Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

[kpete]

Source: MSNBC

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

By Bill Dedman

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/

[MNDemNY]

1. Defenders?? Anyone???

[Javaman]

37. I'm waiting for the folks who say...

"Obama is a poker player, a long term viewer, he wouldn't be doing this unless he has a master plan, it will all be revealed later that it is actually a stroke of genius", blah blah blah.

So tiring.

I now am giving limited support to Obama, but I am just going to say, he was never my first choice. Kucinich was my guy.

[LisaM]

121. You forgot a couple

We have to trust "our" president! He knows what he's doing!

[pundaint]

202. No, he has to earn our trust

Aside from talking points, I am seeing no improvement. Time to retire the Repugs, admit that the Dems have occupied the right wing, and add a new second party for the majority of us - the People's Party, I only trust Democrats to CAVE IN to the Repugs, that is the trust they continue to earn every day.

[happygoluckytoyou]

255. stem cell is back... green energy is on the table... global opinion... IM NOT READY TO WRITE HIM OFF

i agree he has a lot to prove.... but he has taken steps in several areas which i appreciate----- AND HE HASN'T CLEARED A SINGLE ACRE OF TEXAS BRUSH...
taken steps on health care... education... jobs... stimulus package... focus on leaving iraq and on afghanistan... loosened restrictions on CUBA...

HE WAS NOT ELECTED ONLY BY PROGRESSIVES.... HE HAS A GREAT MANDATE, BUT IT HAS A BASE IN "SOMEWHAT LEFT OF CENTER"


not perfect by any means------- but....

[happygoluckytoyou]

256. oh.... and an american president who SAYS there should be a 2-state solution in the mid-east...

come on.... how about a little credit for the guy

[FedUp_Queer]

309. Credit, eh?

Keeping Bagram (Guantanamo in Afghanistan open); allowing further discharges under DADT; continuing TARP; oh, and we can NOT forget Mr. "Fierce Advocate" for we GLBT folks. Wow...with "Fierce Advocates" like that, who NEEDS the right wing...oh wait, Dick Cheney and Ted Olson are to the left of Mr. "Fierce Advocate" on these issues. Give me a break. Obama has made some changes, yes, but "Change We Can Believe In?" Not hardly. He DOES give a good speech (and to think I supported him).

[allincompassing]

297. Pay close attention, I'm only going to say this once!

THE MILITARY STRATEGY OF DIVIDE and conquer--as first developed by the Chinese general, Sun Tzu, 2,500 years ago--has been used successfully down the centuries by empire builders as a means to subdue subjugated nations, thus maintaining power more easily.

If you want to know what's changed since Pres. Obama got in office, check out this link

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

If you want to know why he can't divulge who is visiting the Whitehouse, read the following book.

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty the Powerful forces that put it in the Whitehouse, and what their
Influence means to America.

MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS all represent specific corporate interest that are going to lose money as Pres.
Obama's legislative agenda moves forward. Most importantly, peace in the middle-east represents the single
greatest threat to the Military War profiteers. There are powerful Israeli Lobbyist that will do anything to
defeat the presidents middle-east agenda. Haven't you noticed that none of the potential defeats in congress
reared their ugly little heads until he started to put pressure on Israel. Aipac owns our government, and for the
first time in almost 50 years we are addressing that issue. If you really want to know what to do, check out this photo!

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/09/awesome_hall_of.html

[FedUp_Queer]

310. Thanks for the clarification.

Secrecy is good when the "good guys" do it, but bad when "they" do. Gotcha!!!

[barbtries]

179. me too

after i gave up on Gore.

but i was positively euphoric when obama won in november. today i am sad.

[MNDemNY]

221. No not poker, chess....

bad news is that we are all just pawns.

[ChazII]

223. Sadly, I agree with you. Pawns

in a chess game describes what we are in this political game.

[Mike K]

238. Obama vs Kucinich

Mine, too. Even though it seemed clear that Kucinich wouldn't stand a chance in our corrupted political system I was extremely disappointed by the margin he lost by.

Although Obama is a vast improvement over Bush it seems rather clear that he is in the pocket of the finance industry. I believe a Kucinich presidency was necessary for the resurrection of America as we've known it in the past. We're not going to see that with Obama.

[pokercat999]

248. I don't think Kucinich would have brought back an old

America. I think he would have made a new America, much better for average people, much stronger in the world via peace, more valuable for future generations and maybe for the first time in a long time, maybe for the first time ever.......he would have brought JUSTICE, to America.

Too bad we got Obama, the slightly better choice than the rethug guy. I know some reading this will fame me, call me a DINO or worse, but sometimes it tough to face the truth. LOOK AT THE POLICIES, NOT THE MAN! President Obama is a beautiful figurehead, his speeches are superb, his family and his life is one the whole of America can admire.........JUST LOOK AT HIS POLICIES.

[Celtic_88]

262. Look At his policies!

I am looking at them!
I don't like what i'm seeing .. I wonder did I do the wrong thing when I voted for him. I have 3 more years to make up my mind on if I'll vote for him again/ Right now I would say no!

[NJmaverick]

48. All I can offer up is fact

<<Asked Monday whether the White House plans to continue to oppose release of the records, White House spokesman LaBot said the policy is still under review. >>

[MNDemNY]

What on earth needs to be "reviewed"???? That is crap.

[No Elephants]

332. You are not offering facts but WH attempts to have it both ways in the mind of the public. The case

is now in the court system. You don't fight a case in court without first deciding how you want the case to come out. And, with court deadlines, you don't have the luxury of taking forever to make that decision.

Putting what the WH said in the very best possible light, the WH is saying, "We don't want to be legally obligated to provide this information, but we may decide to provide it voluntarily." That is not satisfactory because once the court precedent is set, it's set for a very long time. We might have another Obama in there, or we might have another Nixon in there. I want the law to favor disclosure.

Here is a President who ran on transparency, fighting in court to keep secret what was available to the public until Dummya got into the WH. Transparency in government does not mean, "We'll tell you everything we're perfectly comfortable telling you and not a whit more."

[glitch]

49. It's only been 5 months!

It takes time to unblock the list of visitors you know.

[ooglymoogly]

65. Meanwhile he has been a legislative and monetary goldmine

for the rabid right wing zealot pugs.

[saigon68]

306. K & R

He's on his way to being a 1 term president like bush 1

[razorman]

66. It would take about 5 minutes with a Presidential order.

[No Elephants]

333. Just make the logs available for the press to copy and then worry about whether an order is needed..

[jakeXT]

96. I wonder if it's all according to the timeline or if public opinion is still good

among uninformed voters.



After a round of applause, Biden continued.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it. This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going 'oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough? We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

Noting that he's a practicing Irish-Catholic, the Delaware lawmaker said, "Let's not be, for those of a different faith remember St. Peter denied Christ thrice, you know? We don't need anybody denying us, this is gonna be tough. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go 'whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/joe_biden_seattle_fund_raiser.html

[glitch]

280. Hoo boy, "if they're popular they're probably not sound"

They ask for faith in them but they have no confidence in us.

[Bushknew]

230. That's right, give some more time Geez!

[No Elephants]

335. Takes a lot more time to fight in court to keep logs secret than it does to make the logs available

Besides, I think Reply 49 was highly sarcastic.

[AllTooEasy]

110. Yes, I'll defend.

Is the issue with Obama or the Secret Service? In many respects, the secret service does what it wants and the President(their boss) can't do anything about it. For instance, there was time when you could drive right past the WH gates. After a mad man opened unloaded an AKA from the sidewalk in the WH's direction during Clinton's administration, the Secret Service blocked off surrounding streets. You can walk pass the WH after you go through security check, but it's all blocked off to cars now, traffic congestion is worse, and it's an eye soar. Clinton tried several times to reopen the streets and...drum role please...the Secret Service (Clinton's employee's) told him NO! The WH area still looks like crap! You can google all of this.

I would like to see the records open, but I'm not sure where my WTF should be directed now that I know that the Secret Sevice is envoled. I understand and appreciate their job and sacrifice, but those guys can snatch the president off his wife in mid stroke if their rational has anything to do with "the president's safety". Their unchecked discretion has always worried me.

[LisaM]

117. What was the policy under Clinton?

That's what I want to know. Is Obama continuing changes implemented under Bush?

IIRC, Clinton got a lot of grief about anyone who came to the WH while he was there.

[liberation]

140. Why would Clinton be considered the Litmus test for this case?

Who cares what Clinton did or didn't do.

The White House is public property, unless the President is paying the rent from his pocket, the list of visitors should be public. Period. I don't care who is in office...

[marshall]

142. Maybe Babs jumping on the Lincoln bedroom bed is what sparked the secrecy

Remember the tabloids harping about the Hollywood elite who were visiting during the Clinton years. I'm sure the Clintons didn't like their guest list being ridiculed.

[liberation]

147. Again... I don't care what the president likes or does not like...

he lives in public housing. There are some compromises that come with the free rent...

If Clinton did not want to be made fun for inviting the "Hollywood Elite" he was free to not invite the "Hollywood Elite." I am just tired of politicians always trying to have it both ways. They have no problem stripping us of our privacy, even when we are in the midst of our very own home. Yet they require the upmost secrecy even when they enjoy public property.

I am just tired of the government requesting compromises from its citizens, while they do not even pretend to even try to compromise on anything themselves.

[Seldona]

210. I disagree entirely.

Just because he was elected to be President doesn't mean he gives up ALL privacy. Like we own him or something?

I agree there are a lot of things he gives up. The right to privacy in one's own home, even if it is the Whitehouse, shouldn't be one of them. What's next, live feeds from every room? Give me a break.

[liberation]

214. If Obama had not supported things like FISA, yeah... I can see where the benefit of the doubt comes.

However, If Mr. Obama has no problem with me having to give up my privacy.... in my own house (for which I paid BTW). Rest assured, I am not going to shed a tear when he has to surrender his privacy regarding his guest staying in public property and supported with our own dime.

So how does Mr. Obama like them apples now, eh? I would be first in line defending Obama's right to privacy, if he had extended the same courtesy to us. Since he hasn't, probably... taking him to task on this issue, may "enlighten" him?

