I found one typo where they used the word "bases" instead of "basis" in the text. I'm sure they will fix that and I hope that typo did not exist on the signed copy and that it is just a transcription mistake.
I've been noticing that Politico suddenly started posting articles critical of Obama after the inauguration. Nowthis.
He was doing a meet-and-greet and probably wasn't expecting any questions. Usually a well worded answer to those questions is provided by the press secretary in a press conference, not by the President at a meet-and-greet.
Yeah, darn Obama for not taking questions at an impromptu visit where he just wanted to say 'hi'. He should wait till they're in the press room and completely ignore anyone who has any question that's not a lobbed softball like the last administration did. /sarcasm
I think the issues are a little bigger than this isolated incident. I just hope that Obama respects the constitutional rights of the press. I'll consider this a learning phase for everybody.
As for secrecy, I think we've all seen over the past eight years how dangerous that can be.
I think the issuesare a little biggerthan this isolated incident. I just hope that Obama respects the constitutional rights of the press. I'll consider this a learning phase for everybody.
As forsecrecy, I think we've all seen over the past eight years how dangerous that can be.
Pay to playis always bad. Always.
The article you cite seems more like some specific reporters pissing an moaning because they weren't getting exactly what they wanted on some fluffy BS. The second swearing in was hastily done, so I doubt that there was a lot of time to get a ton of reporters and photographers in for it. The kind of transparency I care about is full disclosure on reasoning/decision making, not that a each reporter didn't get the face time that he/she wanted.
The kind of transparency I care about is full disclosure on reasoning/decision making, not that a each reporter didn't get the face time that he/she wanted.
True. This is just more pointless kvetching. One has to wonder if the conservatives are going to have the stamina to keep kvetching about every little thing that happens over the course of eight years.
"Oh, he's wearing white shoes after Labor Day! That's always bad."
"The left side of his collar looks like it has a small coffee stain. That's bad."
"He looked at that reporter with his eyes. That's bad."
"He breathes air. That's bad."
One would think that eventually they would run out of steam.
Do you people not read? Relax everyone. Here is what I said:
I'll consider this a learning phase for everybody.
The bigger issue for me is granting ABC an exclusive interview after they paid $2 million toward a ball. I blame ABC as well. Why would they pay for exclusive coverage? If it's news, they shouldn't engage in payola. If it was for entertainment programming, I suppose that might be another story - albeit a boring one.
Pay for access... waivers on ethical rules... both parties do things like this and it is what I don't like about our current system.
I also don't like an expectation that the identity of senior administration officials will be kept secret. That's just wrong, plain and simple.
But as far as the press goes, this is an adjustment period. We knew this was coming. I just hope that he's more approachable than Secretary of State Vice President Biden and that he respects the First Amendment. I don't think that is wishing for too much.
We distinguish between degrees of murder (an extreme example), so why can't we distinguish between types of lobbyists? There's a big difference between a lobbyist for the car industry and a lobbyist for nonprofit children's health. I don't see what the big deal is with the waiver; the point is to stop small segments of the population from having a disproportionate affect on our government. Lobbying for children's healthcare, in general, tends to benefit the whole of society. Lobbying for lower environmental standards on new vehicles for the car industry benefits a very small segment of the population and does considerable harm overall. One is not equal to the other, and those differences should be recognized.
I think the deal is that the cons are desperate to criticize anything they can. They don't particularly care about the waiver, but it looks to them like a good straw to grasp at.
Caving on ethics... Pay to play... Keeping the identity of senior administration officials secret...
Yeah. It's just fine.
Nobody here has said that the net results are poor. But there have been some missteps. To not acknowledge that is to deny Obama's humanity. Fortunately, most people here haven't deified him. Only a couple seem to hold onto that illusion.
Making rational observations versus desperately trying to cling to a deification. Yeah... I'm the one grasping at straws.
Debate tip: You know what good debater would say?
