Obama Closes Doors on Openness

[emilyg]

Share: Buzz up! (379) Type Size Print
Email
RSS
Links to this article
Get and Share
Email To A Friend Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Your Email Address Recipient's Email Address
Separate multiple addresses with commas


As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized


http://www.newsweek.com/id/202875

[scheming daemons]

1. Or did he open the door on closedness?

[HopeOverFear]

2. LOL

[emilyg]

3. I like that.

[Butch350]

4. Some things are just , NOYDB! period.

[emilyg]

5. His campaign promises are

very much my business.

[boppers]

6. I don't believe he promised to release all white house visitor logs upon request.

Can you show me where he made that promise?

[Baltoman991]

7. Bullshit!!!

His campaign promise was transparency. But that doesn't mean he's going to tell you, me or anyone else EVERY DAMN THING that goes on. Some things he can't release.

You'd know that if you really listened to him then or now. But you're to busy running around the inter tubes trying to drudge up any negative article you can find on him because wah wah wah, your candidate lost in the primaries.

[Skittles]

8. it was wrong when bush did it but it's OK for Obama to do it?

[Baltoman991]

9. You'll have

to ask someone who ranted when Bush did it. Frankly, I don't give a flying flip who visits the White House.

I care more about our soldiers dying daily, healthcare for all, the economy making a comeback, you know, things like that.

[Skittles]

14. some of us care about things like transparency

and still manage to mail care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan - so get off your high fucking horse

[Forkboy]

26. One of the reasons those soldiers are dying daily...

..is because of Cheney's secret meetings in the White House with oil and energy execs. Time to start giving a flying flip if you mean what you say about caring for the soldiers.

[bigwillq]

10. According to many here

It is ok because Obama did it. Those people are more annoying than the perceived "Obama bashers"

[noiretextatique]

11. that's pretty much sums it up

he promised transparency and he needs to live up to that promise...period...paragraph...end of story.

[boppers]

13. Transparancy does not equate to drawing up assasination lsts.

Secret service logs on all visitors to the white house is pretty much a matter of national security.

Making closed room *policies*, with those visitors, was Cheney's energy task force problem, not the logs themselves.

[Dragonfli]

15. Lighten up - You actually got your pony - Now go and play with it quietly in the corner.

And stop whining



There are issues of transparency in government the adults would like to discuss without your disruption.

[Skittles]

17. LOL - Dragonfli

:rofl:

[emilyg]

22. Snap. Good one.

[noiretextatique]

30. thanks, Dragonfli

:rofl: someone needed a :spank:

[Cha]

12. You got that

right.

[Lord Helmet]

23. x 2

[emilyg]

21. So - your still stuck in the primaries. Sad.

[kas125]

29. EVERYTHING they do is our business - they work for us, not

the other way around.

[spoony]

24. The people lobbying our President are none of our business?

Interesting take on government you have there.

[LaydeeBug]

34. and which things would they be?

I'm calling bullsh!t

[Hippo_Tron]

16. As I've said before, I think there should be parity between the WH and Congress

First of all, yes Obama broke a campaign promise. Politicians break campaign promises all of the time, so what else is new?

Moving on, the problem I have with this is that if President Obama is meeting with a Democratic strategist or pollster, the fact that the meeting took place will be revealed to the Republicans and may tip them off that the White House is considering new strategy to push through certain legislation.

If every meeting the President has is public information then every meeting that every member of congress should be public information as well. If the Democrats have to let the Republicans know when they meet with a strategist the Republicans should have to let the Democrats know as well.

[jamieque]

18. Excuse me...

Not to sound rude or anything but you are dead wrong in your statement...

Like many others are as well. The president hasn't been in office long enough to break any of his promises. Come back and say that line in about a year or two. Then it will be believable. Otherwise... you are being to damn impatient like too many Americans are. Give Obama a break and let him get settled in. The man has only been in the White House for what...? 5 whole months going on 6 in a few days. My god! I am getting so tired all the bitching and whining I keep hearing. Who the hell did you want to be president? If it was McCain then I am sorry but he lost... badly. If it was Hillary then she also lost but not quite as bad. If it was Obama then that is great because he was the right choice.

Now lets stop crying, whining and be patient. Give him a chance and also lets do our part to help him. He'll only suceed if we get up off our lazy asses and do our part.

So move it... move it... move it!

[Owl]

31. Well said jamieque.

[laugle]

19. Public disclosure

now! What is he hiding............??

[vaberella]

20. I call this article BS.

So when I can check on how my state and other states are spending the stimulus package, when there is a clear and concise budget plan as to what is going to be spent on what without secrecy, and when I can get some dialogue on plans and past actions by the administration without pure silence---all that means nothing has change?! Wow...just bloody wow.


When it doesn't meet their demands it's not enough. I don't know when anything is enough for some progressives.

[Political Heretic]

25. This is not some either/or scenario.

It is actually possible to cheer changes, and criticize backtracks.

That's pretty much how life works.

So, yay that you have more information about a spending bill than you felt you previously had access too.

But, boo to the fact that after criticizing Bush-era secret meetings with executives, the administration is holding secret meetings with executives and refusing FOIA requests.

Condemning one doesn't somehow stop anyone from cheering the other.

And where on earth did this notion come from that we EITHER must cheer everything that happens for the next four years, OR we can criticize everything that happens for the next four years?

Some of the things that are happening right now are WRONG vaberella. Other things that are happening are good and right, but it's ludicrous and an extreme disservice to be pushing this notion that people challenging the administration when it makes decisions that go against our values are somehow doing something wrong.

People sitting around and being uncritical yes people are doing something wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The White House is the People's House

The hired hands who work in it are public servants. They have no right to hide who visits them, for it is not their house at all, and the business they do should not be their business ever, but the People's business always.
It was wrong when Bush and Cheney hid the records of who they met with, and it is just as wrong today, when Obama wants to hid his influences.
You do not agree, of course. But you are simply wrong.

[GeorgeGist]

27. Since clean coal is a myth ...

it's kinda embarassing that Obama believes clean coal executives actually exist. No wonder he won't reveal their names. He'd look like a fool.

[MarjorieG]

28. Another Newsweek potshot. Promising openness on policy meetings, that lobbyists won't write policy,

is different than who vists, and media making up stories out of why people visit, with people who who'd rather be not be public.

Tired of every pot shot on Obama, now South Park. Puleeeez.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. So if the lobbyists don't write policy

but instead the administration offers them a dictation service to write it for them, all is well? If they do not want to share who is influencing them, they should not have moved into the People's House talking about transparency and open government.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. I'd also be very interested in knowing what sort of people

you think 'don't want to be in public' but still wish to influence public policy? What kind of people are afraid to be seen visiting the White House, but still need to do so? It is your meme, these people who must be there but must be secretive. So just who do you claim such people are, and what positive motives could they have for the furtive visits?

[ecstatic]

36. I hate headlines like this

Can't people state the facts without resorting to whiney/sarcastic one-liners?

[gauguin57]

37. Maybe he could leave the door ajar on translucence.

Or prop the door halfway open on hologram-ness.