[orleans]

283. wrong. he lives in the PEOPLE'S house--he signed up for the job and

understands the job description. olbermann said this shit has gone to court TWICE during the bush era and TWICE the judge ruled that the list should be made PUBLIC. the second ruling came in this past january. after the first ruling homeland security got involved and the judge still ruled that the visitor's log should be public. this white house is following "rules" made up in bushworld when it does shit like this.

[No Elephants]

336. Straw man. An exception can be made for anyone whose visit did not involve government business. So,

if Michelle's brother visits to see his family, no need to publicize. On the other hand, if he lobbied for funds for his school while in the WH, note his visit.

It's not as though people who run for the Presidency don't know before they run that their lives will be under a microscope. The powers and privileges of the office are worth it to them.

I can see wanting to shield people who had no choice in the matter, like Michelle's brother, but, as I said, exceptions can be made. Besides, what need really is there to hide the fact that a friend or a relative is making a personal visit? Typically, people are not ashamed of being in the inner circle of the President or First Lady.

[LisaM]

193. Thanks for playing "Missing the Point".

Bush put in a lot of secrecy policies. Clinton was not only the president prior to Bush, he took a whole lot of crap for visitors to the White House. I don't expect Obama to be as poorly treated as Clinton was - it kind of set the standard - but I do expect him to undo bad Bush policy.

[liberation]

211. I think you are the one who completely missed my point...

... I don't care what Clinton did or did not do. I am tired of the law and common sense being subdued by precedent. Because it always boils down to try to justify that if a Dem does it, it is OK.

If Obama, or any administration, want to have their guest in public property hidden from public records, they are free to rent a conference room in a motel with their own money and meet at will...

[LisaM]

216. I don't think it's okay at all!

I just think that Clinton took a lot of crap during his presidency, which effectively prevented him from getting a lot of stuff done.

[liberation]

236. I think in that case it took two to tango. The GOP's shenanigans and Clinton political instincts...

... getting the best of him. A president needs to adapt his MO to the law, not the other way around. Eliminating something that should be public domain, because it is inconvenient for the political interests of the president... is a very dangerous precedent IMHO.

So maybe Obama is a swell guy, and he pinky swears he is not going to invite any shady character over. That is not good enough, not when it leaves a mechanism open for future Dick Cheneys to abuse. That is not a risk this country should be willing to take. Furthermore, if Obama does not intend in inviting any shady character, why should he care if the list is accessed by the public?


If Obama wants our trust, he should earn it... just like everybody else. In the same sense I can understand some people saying that his sort term in office is not enough to give a negative verdict regarding his performance... it also works both ways, he hasn't been in office long enough to assume our trust just because. This is one of those situations for which the whole concept of "track record" was created IMHO.

I have lived and worked in places in which I had to disclose my visitors, a tad annoying... but I understood the concept of why those regulations were in place, and I had no issue compromising. I believe the same applies to Mr. Obama... he obviously should have a right to a certain level of privacy. But giving that he lives in public property, sans having to pay rent, and those guests are supported by public dollars during their stay.... I believe having to disclose the names of visitors is a really small compromise. Heck, seems like a swell deal to me... I can trade with Mr. Obama if he wants.

[pokercat999]

253. Thank godness he didn't have time to get anymore of the

rethug agenda passed.

[HarryTrumanDem]

237. Agreed

Really, an argument could be made for like 24/7 webcast from the Big House. The MO-cam!

It's the Peoples' right.

[orleans]

284. what the fuck is a "MO cam" (since you expect to only last a "day or three" n/t

[HarryTrumanDem]

292. Uh

Isn't the f word verboten?


It was a joke, like the other few hundred here, ese. Ah, you appear to be mujer. Either way. Though quite a few progressives have for a few years called for closer monitoring of ALL elected officials, national and state, at least during working hours. Had Bush/cheney been on tape/monitored at all times many problems would have been prevented. Transparency as they say (and that's what this thread concerned). Anyone who thinks Demos should be exempt from that is not an authentic democrat. Let's not forget that Pelosi actually blocked C-SPAN from the House in 2006 as well.

And a bit hypocritical to fly zappa's icon when you appear to be another another moderating, moralizing DINOcrat, and a crass one to boot.

No seniority.

Now, snitch away.

[orleans]

295. dinocrat? ha! go "snitch" yourself!

[MNDemNY]

152. This is not the doing of the SS alone.

[No Elephants]

338. The SS is not elected. They work for Obama. In the end, he has the final say. Witness the

Blackberry brouhaha. The SS is a convenient excuse, though, isn't it?

[LuckyLib]

158. You do not need to go through security to walk around or past the WH.

The streets are blocked off to auto traffic, but foot traffic is fine -- groups or tourists stand around the area all the time. The concrete planters all over DC are to guard against crazy truck bombers -- our most well known, Timothy McVeigh got too close to a building, and these efforts try to preclude that happening in the nation's capital.

[Strong Atheist]

175. Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Autonomy]

205. LOL In mid stroke

Giving us sanity and humor in the same post... I am not sure you belong here. ;)

[rhett o rick]

250. with all due respect your argument is bull crap. The Pres can make the decision.

this isn't national security we are talking about. It is a friggin visitors list.
There is no excuse for lack of transparency. I want to know who is visiting MY PRESIDENT.
The secret service works for us.

[pokercat999]

251. Gee let's see how this might go:

The President to his chief of staff "Get me the list of everyone who's visited the WH since I took office"

The President on the phone to Bob Woodward "Bob, how about stopping by I have a list I'd like to get printed in the Washington Post"

Period end of discussion.

[troubledamerican]

272. Scenario. Discuss.

Someone in the FOX News organization obtains a White House Press pass.

Somehow, this pass is "lost" and ends up in the hands of a schizophrenic who is also a member of "NAMBLA", the pro-pedophilia organization (I don't know if this organization still exists, but it did exist back in the 1970s and was a big, big right-wing strawman for a while).

Somehow, this deranged individual shows up at the White House and gets in for five minutes before he's uncovered and kicked out.

Bingo:

FOX News reports the next day that Obama is inviting pedophile organizations into the White House.

I may be wrong on specifics about press passes, etc., and I'm sure the DU COINTELPRO dopes will come out of the woodwork to squeal how this scenario is impossible.

I'm all in favor of holding Obama accountable. But I want to know WHY this policy is considered a good idea by anyone in the White House. So far, all I see are the "Obama-Is-Just-Another-Harry-Reid" crowd and their knee-jerk reactionary lashing out.

[No Elephants]

337. Why isn't the truth a complete solution to your scenario,(which is highly unlikely to begin with)?

Maybe a pigeon will carry off a press pass and give it to Hugo Chavez, too. Let's keep everything as secret as possible so weird stuff that MAY require an explanation from the WH one day never happens.

Sorry, makes no sense. I'd rather have Obama have to explain something now and again than have Cheney like secrecy in place all the time. Better to risk MAYBE taking a few minutes from Obama's schedule than close off the right of people in our democracy to know.

Besides, he frickin' ran on transparency and the logs are not exactly the formula to the hydrogen bomb. Inasmuch as he cannot give me back my donations, time or vote, he should do a lot better with his campaign promises than taking up in court where Buscho left off in every damn court case so far.

[marshall]

144. If it was good enough for Bush.....

But seriously, not EVERYTHING Bush did has to be changed. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[No Elephants]

339. If Bush was correct twice a day, I must have missed it. If I hear a great reason to keep the logs

secret, I'll be the first to admit it. Haven't heard a one yet.

[jhrobbins]

156. No defense here and the reason is exactly what Jonathan Turley

said would happen. He was speaking a couple of years ago when the subject of habeas corpus was the hot topic. I believe Rachel (I'm not sure about this) asked that once a Democrat took office, then of course things would be made right. He said that these rights were not easily regained; that most presidents, even liberal democratic ones, would not relinquish those rights once they had been abrogated by Bush. I guess he was right.

[kallyn]

159. Here you go -- a defense

Per usual the Right and the Outrage Enthusiasts on both sides of the aisle have chosen not to lget a few facts get in the way... Here's how it goes. The watchdog group (CREW) and MSNBC have both requested visitor logs from the Secret Service. The Secret Service sent them a boilerplate response along the lines of "we don't release this information," which is correct: apparently that is Secret Service policy and has been Secret Service policy for as long as anyone can remember. You can understand how the Secret Service would, as a general sort of rule, tend to keep things secret.
CREW unsuccessfully sued the Bush administration for release of these records a couple of years ago, and now are trying the same kind of suit against the Obama administration. For now, the Secret Service is doing its job and saying, "we don't release this stuff." However, according to the blog of ABC News's Jake Tapper, a White House spokesman emailed him that they were in the process of reviewing the visitor log policy and that the "refusal" was basically a simple statement "how visitor logs have been treated historically."

Stealth blogs from the Right are now trying to spin this as "Obama ran on a platform of transparency and now he refuses to share information so he is no better than Bush," i.e., they are concern trolling.

The sensible position in so complicated a system as the White House surely is, "until further notice, continue business as usual." Now that someone has actually *requested* the information, the administration can try to figure out how it can released safely and securely, or if there is some kind of division between public business and private guests. (The example would be: if Tasha and Malia have a sleepover, the names of their guests should be published in a press release?)

[MNDemNY]

161. Did you set up an account just to reply to this???

[kallyn]

166. Well, I'd been meaning to anyhow...

I confess to being a lurker for some time now.
But yes -- that article pushed me over. The extent of the manipulation of any given story is very frustrating. The man is a politician. His halo was not placed upon his brow by a benevolent god, but rather photoshopped on by his more, um, fervent supporters. Still and all, he's what we've got, and he's for sure better than we've had in a looooong time. So maybe we can all breathe for a moment, get the story straight, and then if some reasonable outrage is still indicated, go to. But this? A red herring.

[MNDemNY]

168. He seems to be collecting a lot of these "red herrings".

Soon he will have enough for chowder, then what???I am VERY glad that Obama is President. But I will give no POTUS the benefit of doubt. Openness was one of his campaign planks, this can not stand. I, for one will call him out on this and anything else that I feel I need too. To do any less, does this country no good.

