POTUS Obama Reneges On Promise To Allow C-SPAN Access To Congress HC Negotiations?

[headscratcher4]

I agree that Obama does not have the power to make Congress allow cameras in the reconiliation meetings.

So shouldn't someone (Reid, Pelosi, the media) at the 8 different campaign stops, debates, press conferences when Obama made that pledge and promise, have pointed out his obvious ingorance of high school level civics?

Those who are defending Obama by saying his critics are ignoring the inherent powers of the different branches are ignoring the biggest problem.

Whether or not Obama can or should allow CSPAN into Congressional meetings isn't the point. The point that he blatantly lied (he knew he didn't have that power but promised it multiple times anyway in order to gain votes) OR that he was woefully ignorant of the powers of the different branches, is to me the main point.

I personally don't care if reconciliation is on tv or not. I do care whether a politician doesn't know the limits of his power or if a politician is cynically dishonest.

Perhaps I'm giving a false dichotomy and there is another explanation that I'm missing, and I (and I am saying this with no sarcasm or snarkiness) welcome anyone who would like to point out another option besides lying/ignorance.

Fair, interesting points. I guess I'm defensive (to the extent that I am -- as this is not a real issue in any meaningful sense) because a). It was a promise Obama couldn't make and b). it was made on the campaign trail and c). anyone who understands government or campaigns would have brushed it aside as one of those meaningless things that are said during a campaign.

I am arguing about this particular promise not whether Obama has a commitment to greater transparancy or how that commitment manifests itself during his presidency. All politicians, it seems to me, make promises on the campaign trail that are consistent with their philosophy but which may not or are not ever really followed through on. This might not be the most appropriate example but George W. and every Republican President since Reagan has been committed to reversing Roe v. Wade. They pay it lip service. They go to the Breakfasts. They talk about it as a priority on the campaign. None has yet to actually achieve a reversal (though, of course, their SCOTUS picks may, one day make it possible).

It seems to me that the anger -- the "See he's a liar" tone of Cicero -- is a bunch of sound and fury signifing very little -- other than that politicans are essentially currupt, failed humans. If anything, it seems to me -- as was the case with Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon and Johnson....on and on and on -- that what we should really be demanding is not only more accountability from politicians (and in this case Cicero is completely and legitimately asking where's the accountability, it just that I don't think the matter he's worked up about is that interesting, important or ultimately indicative of Obama's commitment or lack thereof to transparancy) but more accountability from the press.

These promises that Obama made on the campaign trail that we all must agree were at least over-statements if not completely impossible for him to keep (is that a "lie"? -- not really sure), should have been subject to more press and possibly to more pundit scrutiny. I didn't focus that much on the "transparancy" argument other than thinking that like anyone running for POTUS, Obma was making an "I'm for good government ..." promise. Clearly, had I heard the specific instances that Cicero is enraged at, I would have laughed it off as one of those pie in the sky promises that politicans make that really don't have much to do with the way government or particular institutions like Congress operate (especially having worked for the Congress).

I guess I don't understant the outrage here other than for its purely political blow-hardiness. Whatever the lie is here -- if it is a real lie as opposed to just something stupid or campaign puffery -- is it more outrageous, for example, than the Bush Administration saying that there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and we have to invade(argued in the United Nations and before the world and not just on the campaign trail)? You see, we've all go pet political peves about this kind of stuff. I'm sure Cicero would argue that wasn't a lie, it was the best intel we had and it made sense in the context of the delivery.

I don't know, this kind of campaign puffery or even lie seems to me to be pretty meaningless or content free in comparrison. And, ultimately, Obama's commitment to transparancy -- whether real and imporant or real but not so important (like Bush's anti-Roe work) -- will only really be judgeable at the end of his term(s). Having said that, it would seem to me that it is a completely fair question for reporters to ask of Obama and of Gibbs -- "Hey, in the campaign you said this about transparancy..." But for me that begs the question of why no one asked back when he said it originally.

Finally, my personal opinion. The reconcilliation and transparancy. I suppose it could be more transparent. You could have reporters and C-SPAN in the room. God knows, having cameras there wouldn't lead any politicians to unusual acts of grand-standing or demogogery (sp?).

I don't know, it is a little like cameras in the court room. Good in principal, bad in practice. Good politics and politics that fuels a strong democracy, it seems to me, is politics that encourages compromise and deals. Cameras encourage neither, nor do they provide more than raw pictures, not understanding of the process. Besides, everyone sees what comes out at the other end...some I'm not sure how C-SPAN in the room as it does makes that end product better, worse, more transparent. If the issue is what Senators/Congressmen are getting legislative pay-offs for their support, that already is pretty well covered...especialy with the Health Care Bill -- just Google Ben Nelson to see the articles and commentary. And, those pay-offs will be apparent too in the shape of the end bill.

