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

[novice skeptic]

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).

I can't speak for everyone, and I'm not a Republican (though I vote for R candidates more often than D), but I don't think that is the issue people are having with this.

Perhaps there are some people who really do want to watch the reconciliation. If you were to ask me in a perfect world is it better to have it available than unavailable... sure I think it would be better to make it available. But I don't think it's going to be a gamechanger for most of the public. People will be for it or against it depending on how they feel before even watching.

But that really isn't my complaint with Obama and the "CSPAN" issue. I'll state it again: He clearly promised something multiple times that he knew was totally not in his powers to control. I don't call that a broken promise or a promise he wanted to keep but couldn't because of real world issues or politics as usual.

I call it a cynical lie that he told (rather smugly if you ask me, but that could be my perception) to try and portray himself as a different kind of politician with different views on "transparency". Now either he knew this was a promise he COULD never deliver on (and according to even Gibbs implicitly) has no attention to even ATTEMPT, or it was a case of him not knowing that as POTUS he would have nothing to do with the issue as it is clearly a Legislative Branch issue.

I tend to think he knows the Constitution. The guy was a professor of ConLaw. That means he lied to get votes.

I'm not going to do my Louis Renault impression full of mock indignation that a politician lied during a campaign. But I do think it is a bit revealing that whether Obama turns out to be a great president, a good one, and average one or a bad one (and I think we are a long way from knowing any of that).... he isn't a "different' kind of politician as we were told. That's fine if he gets the job done. But if he doesn't it's going to come back and bite him.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not going to do my Louis Renault impression full of mock indignation that a politician lied during a campaign. But I do think it is a bit revealing that whether Obama turns out to be a great president, a good one, and average one or a bad one (and I think we are a long way from knowing any of that).... he isn't a "different' kind of politician as we were told. That's fine if he gets the job done. But if he doesn't it's going to come back and bite him.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you”
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I mostly agree with everything you say. . .

I call it a cynical lie that he told (rather smugly if you ask me, but that could be my perception) to try and portray himself as a different kind of politician with different views on "transparency". Now either he knew this was a promise he COULD never deliver on (and according to even Gibbs implicitly) has no attention to even ATTEMPT, or it was a case of him not knowing that as POTUS he would have nothing to do with the issue as it is clearly a Legislative Branch issue.

. . .except that I'd point out that he has indeed made government more transparent than it was before. You can go on-line and look at where all the stimulus money is going. Despite complaints from mhaze and others that every time an amendment to one or another version of the healthcare bill doesn't stop the process while the entire text is rewritten and posted on the web, we have indeed been able to see the full text of the bills on the web throughout the process. And, as I've been saying, we have indeed had a great many hours of televised congressional debate on this thing.

I tend to think he knows the Constitution. The guy was a professor of ConLaw. That means he lied to get votes.

I'm not going to do my Louis Renault impression full of mock indignation that a politician lied during a campaign. But I do think it is a bit revealing that whether Obama turns out to be a great president, a good one, and average one or a bad one (and I think we are a long way from knowing any of that).... he isn't a "different' kind of politician as we were told. That's fine if he gets the job done. But if he doesn't it's going to come back and bite him.

I agree with this, but I'm a little cynical that way. I don't think anyone gets to be POTUS without having a pretty flexible relationship with the truth and playing campaign games. I think it's wrong to claim that those of us who still think Obama was by far the better choice for this job think he is some sort of super-human, super-moral messiah.

As I've been saying, I'm far more outraged about his reneging on campaign promises to do with fixing faith-based initiatives (banning discrimination), ending extraordinary rendition, and ending don't-ask-don't-tell.

I think the general version of his pledge to make government more transparent is something he has largely delivered. (As someone else commented, if the negotiations to merge the two versions of the healthcare bill were televised, critics would complain that the actual drafting of the document isn't, or something else. There really is no conspiracy of silence, and we all know who holds the various positions on the various issues congress has to grapple with.)

 

[novice skeptic]

I mostly agree with everything you say. . .