[kallyn]

169. He sure is.

It's going to be a bumpy ride. People need to understand that the Right wants a piece of this guy. The chunk they took out of Clinton is going to look like a love bite if they find anything that really has traction on BO. It's incumbent upon the left to really focus and not buy any bull****. There's enough to disagree about in good faith (with Obama or anyone else) to get distracted by half a story, deliberately spun to make him look bad.

[MNDemNY]

177. It could not be "spun" to make him look good, now can it?

[kallyn]

185. It doesn't need to be spun to make him look ANY particular way.

It is what it is. The secret service has, and has had, a policy. Folks sued Bush, et al, to get it changed. They failed. They're trying again. The Obama Admin has publicized the secret service's policy (and obeyed it), whilst reviewing it. If the administration can change policy to give more information to the public while protecting the private lives of, for example (although there could be other scenarios, I suppose), the minor children living there, then they should do that. Also, the administration should keep us posted and be transparent in its PROCESS of reviewing the transparency itself, even if the end result is less transparency than some of us might wish for. We have the right to expect a general freedom of information from this president. We don't have the right to expect that years-old secret service policy can, or indeed should, be tossed into the garbage without a second look. We had 8 years of a president who acted without taking a second look -- setting aside his tendency to err on the side of too LITTLE transparency rathter than too much, one can still see that it's the same instinct? To act too quickly from an emotional perspective? Bad? Review away, Mr. President. And if you end up with something I don't love, I'll expect you to convince me. That's what I voted for, was the substantive conversation amongst serious people.

[newspeak]

315. well, when I first heard this, my first thought was

O was protecting the * administration. Because it seems to me, that there are some people who are still interested in who the previous administration met with. Remember the secret energy meetings, and don't forget the online media guy, Gannon? My first impression was that Obama was actually protecting the * administration. The * administration has made "secrecy" a main point in our government, not transparency and I don't believe it has anything to do with security, but with backroom corporate deals against the public.

[Window]

246. Welcome to DU kallyn. One thing though, you're not supposed to make sense.

Peace:thumbsup:

[Window]

247. I, for one, am very glad you decided to join and post on DU.

Peace:thumbsup:

[Window]

164. WHY IS NO ONE REPLYING TO THIS POST THAT MAKES SENSE??

Unbelievable!

[jmowreader]

183. You know why...

The day Obama took office he was supposed to end the war in Iraq, end the war in Afghanistan, make gay marriage legal all over the US, close Guantanamo Bay, make government operations completely transparent, disseminate all the classified information, order George Bush to commit seppuku at the inaugural, arrest the entire last administration, end the recession and put every American back to work. The fact he hasn't done all these things--even though fixing just one one-hundredth of all the things Shrub did in his rich supporters' names is going to require at least three consecutive two-term Democratic presidents' full attentions--is enough to turn Obama into Evil Incarnate.

[Redneck Socialist]

234. I"m still waiting for my pony, damnit! n/t

[Window]

241. Yes, I do know. It is also why I spend very little time here lately.

:thumbsup: Peace

[No Elephants]

341. Message boards are vehicles for expressing opinions, many of which are likely to differ from

yours. If that upsets you, maybe keeping diary or blogging online would be more to your liking.

[primavera]

293. I'm not critical of what he hasn't yet done...

... only of what he has done. It's a strawman argument to suggest that disgruntled Dems are concerned by things Obama hasn't yet accomplished. I don't see anyone complaining that George Bush hasn't been put to death yet. But that doesn't mean that Obama has had no opportunity to make any decisions. Declining to disclose who visits him is a decision, not a goal he has not yet gotten around to. Logs are kept of everyone who enters and exits the White House. It would take no exhaustive hunt for records to provide that information. Such a list could easily be generated within minutes. Yet Obama, or someone in his administration acting under his authority, is declining to make that information available. Responsibility for one's decisions, or those of one's staff, goes with the job. If Obama isn't prepared to account for his decisions and those made under his authority, he picked the wrong job.

[tan guera]

298. hmmm

"If Obama isn't prepared to account for his decisions and those made under his authority, he picked the wrong job."

I believe he was picked for the job!

[U4ikLefty]

331. That's the best you could do?

weak

[No Elephants]

340. The flaw in your post is that this involves a court case. Obamadmin has to deal with it, one

way or the other, no matter how much or how little is on Obama's plate.

This has nothing to do with not having enough time. To the contrary, it would take much less time to make the logs avaiable than to keep fighting in court for secrecy, as Bushco was doing when Obamadmin took over this case.

[texastoast]

187. There's this train

And it appears that many want to ride it. It's called the "Ahhhhh HAAAAAHH" train.

And, I will say, this "policy" needs review, and review asap.

But being used to a board that prides itself on knowing the facts, this thread could be the platform for the Olympic sport of jumping to conclusions.

[Window]

245. I agree the policy absolutely needs review and change. However, I am saddened

by how often the "Ahhhhh HAAAAAHH" contingent on DU feel propelled to pounce on everything Obama lately. Sloppy posting.

:thumbsup: Peace

[No Elephants]

343. Please see Reply 332, which replied to Reply 48, which raised the review issue. If

Obamadmin did not review this policy BEFORE going to court on it, the negligence is massive and reprehensible. I don't believe for one second that they did not review it before going to court to try to set a precedent of secrecy that may stand as long as the Presidency stands.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

271. That fantastic post has been mentioned in a number of other threads today.

That member is welcome in my house any time.

:toast:

[NYC_SKP]

190. Thank you, kallyn, and welcome to DU!

We need more members with critical thinking skills, who also read.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

200. Welcome Kallyn

Thanks for the facts, but don't expect them to be appreciated by too many around here anymore.

[No Elephants]

344. An opinion that matches your own opinion is still an opinion, not fact.

[brentspeak]

203. Thanks for the laugh of the day (n/t)

[Raine1967]

212. K&R

Bookmarked for this very post.

[lxlxlxl]

226. great reply...thanks for cutting through some b.s.

x.x.x./

[Tempest]

227. Except you're wrong

CREW unsuccessfully sued the Bush administration for release of these records a couple of years ago

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/visitor.logs/index.html

[kallyn]

273. Hm.

I thought that was appealed? I guess I'll cast about and see what the status of the appeal is, whether the Obama administration could drop it if it's still underway and it wanted and, y'know, etc. I thought this Secret Service policy was still policy under the current circumstances, assuming an appeal is in process. And the Obama DOJ's responsibilities regarding previous matters? Dunno. But you can bet your ass I will by tomorrow.

[texastoast]

279. Welcome to DU!

You caused a welcome stir.

:hi:

[kallyn]

282. Thanks

I've been made very welcome.
Obama wasn't my first choice, but I've been very pleased so far. One thing I been really looking forward to, is the moment when he REALLY steps out on me. Does something quite contradictory to my will. Because then I'm going to take a deep breath and inhale the sense he makes and his ability to articulate a position I disagree with. There's no perfect simpatico, and he will step out, guaranteed -- but it certainly is nice to not cringe with fear of stupidity every time he draws breath to speak.

[MadHound]

286. Don't have to wait until tomorrow

The original case brought by CREW saw Judge Royce Lamberth rule against the Bush administration. They did indeed appeal it, but the US Court of Appeals threw out the appeal, kicking it back down to trial court and back into Lamberth's court. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/11/national/w082100D32.DTL>

Lamberth retried the case, and in January of this year, again found for the plaintiff CREW and ordered the visitor logs released.
<http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=9893>

Bush basically defied the ruling for his last week in office. Obama's administration is just as bound by law to follow this ruling as the Bush administration was. The question is whether he will defy this ruling like Bush did. So far, it looks as though he will. Is this more of that change Obama was talking about?

[kallyn]

288. I guess that's the "review" he mentioned conducting?

I hope and expect he'll follow the law. I don't begrudge him his moment to consider and review; the last administration was characterized by a lack of interest in considering, which got extremely old. So we'll see. I do think that one thing Cheney said a few months ago was prescient, which was something about how Obama's supporters might well find, to their chagrin, that Mr. O could prove unwilling to give up some of the executive powers that the Bush Administration created or expanded. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

C'est, as they say, la vie. I'm going to hold off on the impotent rage for a bit yet.

[MadHound]

290. The sad thing is, this "review" is nothing more than another stall tactic,

Meanwhile CREW has already proceeded with their court case. You would think after observing the Bush administration getting handed their ass on this issue, Obama would actually have a clue.

As far as Obama not giving up some of his newly minted (thanks to Bush) extra-legal executive powers, I never was under the illusion that he would give any of them up. Then again I wasn't under the illusion that Obama was all the "change" that he was cracked up to be. Instead I simply thought of him simply the lesser of two evils, much like I've thought about all Democratic presidential candidates for the past thirty seven years. We're simply living under the two party/same corporate master system of government, with the Democrats and Republicans playing a game of good cop/bad cop with our happy ass.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama is continuing to defy the court, the law of the land. Same as it ever was.

[kallyn]

289. hm again

"Federal courts did require the release of some records for technical reasons, but never made a definitive ruling on whether such records generally have to be made public."
-- POLITICO, today

So if they didn't rule, it's still Secret Service policy until, well, it isn't.

[MadHound]

291. But they did rule, or did you fail to read the articles at my links?

Lamberth originally ruled against the Bush administration, which appealed. The US Court of Appeals tossed the case back down to trial court and the case was retried. In his second ruling, Lamberth again ruled against the Bush administration. The only ruling that isn't in is for the case that CREW just brought against the Obama administration. As it stands now however, the case that Lamberth ruled against the Bush administration is the law of the land:shrug:

Politico isn't the brightest bulbs on the web, despite their pretensions to intelligence.

[No Elephants]

345. Two courts held that the logs should be public. Obamadmin could have left it at that. Instead,

Obamadmin chose to appeal. The Secret Service issue has been addressed upthread by more than one poster, but including me. No clue what you meaen by the the Obama D of J's responsiblities regarding previous matters. It has no responsiblity whatever to take the same position Bushco took. It's one of the reasons we change WH administrations.

