the Federal government acting in the best interests of Americans, regardless of which party is in charge. He may not be as bad as Cheney, but that's a long way from adhering to the principles of his campaign.
- jbooth 16y ago
  One time FDR was meeting with some activists who felt really strongly about an issue, but the status quo had dug in and it didn't look easy to affect the change. He told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." In the current environment, Fox News is one half of the discourse and CNN is the other half, while the pundits split the difference in the name of "balance". If you want change, get active, make him do it. We all live here.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    But if you get active, assume that the media will characterize you and your picked group as being radicals and use the one-or-two whackjobs who attach themselves to every group to make everyone look like and idiot. Also, don't expect your "intelligent" friends to not believe the media in this regard.
  - Jach 16y ago
    What poll numbers are Obama and the others in government waiting for? I believe it was around 77% in favor of a public option for health care, why didn't they put that in? How are we supposed to "make them do it" besides letting them know through poll numbers, protests, etc. what the public is feeling? They're elected to be representatives who in most cases side with a clear majority except where that would overstep their authority. If FDR wanted to have real democratic voting processes on specific issues, for which he is mandated to carry out whatever the final result is, he should have said so. (I also don't like the false equivalency of Fox News and CNN/MSNBC/NPR/whatever-alternative-to-Fox, but that's another issue.)