. . .except that I'd point out that he has indeed made government more transparent than it was before. You can go on-line and look at where all the stimulus money is going. Despite complaints from mhaze and others that every time an amendment to one or another version of the healthcare bill doesn't stop the process while the entire text is rewritten and posted on the web, we have indeed been able to see the full text of the bills on the web throughout the process. And, as I've been saying, we have indeed had a great many hours of televised congressional debate on this thing.



I agree with this, but I'm a little cynical that way. I don't think anyone gets to be POTUS without having a pretty flexible relationship with the truth and playing campaign games. I think it's wrong to claim that those of us who still think Obama was by far the better choice for this job think he is some sort of super-human, super-moral messiah.

As I've been saying, I'm far more outraged about his reneging on campaign promises to do with fixing faith-based initiatives (banning discrimination), ending extraordinary rendition, and ending don't-ask-don't-tell.

I think the general version of his pledge to make government more transparent is something he has largely delivered. (As someone else commented, if the negotiations to merge the two versions of the healthcare bill were televised, critics would complain that the actual drafting of the document isn't, or something else. There really is no conspiracy of silence, and we all know who holds the various positions on the various issues congress has to grapple with.)

Good points. It's important for some of us non-Obama supporters to remember that not everyone who voted for him thought that it would be the day that the ocean levels dropped and the clouds receded and all that. Some just thought he was better than the other guy.

My complaint with the health care stuff thus far isn't with what's going to be televised or not, but with what seems to be his general strategy of, "I don't actually care what reform gets passes, whether it's good or bad, what the costs are or what the cost/benefits are. I just want there to be a check mark in the box 'got health reform legislation passed'"

I could be wrong, there could be some core beliefs or true vision in his mind, but I'm not really seeing it. IMO he's coming off a little like a guy who's thinking about his legacy. That's not unexpected for a POTUS in the 2nd half of his 2nd term, but it seems a little odd for a guy in his 1st year.

 

[Cicero]

Good points. It's important for some of us non-Obama supporters to remember that not everyone who voted for him thought that it would be the day that the ocean levels dropped and the clouds receded and all that. Some just thought he was better than the other guy.

My complaint with the health care stuff thus far isn't with what's going to be televised or not, but with what seems to be his general strategy of, "I don't actually care what reform gets passes, whether it's good or bad, what the costs are or what the cost/benefits are. I just want there to be a check mark in the box 'got health reform legislation passed'"

I could be wrong, there could be some core beliefs or true vision in his mind, but I'm not really seeing it. IMO he's coming off a little like a guy who's thinking about his legacy. That's not unexpected for a POTUS in the 2nd half of his 2nd term, but it seems a little odd for a guy in his 1st year.

POTUS Obama keeps delaying the State Of The Union Speech until Congress passes a bill that contains the words health care insurance reform. Making good on his campaign theme pledge to allow C-SPAN total access to health care debates is not as important as checking that box.

 

[GreyICE]

POTUS Obama keeps delaying the State Of The Union Speech until Congress passes a bill that contains the words health care insurance reform. Making good on his campaign theme pledge to allow C-SPAN total access to health care debates is not as important as checking that box.

This is hysterical, because Cicero clearly has no idea of history.

2007: The 2007 State of the Union address was a speech given by United States President George W. Bush on Tuesday, January 23, 2007.
2006: The 2006 State of the Union Address was delivered by United States President George W. Bush at 9 p.m. EST (0200 UTC) on January 31, 2006
2005:The 2005 State of the Union Address was delivered by United States President George W. Bush on February 2, 2005
2004: The 2004 State of the Union Address was a speech delivered by U.S. President George W. Bush on January 20, 2004.
2003:The 2003 State of the Union Address was a speech delivered by U.S. President George W. Bush on January 28, 2003.
2002: The 2002 State of the Union address, the first after the September 11th attacks... Bush gave this address on Tuesday, January 29, 2002.
2001: Bush was too lazy to do this.


So at NO POINT in his term did Bush give the State of the Union by the 9th of January. NEVER!

But Obama hasn't given the state of the union yet, so he's delaying it.