[orleans]

285. so who was the judge olbermann was talking about that ruled 2 times

that these logs are to be made public?

[newtothegame]

311. Oh god..."concern trolling"...

Yet another DU'er whose focus on here is to catch alleged "trolls" than to engage in any discussion. Have at it hoss, if that's what gets your rocks off about DU.

[kallyn]

313. uh.

Okeee...

[RoadRage]

314. Nice Reply!

And a big ole' welcome to DU!

I love the fact that people are now chiding new residents of DU for signing up to post a "defense" to our democratic president... acting like you're trolling or something. :eyes:

Keep "trolling" if you must.. sadly we need all the help we can get!!!

:hi:

[No Elephants]

324. Except, until Dummya, "business as usual" was to release the logs. And you don't have to wait until

someone requests something that has been the subject of litigation before you first start to "try to figure out how it can be released safely and securely." And you are supposed to figure things out before you fight them, not require citizens or groups like CREW and ACLU to use precious donation money suing government, whose litigation resources are unlimited, thanks to Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer.. And the Obama administration ran on transparency (among other things).

As far as Sasha and Malia, that is totally a red herring. With Chelsea Clinton, Amy Carter and other First Family kids of all ages in the White House for centuries, I'm sure that's all been sorted out. Minors names don't get released anyway, even in crime cases. "Minor child to visit First Family" would be fine. A similar exception could be made for those related to the First Family by blood or marriage. It's not rocket science.

Moreover, there has been no suggestion whatever that this fight is to protect the privacy of Sasha and Malia's friends.
According to the article, this fight is "taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions."

Why do we have to make up stuff and grasp at straws to defend Presidents anyway? They have masses of staff, hired at our expense, to do that. At a minimum, they should be able to get a plausible rationale to the public. If they don't do that, maybe we have a right to take them at their word.


Welcome.

[happygoluckytoyou]

174. I JUST REMOVED MYSELF FROM HIS DONATION LIST. will be back when his medical plan returns his BALLS !

[mckara]

192. Presidents Don't Have a Right to Privacy?

The naiveté of people at the website astounds me.

[Zhade]

321. Not when it concerns the PUBLIC'S BUSINESS, they don't!

NT!

[No Elephants]

346. Ask Clinton or read New York Times v. Sullivan if you want to know if the President has a

right to privacy. Heck, you and I don't much have a right to privacy anymore. Why on earth should the President? Especially about who is visiting the White House and trying to influence government?

[quickesst]

233. That's easy....

What with the opposition(right-wing), and the establishment of the rule under Bush, I can't blame him. The left spent many years trying to find out who visited der monkey looking for anything, especially the smoking gun that would have brought him down. Consider, what if Obama's visitors who are "influencing policy" happen to be gay rights leaders, women's rights advocates, etc. Considering what the left did with Jeff Gannon, I could imagine the line of shit that would come out of the right-wing over some of Obama's possible guests. I guess I'm just not uptight and in knots because I don't know what Obama is doing or saying, and to whom, 24 hours a day. Everyone has their priorities, and the criteria I use to judge those priorities is simple. Tackle the problem that affects the most people first. He's doing that. The others will take their place in line according to the greater need for the most people, and until I hear Sean Insanity say something positive about him, I will continue to support his actions and performance. Thanks.
quickesst

[MNDemNY]

319. Defend his position on DOMA, DADT, NSA wiretaps, please.

:popcorn:

[quickesst]

327. So now....

....you're asking me to defend Obama on DOMA, DADT, NSA wiretaps which means my defense of him on releasing the guest list must have been successful. Thank you for your acknowledgment.
quickesst

[MNDemNY]

328. Cop out, still waiting.

:popcorn:

[quickesst]

329. Went back and read the op one more time....

...yep, visitor logs is the topic. If you look carefully, I replied to someone who specifically asked if there was anyone willing to defend the White House's decision on visitor logs. That's what I replied to. As to the other issues being interjected into this thread, I'll reply just for you. I support Obama and the timetable he is on to bring about the change so many are screaming about. I just don't think they are as important as a couple of other issues that directly affect the family's ability to feed and house themselves, plus have decent health care. I'm sorry if you are offended that I believe the greater good for the greatest number of people take precedence over other issues at this crucial time. I am not your enemy. I am merely a person who disagrees with others on the urgency of particular issues over others. I also stand by my defense of Obama's decision on the thread topic. If you still believe my comments are a cop out, then that's where it will stand for you. I can't make stuff up just to change your mind. Enjoy your popcorn. Looks good. Thanks.
quickesst

[No Elephants]

347. The whole point of transparency in government is that the people don't know what may or may not

affect them if things are kept secret. Therefore, the presumption has to be in favor of letting the people know what is going on (at their expense) and let them decide. Besides, Obama ran on transparency, so his efforts (and there have been more than one) to preserve the secrecy of Bushco, the most secretive administration in American history, are not only anti-democratic, but go to his credibility.

Gannon was given a press pass that many legitimate and respectable journalists could not get, so he could lob softball questions to Bush during press conferences. Didn't the public have a right to know that what it seemed to be seeing during televised press conferences was as phony as it could be?

Secrecy is justified only when absolutely necessary to protect the physical safety of the American people. Embarrassment to the President is not the standard. To the contrary, we have a right to know almost everything about people who ask us to vote for them so they can become rich and powerful on our dime.

[AlbertCat]

258. I don't REALLY care.... BUT...

....it looks so bad. I mean, you gotta ask yourself: "Who? WHO could be on that list that would look worse than the bad press this decision generates????

[slackmaster]

352. If my last name was Dedman...

I'd change it.

[msongs]

2. change you can believe in LOL nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

90. The Audacity of Nope

:cry:

[greguganus]

135. That need's to be a DUZY. n/t

[newtothegame]

151. That's all right cause everyone here got pictures of their ballot they could show their kids...

that they were part of 'HISTORY.' That's what was important!!! Right??!! Anyone???

[katandmoon]

3. He likes DADT so much he's applying it to everything!

[Robb]

10. Is there a special DUzy for stuff that's funny

...but also makes me wince? :thumbsup:

[Soylent Brice]

57. no, but there should be.

[Captain Hilts]

4. So, Jeff Gannon still might be getting passes? nt

[greguganus]

136. oh my..n/t

[struggle4progress]

5. With any luck, we'll get a high level court ruling against the White House on this one

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. they can release Bush's visit logs first, then the media can chew on them first

Obama should let everyone see who visits WH. I think if this government is transparent it doesn't mean that it suddenly develops cataracts!

[ldf]

269. yes!

i absolutely want the american public to know how many times jimmyjeff gannon visited, and WHO he visited. were there any stayovers? there WERE times that he didn't sign out.

i want america to know that bush and rove had a gay prostitute visiting many, many times. i want the blatant hypocrisy of the republican christian leaders shoved in everyone's face.

and i want cheney's list of energy meeting attendants released.

THEN obama can do what the hell he wants.

yes, i am selfish and vindictive. so sue me.

[No Elephants]

348. Not bloody likely with the Roberts Court. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I am not hopeful

[Mari333]

6. does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

I dont think I can bear another Imperial Presidency.

[LibDemAlways]

20. The king is far removed from the serfs and owes them nothing. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Abe Lincoln said it all:

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

[OwnedByFerrets]

97. Well stated

[readmoreoften]

240. Nah. He was corrupt before he took office. That's why it was handed over to him.

And why the media didn't attack him (other than FOX, which made him sympathetic to mainstream people). It was the best marketing campaign in human history.

How can you not have an imperial presidency when you live in a military empire? Until then, we are ruled by a violent plutocracy. The idea that there can be a democratic plutocracy is already slight of hand. If everyone is a property-owning peasant farmer selling in a local market, sure, you can have some amount of business mixed up with a democratic society. But, seriously... How can you have a society with massively wealthy elites who own the factories, stores, farms, houses, apartment buildings, infrastructure, land and public space AND a political system where everyone gets a voice--through secret ballot at that.

Well DUH! How could the people--who don't even have any real infrastructure left: military development is privatized, water/utilities/land/real estate privatized, "public" works projects farmed out to private contractors, media owned wholly--possibly *elect* someone to represent their interests? How would that even work?

You can't simultaneously have a plutocratic class and a democracy. The only people who live democratically in such a society are the plutocracy, who get to argue their interests with one another and don't have to live under one king.

Freedom my ass...

[Autumn]

7. Ok

3.0

[blueworld]

8. It's starting to get painful for me...

This is the type of thing I simply do not understand. If Pres. Obama is sincere, of course he would also consult with coal executives etc. Intelligent people gather facts from both sides of an issue before taking a position. I do not want to jump to conclusions, BUT I'm seriously concerned as to whether he yakked a great story to get elected and now...

[Beacool]

222. "Yakked a great story" sounds about right.

Hope, change, hope, change, bla, bla, bla........

I must admit, though, that the guy can deliver a mighty speech.

:eyes:

[Mike K]

239. A "mighty speech."

So did Ronald Reagan, the villain who opened the gate.

[Beacool]

270. Well, charm and charisma can only carry you so far.

I've said that I'll give him a year before I make up my mind about him. We'll see what he accomplishes from here to next January.

;-)

[Celtic_88]

263. Me To

I'm seriously concerned as to whether he yakked a great story to get elected...
I thought he would get in there and try to turn things around , now I'm not sure that he is trying very hard.
I hate all this money being spent on Rubbish.. and Bail outs on taxpayers money is at the top of my list.

[dipsydoodle]

9. White House

aka Animal Farm.

[Hepburn]

11. Very, very dissapointing...

...I thought the Era of BushCo was over. Guess not.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Era of BushCo was over ?

Only in your dreams.

:hi:

[lanlady]

12. Obama has done little so far--

--to uphold the principle of transparency which he declared on his very first full day in office. He raised hopes, only to dash them within a matter of weeks. Does he think we won't notice?

Bush set so many negative "imperial" precedents; it saddens me to see Obama perpetuate one after the other.

[No Elephants]

334. Not only perpetuate, but fight in court to set a legal precedent that will allow all Presidents

for years to come to perpetuate.