As said somewhere above -- its like making sausage, you probably don't want to see it.

But, if we really want to have a transparancy discussion, my gut would be to start with the Appropriations Committees. Those members have practically unchecked power to bring home the bacon, as it were, and most of that happens behind closed doors. So, all in all, I've mixed emotions. I could really care less about the Health Care reform bill conference...I would like to know what the next appropriation to SteamTown or a members pet project is snuck into an appropriations bill. In short I want real change without changing anything -- Obamaesque, no?

 

[Cicero]

The point is campaign promises are just ephemera. I am more concerned about actions. In this case, the health care debate was, for the most part, transparent. Especially compared to Bush's energy meetings where we can't even find out who was in the room.

Are you more concerned about trasnparency or tabulating campaign promises, Cicero? It appears the latter.

You would have thought Bush 43 would have learned from "Snipery" Hillary Clinton's behind closed door health care meetings during her hubby's administration.

Since when was candidate Obama perceived by supporters and the lame stream media as just another politician making the usual hot air promises?

"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."
Chris Matthews

Perhaps the "thrill" was ephemera, but all the talk about hope and change was emphemera as well?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How is POTUS Obama not lving up to his campaign pledge(s) a conspiracy theory? What does Nacy Pelosi's dopey comments about candidate Obama's pleges have to do with conspiracy theories?

The CT is that there is some conspiracy of silence and that the process involved in this legislation is not as transparent as it ought be. Again, it is at least as transparent as the process for other large bills in the past.

ETA: I note that one of the 3 tags you gave this thread is "government transparency". So that is what this is about, isn't it?

Have you read the House health reform bill's 1,990 pages? How about the Senate bill's 2,074 pages? How many people in Congress have read every single page?

First, are you saying the length of the bill is a reason it should be defeated? Did you feel that way about other very large bills that were passed when Republicans controlled Congress?

Second, I've read fairly detailed summaries of the various versions of the bill, and when discussing key points have examined the exact language.

Third, I don't know how many people in Congress have read every single page. Do you think that's a problem? Do you think there are people who don't know or cannot know what's in the bill(s)? Do you think there are congresspersons who would vote differently on the legislation if they knew something that they don't know? Is there someone preventing anyone in Congress from being able to know everything they need to know about the bill?

How is it possible that the much revered Canadian health care bill is only 8 pages long?

I agree that a single payer system would be preferable and much simpler. But because there is so much opposition to that, all we can possibly get passed is health insurance reform. It's a complex issue that requires the use of a LOT of legalistic text.

Again, if the length of the bill is why you're opposed to it, were you also opposed to Medicare Reform in 2003 or the Energy Bill of 2005? Isn't the content more important than the number of pages? (If not, then there's no need for any legislator to read even summaries of any bill. Just count the pages and vote.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

why do Republicans want to watch the negotiations?

they are voting against it anyways. so what do they care?

Well said.

And that also answers the questions about whether or not they've had opportunity to read the entire text. The only relevant debate going on has been among Democrats (the mainstream party and the Blue Dogs . . . and Lieberman).

 

[headscratcher4]

Are the Republicans not reading the bill because it is so long? If so, how do they know what they are objecting to?

 

[Ziggurat]

The CT is that there is some conspiracy of silence and that the process involved in this legislation is not as transparent as it ought be. Again, it is at least as transparent as the process for other large bills in the past.

You're side stepping the issue. Obama promised more transparency on this particular issue than the norm. He was quite explicit about that. Saying it's just as transparent as the norm doesn't mean Obama isn't breaking his promise. He quite clearly is.

 

[Cicero]

Are the Republicans not reading the bill because it is so long? If so, how do they know what they are objecting to?

Have the libs read both the House and Senate bills in their entirety? How do they know what they are accepting?

 

[Ziggurat]

why do Republicans want to watch the negotiations?

they are voting against it anyways. so what do they care?

You really can't figure it out? I thought it was rather obvious: Republicans want democrats to watch the negotiations, because they think those democrats will be turned off by what they see. And they're probably right. Part of that might just be that such negotiations are always ugly (laws and sausages and all that), but sorry, Obama's got nobody but himself to blame on that account.

 

[Cicero]

Well said.

And that also answers the questions about whether or not they've had opportunity to read the entire text. The only relevant debate going on has been among Democrats (the mainstream party and the Blue Dogs . . . and Lieberman).

