As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised “transparency” in government. The impression was left that we’d all be able to pull up a chair and watch administration officials and lawmakers hash out their philosophical and policy differences as they make laws that affect our lives.
Specifically, Obama said, “we’ll have [healthcare reform] negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”
But now, the White House seems to be pulling back from that pledge, and that’s rankled some Democrats as well as Republicans, not to mention news analysts and opinion makers always eager for a squabble – especially if it hints at a broken promise.
[…]
In a recent letter to congressional leaders, C-SPAN chief executive Brian Lamb asked lawmakers to televise their healthcare discussions.“The American people pay for all this that goes on in this town,” Mr. Lamb said on the Bill Press Show. “It’s always been my contention – and it’s not a sophisticated, intelligent position, it’s just a gut reaction – that if we pay for something, and it’s the public’s business, we ought to be able to see how it’s done. It’s just that simple.”
1
“…IF it hints at a broken promise?”
If?
Really?
What? No sarcastic demeaning comment from Uncle Dave below the fold?
Oh, that’s right.
This story is about a democrat problem.
Never mind, move along, nothing to see here.
BOy, thanks Aunt Dave! Only took you about a week after this story broke to post it. You guys here at DU (not Democratic Underground but you might as be them due to the leftist tilt this blog has) are always behind the curve.
#3, grow up.
Just try to defend this. There is no excuse for saying that the government would be transparent and then covering up stuff as life-changing as the healthcare bill will be.
Politics the true turd in advertising.
Who is responsible? Isn’t this the congress, not Obama, who is banning C-Span?
I understood the spirit of the pledge for government transparency.
I’m not necessarily looking to see how each step of the sausage is made.
More noise from the conservative losers.
What?
Someone expected honesty and integrity from a Politician??? lol
You can’t be serious
“so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies”
Isn’t that the press’ job?
#9 It’s not what you understand or expect that’s important It’s what Obama said. I am sure statements like this helped him get elected. Apparently the ends justify the means.
More rationalizing from liberal liars.
#9-Dallas-I understood the spirit of the pledge for government transparency.
Is that right?
Funny how you didn’t understand the spirit of the pledge for government transparency under the Bush Administration.
I seem to recall you whining like a little girl at the time more information was made available, not like now where everything is behind closed doors.
#12 He said he will provide for a transparent government. He has been. I don’t expect the government to televise CIA meetings and I don’t expect them to televise matters that should be in private.
So do you drive “transparent governance” with your family or do you like to them in the dark?
#13 Are you serious? Bush transparency in government?
This is all much todo about nothing. Don’t any of you remember the concept of “Separation of powers” in the US Constitution.
Obama (the US Executive Branch) can not tell Congress (the US Legislative Branch) how to run their business.
This was nothing but a cheap campaign promise that I knew was total crap when I heard it back in 2008. The POTUS can not demand Congress allow cameras into their meetings and sessions.
You should be furious at your Congress critters and senators for obfuscation their allegiances.
# 15 yanikinwaoz said, “This was nothing but a cheap campaign promise that I knew was total crap when I heard it back in 2008.”
I agree we all take campaign promises with a huge grain of salt but this was a promise made to the American people BY a sitting president. That’s a lie of another color.
Also important to remember they are meeting behind closed doors to keep the opposition out of the debate. Not very democratic yet, very Democratic.
Keep in mind that Obama was elected mainly on the platform that he was black. And it’s not clear that he has even kept that promise.
RBG
More left right finger pointing by fools.
#16 Also important to remember they are meeting behind closed doors to keep the opposition out of the debate. Not very democratic yet, very Democratic.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. When the R’s ran Congress during Dubya’s Reign of Error, they ruthlessly shut the D’s out of all decision making. That’s a matter of public record.
Sucks when your own tactics are used against you, doesn’t it? Boo hoo. 🙂
But I agree that Obama broke his promise about keeping things out in the open.
So what’s the wingnut’s solution? Why, elect the party that doesn’t even bother to talk about openness. R’s are the experts at backroom deals. Makes perfect sense… not.
#17 I voted for him based on him presenting the best vision for the future, not because he was black.
I would agree most of the republican sheep took their prejudices to the voting booth. Either their racial prejudices or religious prejudices or both.
#21 Every once in a while the racists just blurt it out… they can’t keep it stuffed down forever.
#19:
“Sucks when your own tactics are used against you, doesn’t it? Boo hoo”
But these tactics are being used against the American people!
If some party runs on a platform that says, “look, the current party in power sucks – we won’t screw you like they do!”
And then they turn around and screw you the same way, but are like, “we’re just getting back at the other party for what they did!”
well, then both parties need to be killed. This is unacceptable.
#24 Well, I agree to some extent with you. In my mind we have two political parties: one completely in hock to the big money boys (Republicans) and one only mostly in hock to the big money boys (the Democrats). So the one most likely to be salvageable is the Democratic party.
But the Republicans are clever, they throw out the “social issues” smokescreen, get the populace all lathered up about abortion and gay marriage, to obscure the fact that they’re robbing us blind.
#20 “So what’s the wingnut’s solution? Why, elect the party that doesn’t even bother to talk about openness.”
So it’s better to lie about it than not mention it? Love that reasoning.
#27 At least they know that it’s a good thing, even if they don’t do it. It’s something to work with, unlike the Republicans, who scoff at openness.
We don’t have the luxury of throwing out the Republican and Democratic parties and starting over. We have to work with what we’ve got.
#28, We don’t have the luxury of throwing out the Republican and Democratic parties and starting over. We have to work with what we’ve got.
It’s that attitude that keeps them re-elected.
28. “We don’t have the luxury of throwing out the Republican and Democratic parties and starting over. We have to work with what we’ve got.”
Complete moronic Bullshit.
#26,
I Want To Believe
#3,
then go to Cage match and POST what you want..
how many of you realize that the gov WAS setup to be transparent??
it REALLY was..
but they havnt up-SIZED anything to handle the amount of people that would LOVE to watch.
If you are in the gallery, you ALSO have a way to have a VOICE..you COULD speak up and SAY SOMETHING..its all been taken away.
Transparent in the fact we cannot see the truth? Then its transparent alright. I still cannot believe how many fell for Obama’s promises of a open government. WOW where have they been? I guess we are so desparate for change we will believe anything. I think the fact that Wall Street is paying out big bonuses and Main Street is still suffering should say something about who the government really is helping.