[Old Codger]

13. Hard to believe

After the wonderful "campaign promises" that we once again believed,it is back to basics and politics as usual. Secret visitor lists? Whats next? Another hope dashed to the floor and stomped on. I should know better by now but AI continue to naively hope we may, sometime before I die see a truly honest and open government. But this doesn't appear to be it.

[Solly Mack]

14. lolololol

[bertman]

15. Imperial hubris.

The people will know what I WANT them to know.

All Hail Caesar!!

[WriteDown]

16. ROFL

Have to think of a new name for him. Obusha? Bushrak?

[elehhhhna]

21. o'dubya?

this is a creepy development.

[Cherchez la Femme]

89. O'DOMA

[tomm2thumbs]

18. all those hookers and crack dealers

j/k - but they are acting like that is what they are hiding, so may as well suggest it

[No Elephants]

19. Has Obamadmin taken a single position in court that is different from Bushco's position? Even 1?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Anyone?


BTW: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3109808 (DU thread on Bush's fight to keep the logs secret).

Policies and Executive Orders are one thing. Any President, including this one, can change those instantly. Court precedents last a long, long time and apply to boh Democrats and Republicans.


Thank heaven for organizations like AClU and CREW. (Wish they would merge, though.) And for honest judges. Let's hope we see some honest decision making in this case.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. Good Point - Deserves A Post Of Its Own

I can't think of any differences - but there's gotta be something... this is scary.

[liberation]

146. Other than the stem cell legislation, and the fact that he is not proposing a rabid conservative ...

... for the Supreme Court. So far the only indication that there is a new administration is that unlike Bush, Obama has no problem mastering public speaking.


And that is a realization that is really breaking my heart... not that I am surprised, I am just disappointed. Oh, well...

[No Elephants]

325. Stem cell legislation is not a court case, Court precedent on Presidential

powers and privileges is a Constitutional decision. It will outlast legislation, which Congress can overturn at any time, and will certainly outlast any specific Presidency.

[winyanstaz]

197. I have been noticing this for some time now...and it breaks my heart..

So far the new boss is doing the same things the old boss did...dang it!

[Not Me]

22. Un-fucking believable

And the speed at which he has walked away from all that he said he would do is astounding.

[dgibby]

25. Well, I guess the upside of this is that it makes it easier for me

to determine who gets my limited funds-ACLU, CREW, FEED AMERICA, and a few animal help groups. No more money to the Dems.

[pattmarty]

26. It's been what, 5 months Obama has been President? I don't want..............

.............to piss on the parade, but I am beginning to have "doubts". Banking/Wall street, Afghanistan & Iraq, healthcare, EFCA, and the list goes on............

[dysfunctional press]

33. "beginning to have "doubts"...???

there's no doubt about it- he's a corporatist tool of the oligarchy.

[pattmarty]

61. I'm not naive, but I was HOPING for something better than fucking Clinton..

[DURHAM D]

235. And I was hoping for something as good as Clinton. nt

[ixion]

71. yep, I believe he's made that very clear

and the oligarchy for which he stands despises We, the People.

[dem mba]

129. and at the same time a marxist muslim

ha. all things to all people indeed.

[HarryTrumanDem]

38. The bailout ..........

provided a clue.

Though on the plus-side, Miss Michele did invite Wynton Marsalis and some jazz homies to the Big house recently.

[pattmarty]

63. Yeah, and Clinton played the sax and Bush took vacations................

.............I think we all were hoping for better, and god knows we (everybody in the country) deserved better. I am not "giving up" on him yet, but my bullshit-o-meter is now constantly going off.

[HarryTrumanDem]

127. Many people

pointed out Obama's occasional conservative side early on (remember when he praised Reagan??--even Hillary said something-- and let's not forget his appeal to sunday schoolers, Rick Warren, Wright, etc). That said, I think he's an improvement on the Buscho cowboys, but pretty much a corporate democrat--not exactly Leon Trotsky.

[pattmarty]

308. I never thought he would be another LBJ in todays political climate...........

...........but I had hoped he wouldn't be another Carter or Clinton. You're right about being better than Bush, but that ain't saying much.

[No Elephants]

349. There is a huge difference between expecting Leon Trotsky and expecting a President who ran on

transparency not to fight in court to set precedents that will allow every President from now on to be as secretive as Dummya, heretofore the most secretive administration in American history.

[grahamhgreen]

27. States Secrets!!!! The PEOPLE CAN"T KNOW who visits the White House!!! TERRA TERRA TERRA You Crazy!!

[FSogol]

28. Take the long view

Suppose Obama reverses Bush's decision and makes all the names available.
In 8-12 years say the Repugs take back over and they go back to hiding the names.
Then the court will need to look into the legality.

Suppose Obama continues Bush's decision and blocks all the names.
In 8-12 days CREW files a lawsuit and the Obama DOJ weakly fights it.
A court decision comes out and gee, Obama and future Presidents must make the names available.

Which is better?

[WriteDown]

29. Are you dizzy?

I've never seen a spin like that. Its the 11 dimensional chess game huh?

[Autumn]

36. I'm dizzy myself. The court has

ruled twice that the names be released. So I guess it goes on indefinitely. Which is better?:rofl:

[liberation]

242. LOL... no kidding. I'd rather go with Occam's razor.

Chess is a game where the middle and lower classes are sacrificed to defend the ruling pieces. Thus I have never been to fond of the imagery behind a grandmaster playing president (or vice-versa)

[Abq_Sarah]

40. What's better

Is for the public to know who is visiting the White House, who is influencing legislation.

We're paying for it, we have a right to know.

[greguganus]

139. Right! It is OUR house and we should know who's visiting it! n/t

[pmorlan1]

70. Drinking the Kool-Aid

Is that kool-aid your little smiley guy is drinking over and over? LOL

[Individualist]

119. You're trying to defend the indefensible

Can't be done.

[Ms. Toad]

150. Just like the Obama DOJ is "weakly" defending DOMA n/t

[No Elephants]

350. You're wihistling in the dark. You NEVER go into court to

fight weakly, in the hope you'll lose. Nothing prevents a judge from deciding in favor of the position in the weaker brief and you never know how a judge will rule.

No, you go into court with the position that you really, truly want and you fight for it with all you've got, short of violating legal ethics.* And, in the end, no matter whose arguments are strongest, you bank on Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, et al. to thwart the wishes of the Bush administration, instead of a 5-4 decision in favor of the neocons, as usual? Theoretically, in another few years, the SCOTUS will be less neocon than it is now, another reason your scenario doesn't work, even in the imagination.

Wishful thinking based upon lack of knowledge of what happens in court cases does not equal an Obama chess move.


*BTW, an example of an argument that legal ethics should have prevented the D of J from making, but didn't, was classifying homosexuality between consent adults with pedohphilia and incest. That was an outrageous misrespresentation to a court.

[FailureToCommunicate]

30. MSNBC? I thought few DU-ers trusted that M$M source! Also, story said Secret

Service, not the White House was denying access.
Maybe it has something more to do with protecting Obama from harm than from criticism?

[Abq_Sarah]

41. Oh, I guess I missed the part

Where the President of the United States Of America works for the Secret Service.

This isn't their call, this is the President's call and Obama does not want us, the little people who pay his fucking salary, to know who has been visiting.

[pattmarty]

64. I don't want to "cheer lead" for MSNBC, but they do have.......................

................Olberman, Maddow, Schultz, the O'donnell clan, Schuster and that "hottie" Tamaron Hall. Who do the other cable outlets have or the corporate networks???

[FailureToCommunicate]

83. Oh, I know. I was just pointing out the obvious: "Media okay-if we agree with

what they report"

[pattmarty]

105. You got a point, but I have always maintained that what makes "us"................

.......different from "them" is the fact that we question shit and not just take everything (rush, Hannity, O'reilley etc) that we hear from any source as gospel truth. Just my observation.

[high density]

31. I hope Obama can change this policy

Though in the meantime, I highly doubt he is privy to the decisions that the Secret Service is making on his behalf here.

[LostinVA]

116. He better be privvy to the decisions the SS are making for him!

[endarkenment]

32. He's only had five months to break every promise

give him a chance.

[chill_wind]

34. Damn!

:wtf:

[The Hope Mobile]

35. Oh, this must be that transparency he was talking about restoring.

Sheesh!! :eyes: :mad: :puke: :wtf:

[NJmaverick]

39. Important FACT buried deep deep deep in the article

<<Asked Monday whether the White House plans to continue to oppose release of the records, White House spokesman LaBot said the policy is still under review. >>

[Abq_Sarah]

42. They've opposed it thus far

Why is that?

[NJmaverick]

44. Simple they are not going to make a change, until they know exactly what they are doing

and what the consequences are. It's a way of doing things that has been sorely lacking the previous 8 years.

[Abq_Sarah]

53. Huh?

Release the names and damn the consequences.

This isn't about the minutes of foreign policy meetings, this is about who has access to our President.

We have a right to know.

[NJmaverick]

59. simply invade Iraq and damn the consequences

has nothing been learned from that mistake?

[konnichi wa]

76. The invasion of Iraq might have been averted if there hadn't been so much fucking secrecy.

:grr:

[liberation]

149. That was probably the best reply to an obvious red herring I have read in a while....

Chapeau!

[chascarrillo]

268. Wow. You're a piece of work.

[Zhade]

322. That wasn't a mistake, it was a PREMEDITATED CRIME.

NT!

[Autumn]

73. It just seems to me that if the courts have ruled twice that

the names should be released President Obama should be siding with the court.

[greguganus]

143. Want to keep things the same and not ruffle feathers? Just say it's "under review"

DOMA, DADT, WH visitors, etc.

[high density]

50. Because before you start doing things, it's nice to be fully informed of any ramifications

Haven't people learned by now that the Obama White House is not going to make 'gut' decisions, unlike the previous admin? There is a huge load of shit that this guy has to unravel and it will take some time. The ACLU, et al screaming at their top of their lungs that Obama = Bush because Obama has not instantly returned the country to the late 1990s is crazy.

[Abq_Sarah]

55. This is a gut decision

A brave, ethical decision would have been to keep that promise about transparency instead of protecting the rights of the king.