If you believe parky76 made a "well said" comment, much less a lucid comment, about why it doesn't matter if C-SPAN has access to the entire health care debates then you are incapable of recognizing the obvious. These debates would be shown to all Americans (with cable TV), not just Republicans. Would it have mattered to you or parky76 if none of what goes in on Capitol Hill were televised?

 

[Cicero]

These promises that Obama made on the campaign trail that we all must agree were at least over-statements if not completely impossible for him to keep (is that a "lie"? -- not really sure), should have been subject to more press and possibly to more pundit scrutiny. I didn't focus that much on the "transparancy" argument other than thinking that like anyone running for POTUS, Obma was making an "I'm for good government ..." promise. Clearly, had I heard the specific instances that Cicero is enraged at, I would have laughed it off as one of those pie in the sky promises that politicans make that really don't have much to do with the way government or particular institutions like Congress operate (especially having worked for the Congress).

If this subject of Obama's failed campaign promise is only fodder for conservatives, why is ultra lib Diane Rehm spending much of her show asking her media panel about it?

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

Today on NPR's Diane Rehm Friday News Round Up.

Lynn Sweet, Washington bureau chief, "Chicago Sun-Times" and columnist at politicsdaily.com.

Jerry Seib, executive Washington editor, "The Wall Street Journal."

Christopher Rowland, Washington bureau chief, The Boston Globe.

At 21:21 into the show:

Diane Rehm: "Why are the negotiations on the health care bill taking place behind closed doors when it was promised that there was going to be transparency on this?

Lynn Sweet: "What President Obama promised many, many, many, times on the campaign trail there was always an applause line, I am going to have those negotiations on C-SPAN was a comment he made that even at the time he should have been realized was a promise he could not keep because he is not control of these negotiations in that there was another partner in there, Congress. The line got wild, wild, applause. I can't tell you Diane how many campaign places I went to where he used it. So then why isn't he even trying to keep his promise?

On the other hand, let's take pledges seriously for a moment. He said it countless times. All the cable channels find it too easy to assemble streams of clips. Robert Gibbs during briefings has been asked about it. His answer, I think, doesn't address the pledge. "Well, don't you have enough information to write about? I see all your stories." That's not the point. What I think he does not want to do is provide a sound bite saying, acknowledging, that this pledge was made."

Diane Rehm: "So why did he make the promise is your point."

Lynn Sweet: "The C-SPAN line worked because it was part of his overall campaign to be an outsider coming to Washington and open up the process. But it was a pledge even at the time would have been hard to deliver on "

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Would it have mattered to you or parky76 if none of what goes in on Capitol Hill were televised?

But that's not the world we live in, is it? The one where "none of what goes in [sic] on Capitol Hill" is televised?

Again, a great many hours of the healthcare debate has already been televised, and there is surely more to come. The legitimate points of disagreement are quite well known.

The process is at least as transparent as it has ever been for a large piece of legislation, and probably a lot more so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're side stepping the issue. Obama promised more transparency on this particular issue than the norm. He was quite explicit about that. Saying it's just as transparent as the norm doesn't mean Obama isn't breaking his promise. He quite clearly is.

I've said this several times: the process is at least as transparent as it has ever been and probably more so. I never said it's "just as transparent as the norm".

And again, I'm not claiming Obama hasn't broken any campaign promises. I've mentioned 3 examples (extraordinary rendition, discrimination in organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative money, and don't ask don't tell [or gay rights in general]. These are issues he actually has the power to do what he promised (by executive order).

But the real issue behind this business of televising the healthcare debates is transparency. Aside from a lot of "I'm just asking questions" CT-logic, there is no evidence that anything is going on that isn't widely known. The process is at least as transparent as it has ever been. On top of that, Obama is the chief executive and doesn't have the authority to order Congress to have these negotiations televised. Also Obama is *not* the head of the Democratic Party. And Pelosi and Reid are under no obligation to fulfill Obama's campaign promise if they don't want to.

 

[headscratcher4]

If this subject of Obama's failed campaign promise is only fodder for conservatives, why is ultra lib Diane Rehm spending much of her show asking her media panel about it?

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

Today on NPR's Diane Rehm Friday News Round Up.

Lynn Sweet, Washington bureau chief, "Chicago Sun-Times" and columnist at politicsdaily.com.

Jerry Seib, executive Washington editor, "The Wall Street Journal."

Christopher Rowland, Washington bureau chief, The Boston Globe.

At 21:21 into the show:

Diane Rehm: "Why are the negotiations on the health care bill taking place behind closed doors when it was promised that there was going to be transparency on this?