Insanity, at its finest.

 

[Peephole]

Oh GreyICE, you and your "facts".

Cicero has no need for your reality's liberal bias.

 

[Cicero]

This is hysterical, because Cicero clearly has no idea of history.

2007: The 2007 State of the Union address was a speech given by United States President George W. Bush on Tuesday, January 23, 2007.
2006: The 2006 State of the Union Address was delivered by United States President George W. Bush at 9 p.m. EST (0200 UTC) on January 31, 2006
2005:The 2005 State of the Union Address was delivered by United States President George W. Bush on February 2, 2005
2004: The 2004 State of the Union Address was a speech delivered by U.S. President George W. Bush on January 20, 2004.
2003:The 2003 State of the Union Address was a speech delivered by U.S. President George W. Bush on January 28, 2003.
2002: The 2002 State of the Union address, the first after the September 11th attacks... Bush gave this address on Tuesday, January 29, 2002.
2001: Bush was too lazy to do this.

So at NO POINT in his term did Bush give the State of the Union by the 9th of January. NEVER!

But Obama hasn't given the state of the union yet, so he's delaying it.

Insanity, at its finest.

The address is traditionally given twelve months after the President takes office, around January 20. Bush should have given a SOTU in 2001, the day he was sworn in? I'm sure that would makes sense to the Belgian waffle Peephole

But your compilation of SOTU dates has zero to do with why POTUS Obama is delaying this year's SOTU.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Cicero, are you pulling our collective leg?

This:

POTUS Obama keeps delaying the State Of The Union Speech until Congress passes a bill that contains the words health care insurance reform.

is in contradiction to this:

The address is traditionally given twelve months after the President takes office, around January 20.

So do you retract your assertion that Obama is delaying the State of the Union Address?

(Today's date is January 10. Obama's inauguration was January 20 last year--or the next day if you want to count the do-over on his oath of office.)

But your compilation of SOTU dates has zero to do with why POTUS Obama is delaying this year's SOTU.

Of course it does. It's solid proof that your assertion that there has been a delay is false.

 

[GreyICE]

Correction: According to the records of the addresses, GWB did give a 2001 state of the union address, but it was entitled 'Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on Administration Goals' and was given February 27, 2001. Obama's Feb. 24th State of the Union in 2009 was similarly entitled, so that seems standard. Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan all did similar. Regardless, the suggestion that there has been a delay is an ignorant mistake at best, and a deliberate falsehood at worst.

 

[Cicero]

Cicero, are you pulling our collective leg?

This:


is in contradiction to this:




So do you retract your assertion that Obama is delaying the State of the Union Address?

(Today's date is January 10. Obama's inauguration was January 20 last year--or the next day if you want to count the do-over on his oath of office.)


Of course it does. It's solid proof that your assertion that there has been a delay is false.

"Hearing that the White House is leaning on Congressional leaders to move the date for the President's State of the Union address -- remember, Congress has to officially invite him -- to February 2, in order to give House and Senate health care negotiators more time to get closer to a finished product. The President wants to be able to talk about health care in the past tense -- or nearly in the past tense -- during the speech, and doesn't want to have to pretend that negotiations are over when they really aren't."

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/state_of_the_union_in_february.php


"Fans Rejoice: “LOST defeated the State of the Union today!”

"President Obama will not pre-empt the premiere of the show’s final season, set to air on Tuesday Feb. 2, the White House said today."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...st-defeated-the-state-of-the-union-today.html


You really did not know that POTUS Obama's SOTU was not going to be until February? All we know is that it will not pre-empt the "LOST" episode on Tuesday, February 2. How much longer after February 2, 2010 probably depends on the state of the health care bill despite Gibbs' denials.

 

[Cicero]

14:15-15:45 in the youtube clip we see Gibbs struggling to explain why his boss doesn't care about breaking his camping promise to ABC News Chip Reed.

Chip Reed: "Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?"

Gibbs: "Chip, We covered this yesterday. I would refer you to yesterday's transcript. The answer I would give today is similar to the one I gave yesterday."