[high density]

87. Who says he's not interested in keeping the promise?

Stop putting words in his mouth.

[NJmaverick]

60. Exactly!

:applause:

[Cherchez la Femme]

102. Principles be damned! Hoo-ya!

(Promised) Transparency be damned!

Arrogance towards the people who elected him & pay him? Ya-Hoo!


Seriously -- 'unravel' his OWN visits?! This is too much... :rofl:

[nichomachus]

46. Wait almost always means never

What's to review? They campaigned on this issue just like they campaigned on reversing DOMA and DADT. Now, all of a sudden, they need to "review" it. That is so bullshit.

Basically they're telling us that they campaigned on nice-sounding words, but they had no actual plan in place to do anything.

[NJmaverick]

47. It's a bit inaccurate. There are thousands of Bush era policy that have to be reviewed

analyzed and changed as needed. The idea that everyone would be completed now, is an unrealistic one.

[nichomachus]

43. Will all of you just

look at the goddam picture of the goddam puppy and STFU.

[FailureToCommunicate]

45. "Who's a good dog... Who's a good dog..."

[Soylent Brice]

58. i laughed at that, now i find myself feeling sad. n/t

[bdamomma]

51. MSNBC is requesting these logs? why?

[polmaven]

72. Why not?

n/t

[bdamomma]

92. MSNBC? what would they use it for? are they that desperate

to keep that 24 hour cycle of news going?

[polmaven]

101. They have a right to have it...

So again, why not?

[bdamomma]

115. in past presidencies (not bush's) did the media ever ask

for WH logs, this seems odd to me.

[polmaven]

134. I can only speculate that yes, they have.

It would not have been an issue because they were not refused access. It became an issue only when the * crew refused it.

[walldude]

157. In past presidencies(Up till Bush II) the logs were public record.

Maybe MSNBC wants to know if they are attempting to hide something.

[sisters6]

330. Yes, i would like to see the follow up.

[Mark Twain Girl]

77. I'd be curious to know what lobbyists came to visit and have a fancy supper myself. I assume he lied

about lobbyists too.

[Vidar]

52. "More transparency in government." What a fraud!

[Kablooie]

54. He doesn't want people to see that he has invited Republicans to visit.

[TacticalPeek]

56. The audacity of nope.

Shrub must be wearing a big toothy grin.

Not me.

[gorfle]

93. LOL

"audacity of nope" :)

[Rob Gregory Browne]

62. I've already learned once today

not to have knee-jerk reactions to the knee-jerk reaction posts on this forum.

I will reserve judgment until I know what's really happening and why the administration is doing it.

[ixion]

67. No need to wait

they're following neocon policies, that is what they're doing.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

81. Uh-huh

[ixion]

68. I will call it the same thing I called it during the reign of BushCo: BS

it's a crock, pure and simple.

Change? Not so much.

[ooglymoogly]

69. KR...Hmmmmm there are 67 comments and 17 recs

What up...this is an important post.

[ProgressIn2008]

75. I suppose it's possible for a pol to get corrupted in a few months but more likely

that he played a lot of folks for suckers.

[defendandprotect]

80. Did you notice Obama's PRE-BRIBED state . . . his list of owners?

We need a Plan B ... because if we keep voting this way, we're gonna get the

same results every time. I think we've noticed that!!!

[howmad1]

137. Hey, here's an idea for plan "B":

Lets start a third party and begin working for Howard Dean to be the next president of the US. Sure as shit there's not a damn bit of difference between rethugs and dems. It's time for a real progressive third party candidate and Dean looks like he could be it.

[defendandprotect]

264. Run and take cover . . .

cause you're going to get jumped on and get a warning!

[tan guera]

299. Plan B

Run a progressive against him

[defendandprotect]

78. Ah . . . . that "transparent" government -- how quickly it is disappearing . .. !!!

[pam4water]

79. Eight years of Bush and we've forgotten what a republic is. :(

[alarimer]

82. I hate this guy more and more every day.

Transparency in government my ass! We have a right to know who is trying to influence your decisions, you liar!

[frog92969]

122. Yes, hate is the right word.

I gave him alot of money I couldn't afford.
And worse than that...I got my hopes up.

We desperately needed the change he promised, yesterday.
Now we have to wait four years and hope again.

[tan guera]

300. 3/1/2 years

to Howard Dean!

[Window]

254. Wow. Just. Wow.

:thumbsdown:

[AzDar]

84. Fuck this.

[d_b]

85. lol. just lol

[Individualist]

86. This is transparency in government?

[zbdent]

88. Should be interesting listening to Repugniconvicts suddenly saying

"He has to divulge who he has been talking to ..."

Despite the fact that they backed Cheney not EVER disclosing who he met with in Feb 2001 ...

I agree that it shouldn't be a "state secret" ... all the more fodder for the Repukes to try to retake control ...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

167. Except The Dick never pretended to be open about things.

Their whole platform was, "It's ok to lie and cheat as long as you're the guy with the power."

The audacity of the rethugs vs. the hypocrisy of our present administration.

[BlueJac]

91. Obama took the word "hope" and made it just another 4 letter word.

[Common Sense Party]

94. "Nope!"

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

95. Regarding transparency

and many other Words




Meet

[Auggie]

98. This isn't the stuff I voted for

[pasto76]

131. What DID you vote for then?

Why do people like you expect these sweeping, radical changes so quickly? This is the goddamn GOVERNMENT. nothing moves quickly. PRESIDENT Obama has been dealt a shitty hand by DumDum and is trying to clean up the mess.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, he is more concerned with, stimulating a national and global economy, figuring out what to do in Afghanistan (troops are coming out of Iraq this summer, yes?) Finding a good replacment to the SCOTUS and making rounds on some healthcare reform.

This, BTW, is also a move by the SECRET SERVICE - who can, and have overruled the President in matters of security.

So 4 years from now, we'll meet up here, and you tell me what hes done over YEARS, instead of months. We will also see who is running against him. Then make these STUPID "ThiS ISNT WHAT I VOTED FOR" Comments.

If you were expecting anything different I dont know what planet you are from.

[Auggie]

195. Thank you for your kind, considerate words...

I choose not to respond to you at this time

[Kermitt Gribble]

257. Expecting transparency, maybe, as promised?

And your comparison of this to the economy and health care is laughable. This involves making a list of names public - doesn't sound like a "radical sweeping change" to me.

[tan guera]

301. He's throwing us bones

to keep the "enchanted" hooked as long as possible.

[StarryNite]

99. Kucinich 2012!

Dennis a true representative of the people! :bounce:

[Wizard777]

106. Only with a contract to prosecute Bush & Obama with a death penalty for failure to deliver.

Otherwise it's just Dennis' turn to promise us the blue sky and screw us over.

[StarryNite]

130. No, Dennis wouldn't screw us over.

That's why he will never be elected. :(

[gorfle]

100. What's going to happen at the end of 4 years with no change?

Who will we vote for? What choice will we have?

[zipplewrath]

170. Dean?

Guys lookin' real good 'bout now.

[ChiciB1]

103. Chink, Chink, Chink! Here We Go Again!! To Those Of You Who Keep Defending

Obama and so many of his REVERSAlS from his campaign, to those who keep finding ways to defend and excuse what is happening, then I really MUST be a Liberal, Fascist Marxist who no longer has a right to call myself American!!

FIVE MONTHS and so many CHANGES, but NOT the CHANGES I had voted for!! I took my Obama stickers OFF my car and off my husband's truck, I DON'T recognize this man I voted for! FIVE MORE MONTHS and how much worse can it get?? Only FIVE months and I'm back to thinking "fear" all over again!

Say what you will, but this RIGHT turn by THIS ADMINISTRATION is really getting under my skin. I'm a Democrat, or at least what I thought a Democrat WAS... but times change and I suppose I haven't kept up with the NEW DEMOCRATS!!

No more donations from me for any of them! And before you tell me not to let the door kick me in the ass and get out of here, I would like to understand how to defend ALL THESE CHANGES!!

And to all of you who were calling Bill Maher all kinds of names and going on about him, well maybe, just maybe HE'S the one who really "gets it!" You either stand up for something or you'll FALL FOR ANYTHING!!

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY... the name of the game! And we don't even have the power to VOTE them out of office! THEY have all the money and the little guy really has not chance!

At least the people in Iran have the cohones to PROTEST... here in THIS country??? NADA! We just keep letting this go on and on and are told REVOLT or UPRISING is outdated and of no consequence. All the while America is spreading DEMOCRACY around the world!! This country needs a hefty dose of it right here at home!!

Sorry, but I'm really very disappointed. He wasn't my first choice, but I did work hard for him, but at this rate... he's a ONE TERMER and that makes me very sad!!!!
:thumbsdown:

[kallyn]

189. Well, we'll get the next president

we deserve, that's for sure. If people want to stamp and scream, or opt out, and we end up with Cheney/Palin next time around, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

Question: do you believe his basic views as he presented them? That he believes we need to repair and maintain a social net? Get out of our wars asap? Close Gitmo? That he's not a xenophobe? Not a homophobe? Prefers diplomacy to belligerence(You have to still believe this one, given the reasons his supporters are pised at him)? I do. I think the guy is essentially in line with my social and international policy views. As far as it goes. But like the man said, if you don't win, you can't govern.

Unless you really believe his whole presentation of his views was BS... that he's actually a social reactionary right-wing warmongering zealot, please -- back off and let the man machinate. He's not going to get there any faster if we're all in the back seat whining, "Are we theeeere yet??"

[liberation]

244. Napoleon used to say "after me, the deluge"

Basically he was trying to make the same argument by black mail as you... where we should ignore the current shenanigans, because there is always a possibility of things being worse.

In modern times, the same tactic has been adopted by business leaders. It is called Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (or FUD for short). Basically, it consists on keeping your customer base, not via the merits of your product (which probably is uncompetitive to begin with), but by making your customers afraid of trying the competitor's solutions... If I think about it, that MO seems to fit to a T the behavior of the DLC-types in the Dem machinery. Their only selling being that the equivalent Republican policy would be so much worse.