Lynn Sweet: "What President Obama promised many, many, many, times on the campaign trail there was always an applause line, I am going to have those negotiations on C-SPAN was a comment he made that even at the time he should have been realized was a promise he could not keep because he is not control of these negotiations in that there was another partner in there, Congress. The line got wild, wild, applause. I can't tell you Diane how many campaign places I went to where he used it. So then why isn't he even trying to keep his promise?

On the other hand, let's take pledges seriously for a moment. He said it countless times. All the cable channels find it too easy to assemble streams of clips. Robert Gibbs during briefings has been asked about it. His answer, I think, doesn't address the pledge. "Well, don't you have enough information to write about? I see all your stories." That's not the point. What I think he does not want to do is provide a sound bite saying, acknowledging, that this pledge was made."

Diane Rehm: "So why did he make the promise is your point."

Lynn Sweet: "The C-SPAN line worked because it was part of his overall campaign to be an outsider coming to Washington and open up the process. But it was a pledge even at the time would have been hard to deliver on "

Yawn.

 

[Shalamar]

I would like to have the conservatives (or anyone for that matter) to show where Obama has actually reneged and said, himself that CSPAN will not be permitted to show whatever discussion that they will not be showing.

 

[Upchurch]

I would like to have the conservatives (or anyone for that matter) to show where Obama has actually reneged and said, himself that CSPAN will not be permitted to show whatever discussion that they will not be showing.

Dammit, Shalamar. You're not paying attention. I haven't seen Obama in the halls of Congress following around the representatives and recording their every move in case they happen to mention the words "health" and "care" in the same sentence, have you?!?

Clearly, this means Obama is a lying scumbag.

 

[Cicero]

But that's not the world we live in, is it? The one where "none of what goes in [sic] on Capitol Hill" is televised?

Again, a great many hours of the healthcare debate has already been televised, and there is surely more to come. The legitimate points of disagreement are quite well known.

The process is at least as transparent as it has ever been for a large piece of legislation, and probably a lot more so.

Nothing currently being televised by C-SPAN is more than what C-SPAN was already televising before Obama took office. The promise made by candidate Obama was that he would open up the deal making discussions on health care to C-SPAN. Remember, the Obama pledge was to have the MOST transparent administration ever.

 

[Cicero]

I would like to have the conservatives (or anyone for that matter) to show where Obama has actually reneged and said, himself that CSPAN will not be permitted to show whatever discussion that they will not be showing.

"Anyone" for that matter has already shown this to be true. Just play the Diane Rehm show link. POTUS Obama remains mum on his pledge as does his mouth piece Gibbs. Your criteria for whether a pledge is broken is if Obama actually says it was broken?

 

[Shalamar]

"Anyone" for that matter has already shown this to be true. Just play the Diane Rehm show link. POTUS Obama remains mum on his pledge as does his mouth piece Gibbs. Your criteria for whether a pledge is broken is if Obama actually says it was broken?

No-one has shown this to be true. In order for the op and the title to be correct, President Obama would have to acually deny CSPAN access to any of the discussions.

So please show me where this has occured, since what appears to have actually happened is that Obama made a promise that may not actually be his to keep or make. however, that is not the claim being made here.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've said this several times: the process is at least as transparent as it has ever been and probably more so.

That's not the point.

And again, I'm not claiming Obama hasn't broken any campaign promises.

That is the point. He has broken this promise. He promised more than just equivalent, or even better, transparency. He made a specific promise about what would be shown, and it's not being shown.

But the real issue behind this business of televising the healthcare debates is transparency. Aside from a lot of "I'm just asking questions" CT-logic, there is no evidence that anything is going on that isn't widely known.

That's simply not true. While we know what's in the various proposals and bills, we don't know what each of the actors involved did. And that was exactly the point Obama made when he made the promise in the first place.

The process is at least as transparent as it has ever been.

You keep saying that, but it just doesn't matter.

On top of that, Obama is the chief executive and doesn't have the authority to order Congress to have these negotiations televised.

Order them? No, he cannot. But he certainly could make a direct and public request for them to do so, which would place considerable political pressure on them to comply. So it's not simply that he didn't accomplish what he promised to do, he doesn't even appear to be trying to.

And Pelosi and Reid are under no obligation to fulfill Obama's campaign promise if they don't want to.

Do you think they would refuse it of Obama if he asked? I doubt it, but perhaps I'm wrong. But if they did, well, the political cost would then be theirs, not his. Remember: Obama is getting flak not just from the right, but also from the left. While the right might not let up on him if he asked and Congress refused (though I bet some would), the left almost certainly would shift focus.

 

[DavidJames]

Obama trying for transparency but not quite achieving total transparency -> Incredibly bad

Way to many words, an equally accurate and more "portable" phrase, for him, could be achieved by simply removing all but the first and last two words.