Chip Reid: "It has been reported that the President pressed leaders in Congress to take the fast track approach, to skip the conference committee."


Chip Reid: "The President pressed for something that is in direct violation of his campaign promise."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJQDNnmgCtg

 

[GreyICE]

"Fans Rejoice: “LOST defeated the State of the Union today!”

"President Obama will not pre-empt the premiere of the show’s final season, set to air on Tuesday Feb. 2, the White House said today."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...st-defeated-the-state-of-the-union-today.html

You really did not know that POTUS Obama's SOTU was not going to be until February? All we know is that it will not pre-empt the "LOST" episode on Tuesday, February 2. How much longer after February 2, 2010 probably depends on the state of the health care bill despite Gibbs' denials.

By the way, from his second article:

The State of the Union is traditionally in late January. One possible date being considered is Jan 26 – the night of the American Idol season premiere of Fox. Will karaoke fans start a drumbeat online now too?

Huh. I haven't done much math recently, it seems hard, but can anyone tell m if this is before or after February 2nd?

 

[headscratcher4]

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2010/January/011110Cohn.aspx

Some interesting comentary of value, it seems to me, in this "debate."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

14:15-15:45 in the youtube clip we see Gibbs struggling to explain why his boss doesn't care about breaking his camping promise to ABC News Chip Reed.
<snip>

Gibbs: "Chip, We covered this yesterday. I would refer you to yesterday's transcript. The answer I would give today is similar to the one I gave yesterday."
<snip>

Doesn't sound like he was struggling to me. It sounds like he was pointing out that he already answered the question.

 

[Cicero]

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2010/January/011110Cohn.aspx

Some interesting comentary of value, it seems to me, in this "debate."

Jonathan Cohn, the former "Mother Jones" writer, dismisses candidate Obama's pledge to allow C-SPAN total access to the entire health care debate on The Hill because he "never took the pledge literally" but "plenty of voters did." Not only did Obama's voters take him "literally," the lame stream media also took candidate Obama 'literally." If candidate Obama was not to be taken literally, why hasn't WHPS Gibbs told The White House Press Corps "Come on guys, POTUS Obama was not speaking "literally" when he made this pledge as a candidate."

All through the POTUS Bush 43 Administration, whenever POTUS Clinton's blunders were brought up in threads dealing with Bush 43 Administration blunders, the clarion call by JREF libs was that this was the feckless "Tu quoque" argument. Now libs are making the same argument, and linking to writers they consider credible authorities that specialize in it.

"As you may recall, the previous administration--that is, the very Republican George W. Bush administration--had its own problems with transparency." Jonathan Cohn

Now that Cohn admits that POTUS Obama has not delivered on this campaign pledge (anyone see these behind closed door sessions on health care insurance reform on C-SPAN the last week?) will those in this thread who continue to deny the pledge was broken finally concede the point?

 

[Shalamar]

So, where did Obama say that CSPAN could not televise the proceedings?

 

[Cicero]

Doesn't sound like he was struggling to me. It sounds like he was pointing out that he already answered the question.

Not wanting to talk about the subject is your idea of being at ease? Sure. If that answer was so compelling, why didn't Gibbs repeat it for the benefit of all those present in the WHPC room and for the TV audience? Did Fleisher, McClellan, Snow, or Perino get away this sort of obfuscation? No. And now, finally, Gibbs is not going to be able to pull this **** with even the simpatico ABC and CNN reporters.

 

[Cicero]

So, where did Obama say that CSPAN could not televise the proceedings?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The ship has already sailed on this. When a Presidential candidate's pledge is broken while they are POTUS, it would be superfluous for them to announce they broke the pledge when the actions, or inactions, speak louder than words.

 

[Upchurch]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The ship has already sailed on this. When a Presidential candidate's pledge is broken while they are POTUS, it would be superfluous for them to announce they broke the pledge when the actions, or inactions, speak louder than words.

So, in other words, he didn't deny C-SPAN access the Congressional HC Negotiations but, by God, we're going to blame him for it anyway.