Ah, here is to diminished expectations!

[kallyn]

274. It's not about diminished expectations

But if people want to opt out five minutes after their first disappointment (or become irrational, which amounts to the same thing), they can look in the mirror when the next guy is worse, not better.

[Individualist]

281. "first" disappointment?

:rofl:

[kallyn]

287. Ok, then

Obviously you and I always had a different timetable in mind.
Good luck with Merlin in '12, because you're not looking for a politician public servant; you're looking for a spell-casting Magic Man. Who can, not for nothing, also get elected.

And hey, if you come up with one, I'll be first in line to holler "Yay, You!!"

[tan guera]

302. Why should the next one be worse?

Let's think big, OK? We need a challenger and to get out of the mindset that somebody or other can't win becuz it's never been done. Horse feathers. The reason Dennis didn't win is becuz people thought not enuf people would vote for him and they were AFRAID that McCain would win. We can't any longer live our lives in fear of repugs winning. The way he's going, maybe even Keith, Rachel and Moveon will be supporting Howard!! Or Feingold. I prefer Howard.

[kallyn]

312. I like me some Feingold, me.

Still in mourning for Wellstone. Sigh.

[Individualist]

316. ...but, but Howard and Feingold aren't spell casting magic men!

The post I'm referring to is one of the most bizarre I've ever read.

You're right about the reason Dennis didn't win. Too many people allowed themselves to be swayed by the "unelectable" meme instead of voting in their best interests.

[Wizard777]

104. Uuuuh didn't we all vote against more of the same from Mc Cain?

Oh! Say it ain't so Joe. :blush:

[shadowknows69]

107. WTF!!!!

transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency transparency


Is it Change yet?

[avaistheone1]

108. I am reminded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8&feature=related

[katty]

109. Transparency? Nope

[patrice]

111. : - ((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((( ....... !!!

VERY disappointing!

[texastoast]

112. This is a wrong-headed development

And Barack and all Dems need to hear from us loud and clear that this is completely unacceptable.

And for all of you who are pulling a substantial amount of support from the Dems for this and other kinder, gentler Bush behavior, good luck with that. Hope you all like the names Sarah and Newt.

[hardtoport]

113. THIS is why impeachment should NEVER be off the table.

We told the world, and our current and future presidents, that our Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on when we allowed Bush to finish his term unchallenged.

As soon as one president gets away with something, there is little to no chance that the next one will relinquish that power. This notion that the electorate should be patient is nonsense. No politician every did the right thing without having their arm twisted behind their back. If we're wrong at times and the President does have some chess game in mind, so what? Are we afraid the President is going to get his feelings hurt? The President of the United States should have to explain himself to the American people. If he has a problem with that, he's in the wrong line of work.

Obama has a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

[keepCAblue]

114. Where did all the cheerleaders go?

[brentspeak]

123. They need time to come up with a clever explanation (n/t)

[sisters6]

224. +BLOWING IN THE WIND+

[FailureToCommunicate]

249. Good one! You beat me to it (And welcome to DU!)

[sisters6]

261. Thanks. We (Democrats) should be the Upperground now but

so many things seem to be deteriorating before us.

[FailureToCommunicate]

267. Take heart. Be not discouraged. It's a new day, but still morning...

[blue97keet]

118. Synergies Summit Protest in D.C. (any connection?)

Synergies Summit Protest in D.C.

The ''Synergies Summit" of United States India Business Council is going to be held on June 17 in Washington D.C. when three of its top officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be present. The CEO of WiPro (an Indian I.T. outsourcing company that is resisting calls to hire Americans in this country), Azim Premji, will be there. The summit is likely to spell out the Obama administration's policy for India.

http://techsunite.org/

[brentspeak]

120. The Audacity of Dopes

who thought Obama was all about "change".

[RetroLounge]

124. Just another wheel flying off the Hopemobile...

:eyes:

RL

[City Lights]

125. ARGH!

:argh:

[judesedit]

126. Unless someone's life will be put in danger, FULL DISCLOSURE, OBAMA!

[happygoluckytoyou]

128. SEND YOUR OPINION TO WHITEHOUSE.GOV .... Obama listens to the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE !! we hope---

[emilyg]

132. Transparency - haahaa

[DebbieCDC]

133. Wow even MORE change we can believe in!

[mystieus]

138. I could care less.

[liberation]

141. Whatever happened to his promise of making a buttload of public records... "public"

via a website or something. I think Obama pledged to put all the new legislation and discussion processes up in a website for public review...

Or am I "misremembering?"

[hughee99]

173. TINO...

Transparency in name only

[LaPera]

145. And people on DU can't understand why others get pissed with Obama constantly

doing the opposite of what he ran on....these people want to believe he's superhuman, yet he hasn't gotten any real change passed he listens to republicans bullshit in the D.C. bubble and believes it's that way across the country...republicans have it down how to scare democrats even though they wield very little power...

We better get a public option Universal Health Care or nothing will be accomplished...we NEED it desperately.

[sellitman]

148. Who works for who?

It's time for a gut check.

How very, very disappointing.

Actually...FUCK

[derby378]

153. It's deja vu all over again

Not happy.

[Duncan Grant]

154. Happy days are here again, the skies above are clear again, so let's sing a song of cheer again,

happy days are here again.

[jmondine]

155. I smell Rahm

[twitomy]

160. I'm not surprised..

When are you poor suckers ever going to learn? A politician is first and formost a slimeball. The D or R besides their name makes little difference.

[kid a]

162. Obama Cheerleader here! Reserving "knee jerk" buffoonery for my Onion visit later

I enjoy watching you idiots rant and rave from behind your cuddly pcs.

most of you have no clue what you are talking about!

=)
have a great day

[liberation]

163. What a wonderful reply, so full of facts and figures to serve as a counterclaim...

... wait...

[Kermitt Gribble]

181. Oh, omniscient one,

please enlighten us with the explanation for this secrecy from the white house! Or just STFU!

[BostonMa]

228. idiotic answer

[abq e streeter]

165. another "pony" we didn't get...every day I'm having less patience with those

who still are using that sarcastic "I didn't get my pony" argument against those who, like me ( and quite obviously I'm not alone) are becoming more and more disappointed, if not flat-out angry with the direction this administration is going. As much as the idea that maybe they're doing what they're ordered to by , as Bill Hicks put it,"the same capitalist/industrialist scumfucks that got you there", I suppose that would still not be as upsetting as what increasingly seems to be the case; that this administration and the whole "change" thing was a scam from the git-go. Once again, I want to say, I could be utterly wrong about what I perceive this administration to be turning out to be. I hope to god that I am, and would be thrilled to have to apologize to everyone still defending Obama, for not trusting that he, and his administration, will end up , when all is said and done, to be everything good that they'd promised to be.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

172. Here's my view (which could be completely wrong)

I think that by the end of his term, we will see significant change in regards to DADT, ENDA, and DOMA, despite the DOJ defending Bush's positions on said issues. I also think he will end up releasing these visitor logs before long. I think President Obama is very methodical and reasoned when looking at existing law and doesn't rush anything (I wish he would be faster though).

If I'm wrong in four years, I will apologize and admit I was suckered. I hope I don't have to do that.

[abq e streeter]

198. Its so refreshing to be disagreed with in a respectful, civil manner----thank you

not being sarcastic in the least either...Of course I think I'm right or wouldn't post my opinions, but am keeping my fingers crossed that I'm wrong. Thank you once again for an intelligent, respectful exchange of differing views. Hope you're having a good day, and hope you're right !

[Celeborn Skywalker]

317. I think it helps to keep things civil.

I don't like Obama's defenders calling people's legitimate anger and disappointment "poutrage" or "not getting their pony" and I don't like his detractors using words RW buzzwords like "worshiper" and "cultist".

I enjoy a good discussion but not when people are flinging insults.

[abq e streeter]

320. n/t--just "emoticon" below

:fistbump:

[ChiciB1]

196. I Too Would LOVE To Be Wrong About What I'm Seeing & Feeling....

AND I would LOVE to eat my words, but from my seat in the peanut gallery I'm not liking what I'm seeing!

Given more time I WONDER more and more WHAT we will be seeing!!

[lindisfarne]

171. #159 should be required reading before posting in this thread ... it will enlighten you. Someone

else asked: what if Obama's girls had a sleepover. Should their guests' names be private or public? The Whitehouse has said it is reviewing the policy (see #159). I personally don't think private guests, especially of the girls or Michelle Obama, should be public information. The White House may be public property, but it also has a personal residence in it, and people deserve privacy. I realize this could be abused by someone claiming someone was a private guest when in fact the person wasn't.

Cheney abused public information laws without resorting to claims of "private guest" - so what needs to happen is not to allow this abuse of public information laws.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

176. No, it shouldn't.

[vaberella]

201. Why? n/t

[liberation]

182. That post you are referring is so full of red herring, that indeed it should be required reading...

... for marine biologists.


I specially liked the "touch" of using the Obama girls as an excuse to shield their daddy of any responsibility. That is sooooooo classy.

The point that a lot of the red herring fisherman in this thread seem to miss: the guest list is fairly inconsequential as far as things go. However, if the Obama admin has trouble making such an inconsequential piece of information public, what about more serious pieces of information?

In the same sense that it is mighty hypocritical for Mrs. Palin to feign indignation for the media's treatment of her daughter, since it was her who ran on a platform of moral purity... when she is more rotten than most of us. It is equally hypocritical for the Obama admin to shield simple information such as this... since "transparency" was one of the campaign mantras.

If we are going to enter a framework that implies that it is OK if a Dem does it. Then we haven't learned much...

[lindisfarne]

184. Are you demanding access to the list of everyone Obama calls, texts, and so on?

I had very little problem with the Bush administration's blocking of the list because I can see there being a need to not publicize every visitor, such as a foreign diplomat.

Maybe we need a special court to review whether it is truly necessary to withhold the names of whatever visitors an administration says need to be withheld? That way true needs for secrecy could be balanced against the need for public information.

In no case do underage visitors to the children of presidents need to be made public.

[liberation]

218. Holy strawman argument Batman!

Projection can be funny that way sometimes... apparently, with his support of FISA, Obama was the one who seemed to have no problem with the state having access to the list of people I call, text, or e-mail. So what you are trying to say is basically, that whatever is good for the goose.... it is not applicable for the gander?

BTW, the underage visitors in this case are not the issue... not by a long shot. Using two girls as a shield in a desperate attempt to justify this nonsense... it is just that: desperate.

[No Elephants]

351. Why should the visit of a diplomat be secret? It's not as though we get a transcript of the convo.

Not since Nixon and Watergate, anyway.

[Cleita]

206. Straw men are also one of

this poster's favorites as well.

[liberation]

219. Indeed... I never in a million years would expect some Dems to exhibit a level of logical disonance

that would rival some of the right's greatest hits.

It is disturbing to say the least... stuff that was "unacceptable" under Bush, all of the sudden become brilliant plays by a grandmaster taking part in the most awesome game of chess ever.

[Individualist]

188. ...required reading for people who enjoy doublespeak

and spin.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

194. Maybe they were bad girls and got lumps of coal for Christmas?

Is that the reason The Whitehouse turned down a specific request concerning visits by coal company executives?

It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

Oh wait. They weren't in the Whitehouse around Christmas.

[abq e streeter]

199. I read it, and am open to the possibility that they're right , and I'm not

Time will tell, and as I said here already, I fervently hope I end up being proven completely wrong about my increasing level of disappointment and skepticism regarding Obama and his presidency.

[frylock]

220. i imagine chelsea found occasion to host friends for a sleepover..

disclosure of those names didn't seem to be much of an issue then, or is this another one of those things that 9/11™ changed forever?

[liberation]

232. Apparently pillow fights are matters of national security now...

Maybe the parents of the classmates of the Obama girls have to request this year's yearbook by filing FOIA requests?

[barbtries]

178. i Hate this shit!

:cry:

i've been so naive in my life. an idiot really.

[Willo]

180. Is there an accusation being made? Suspicions based on...?

Something like...President seen with shady characters in diner at 2 a.m.

White house is a revolving door for unidentified foreign leaders, says White House maid and cook.

President holds private meeting meetings in White House.

Anything like that?

Or is the recipe simply:
Start with a name you don't approve of
Add Bush
Imply something sinister...

...then wait.

DU teaparty coming soon.

[humbled_opinion]

186. AHEM!

Obama on his worst day surpasses Bush on his best.
I refuse to be lost in the Bushes again.
Giving the Right Wing fodder to use against Obama is counter productive to Progressive goals. Therefore, if Obama does not want to release the list, I trust there is a logical and important reason not too.

[liberation]

208. Replace Bush for Obama, and Iraq war for the "guest list"

and you sound exactly like my father in law circa 2003/4.

The more things change...

[humbled_opinion]

225. LOL

Maybe over time as we get further removed from the last 8 years on hell on earth I will calm down enough to digest the issues again.

[liberation]

231. To me, the past 8 years of hell... are the reason why I am done giving the benefit of the doubt

and free passes to any politician. Regardless of their political affiliation, assumptions are a dangerous thing IMHO.

If politicians want to gain our trust, they should do it the old fashion way: they should earn it. Lord knows they have pissed away any benefit of the doubt (or respect) they may ever had at some point...

[ColbertWatcher]

191. What the hell? n/t

[Cleita]

204. Is Jeff Gannon still going there? n/t

[Oldtimeralso]

209. I Also Think That Post # 159 Should Be Mandatory Reading.

I think that many now posting on DU don't get it. The Neocons have had their way since 1981 and all of the media is on their side. Don't fall for the propaganda machine. Give President Obama time to make the changes in an orderly way. Just look around you,not just at your personal issues, the world is on the edge of depression. How long did it take FDR to recover from the GOP thieves? Now the damage is far greater and America has fewer ways to recover, where is the industrial base that could work our way out? In China where the greedy and use almost slave labor to maximize their profits. Some of those that chanted "GIve Peace A Chance" should now "Give Hope A Chance"!

[texastoast]

213. Am I on the right thread?

I do believe I am.


Don't believe what you've heard about a GOP in disarray. They're mad, they're organized, and they're determined to return to what they see as their rightful place: ruling the halls of Congress.

How do I know? $14.4 million.

That's how much Newt Gingrich raised during a fundraising dinner last week for Republican House and Senate committees. One speech. $14.4 million.

They not only have cash, but also history on their side. There are only a handful of times in our nation's past when the party that won the White House hasn't lost big the following midterm election.

[mountainvue]

215. What possible reason could he have

for doing this?

[subdivisionsrush]

217. Well I Am Back In The Trust No One Category

:hide: 

First time poster long time lurker. I voted Ron Paul in
primaries and Obama in the general. McCain as an alternative
was unacceptable and Hillary just scared me now I feel like a
game of rope-a-dope is being played.

Is it me or do you all feel like this administration and
Pelosico. take great joy in telling us to just trust
them...they are lookin' out for us all the while just screwing
us in the end? I feel like a moron half the time when anyone
in government is talking to me because they address us like we
are a bunch of 5th graders who can't comprehend anything
outside of a Phonics book.

Obama hasn't done a damn thing worth my vote yet and that is
all he got was my vote because he didn't deserve a dime..no
politician does until they prove they will work for YOU. Biden
is an utter joke and rivals Quayle as the single dumbest man
to hold the office of VP.

Can we finally get back to work people? Can we start creating
millions of jobs again instead of finding and hearing the spin
of so called "good news" when it's 651,000 jobs lost
instead of 725,000 as forecasted?

Enough is enough. Since Obama took the national stage it has
been one big PR campaign. Fine..some 67 million voted for
you...I am not asking for miracles. I am asking for
resolutions that need the tag of urgency and I am not talking
about puppies, basketball games, what schools their kids go
to, what star is on his blackberry, and what musician is
performing for them tonight.

It's junk.

We have North Korea threatening nukes, the fiscal crisis of a
century, a huge mess by Bush with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran in
chaos, Israel with an itchy finger, more jobs being lost, gas
prices skyrocketing again, crime picking up...keep your eye on
the ball people. We need to hold Obama accountable here and
call a spade a spade at the end of the day. If we rode Bushco.
about this transparency issue then we have to do the same with
him. 


In closing I know a bunch of you aren't going to agree with me
and some will but hopefully we will be able to find common
ground. I refrain from posting on message boards because I
don't see the circle jerk debate being fruitful unless we are
truly doing something active as a result.

Time for action.

[Raster]

252. Now this is a post that people in this thread should read.

And for the record, NO I do not believe that guests names to the private White House quarters should be released. The Obamas are entitled to some privacy in their very un-private lives. HOWEVER, the guest logs for the rest of the White House should be public information. That is true transparency.

[HughMoran]

266. Good song

Note that people who post in that strange font never last long for some reason.

[patrice]

276. Yeah, what's up with that? They're always low post count too. How do they get that font?

[HughMoran]

278. I have this theory that it's a cut-and-paste from a RW site

I can't prove it, but I've never seen that font last for long :D

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cottonseed]

243. Wow! Imagine. The leader of 1 half of a 2 party system adopting oligarchal policies.

Anyone that's truly disappointed here are the truly stupid.

Keep bouncing between 2 parties. That'll get ya somewhere.

Kucinich would be just as bad. Only idiots would think differently.

[moondust]

259. Is there a way

to put everybody in this thread on ignore all at once? Then I can pick out the few voices of reason and put them back in play.

This is the worst Obama-hating convention I've seen yet on DU and I'm not convinced anybody here knows the whole story. It may have something to do with the Obama kids. It may have something to do with real security threats against people invited to visit the (black, pro-choice) people living in the WH. Who knows?

[tan guera]

303. How many straws

have to break the camel's back? It isn't just this; it's his horrible foreign policy, the crooks bailing out the crooks, the impeding of the prosecution of bushco, to name a few biggies.

He'll save DOMA and DADT and a few others in time for the election. Starry-eyes supporters who were disappointed will be brought back into the flock of hope and change.

And while people are basking in his glow, he'll be starting several more wars.

I've seen thru him since his very first speech. Slick and smooth, but *better* than bush. That remains to be seen.

[moondust]

307. Wow. How delusional.

I see through you, tan guera. Welcome to IGNORE.

[WestSeattle2]

260. Open goverrnment is open government regardless of who

currently controls the levers of power.

[HughMoran]

265. I wonder why Obama does shit like this?

It makes no sense even if I can't imagine what he would have to hide.

[agentS]

275. waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I'm going to take a neutral stance on this issue until the CREW lawsuit is over with.

While I agree with most posters that the logs should be open to some degree (we need to know if special interests group members are visiting, but not Mrs. Obama's sister or a relative), recent violent acts by right wing fascists and Operation Rescue members may be what's forcing the Secret Service's hand.

I wouldn't put it past Glenn Beck to publicize the list of visitors, and then some Republican scumbag showing up at the door of a visitor with a sawed-off shotgun. This is how these people roll.

Nonetheless, if you can't wait for the courts to strike this down again, you can always grab a good telephoto lens or binoculars and stand outside the white house and see who's coming in and out. Why wait on Obama to do the right thing, if this is so important to you?

[patrice]

277. Problem is, at this point, we're waiting on 4-5 other shoes. nt

[TankLV]

294. Wow - "change (the window drapes)" you can believe in!!!

very very disappointing...

but on the other hand - it's a giant middle finger to the REPUKES who are sure as hell to try to make this a "scandal" as sure as I'm gonna shit tomorrow...

[MisterK]

296. sounds good to me

We have to play on a level playing field.
If they do it so should we.

[Zhade]

304. Change? YOU FUCKING LIED TO US.

NT!

[lamp_shade]

305. Good.

[redqueen]

318. So, apparently this was SS policy for ages.

It is way too easy to jerk people around like little puppets these days.

WAY too easy.

[Zhade]

323. FALSE. Read upthread and stop spreading lies.

NT!

[No Elephants]

326. Ironic post.

[Zynx]

342. I've never gotten my underwear in a bundle over this.

I didn't even under Bush. I just never have thought this is that important.