Yup, there have been a couple of hiccups. Overall, though, Obama is a vast improvement over Bush. Take Guantanamo, stem cell research, abortion policy changes, (and on and on).
That's how an intelligent person makes a counter-point.
You know things have degenerated on this board when I have to give both sides of the debate because the other side is satisfied to just whine.
I also love the reading comprehension on this board:
Pay for access... waivers on ethical rules... both parties do things like this and it is what I don't like about our current system.
I think the deal is that the cons are desperate to criticize anything they can. They don't particularly care about the waiver, but it looks to them like a good straw to grasp at.
A party-neutral statement was made. Joe misses this entirely. Ugh. Joe was so desperate to grab at something that he created a straw of his own out of thin air. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.
Obama has broken his first promise, according to the Obameter, because he rushed a non-emergency bill through congress without his promised five-day reviewing period. I believe that he has also broken another promise, although it has not been picked up by Obameter yet, by allowing earmarks on the economic stimulus bill.
Obama has broken his first promise, according to the Obameter, because he rushed a non-emergency bill through congress without his promised five-day reviewing period. I believe that he has also broken another promise, although it has not been picked up by Obameter yet, by allowing earmarks on the economic stimulus bill.
Had to happen eventually.
Meh, to the Obameter, not you. As far as promises go, these are pretty minor; and, as you said, it had to happen eventually. No politician ever has or ever will grant 100% of all their promises. Compromise is an essential part of politics and a politician can never predict with certainty all the compromises he/she might have to make. Political cost/benefit analysis always has to take place within political reality. I'm sure that he didn't like the earmarks and didn't want them; but he wanted the stimulus enough that, owing to a cost/benefit analysis, he was willing to abide them. Importance of stimulus > importance of no earmarks. Beside, he can fulfill the "no earmarks" promise on other bills. If this is the only thing that gets through with earmarks, he's doing pretty damn good.
As far as that five-day reviewing period, are they talking about the stimulus bill? Many would view the stimulus bill as an emergency bill whether or not it was actually labelled "emergency".
The things to focus on are that he's already shown that he's not going to stand for any GWB shenanigans, all the GWB people are gone, and he's going to be the one to appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices. With these considerations, there would have to be many major promises broken to even tip the scale of my Obama admiration to neutral.
As far as that five-day reviewing period, are they talking about the stimulus bill? Many would view the stimulus bill as an emergency bill whether or not it was actually labelled "emergency".
No, they're talking about his overturn of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. He broke one promise to fulfill another.
See, I would think the review period for new bills would be for bills that are not campaign planks. The democrats have been trying to push this bill forever but the republicans were blocking it. So does Obama have to have a 5 day review period for every old bill everyone knows about? I don't think so, lets look at when a actual new bill is put forth.
So does Obama have to have a 5 day review period for every old bill everyone knows about? I don't think so, lets look at when a actual new bill is put forth.
Yeah, many are just trying to complain when they don't really have anything to complain about.
Who's complaining?
No one important. No one worthy of respect. Mostly just trolls.
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't vote for him because of his proposed five day review period or even because of earmarks, so I just flat don't care.
Comments
/sarcasm
As for secrecy, I think we've all seen over the past eight years how dangerous that can be.
Pay to play is always bad. Always.
"Oh, he's wearing white shoes after Labor Day! That's always bad."
"The left side of his collar looks like it has a small coffee stain. That's bad."
"He looked at that reporter with his eyes. That's bad."
"He breathes air. That's bad."
One would think that eventually they would run out of steam.
Pay for access... waivers on ethical rules... both parties do things like this and it is what I don't like about our current system.
I also don't like an expectation that the identity of senior administration officials will be kept secret. That's just wrong, plain and simple.
But as far as the press goes, this is an adjustment period. We knew this was coming. I just hope that he's more approachable than Secretary of State Vice President Biden and that he respects the First Amendment. I don't think that is wishing for too much.
Yeah. It's just fine.
Nobody here has said that the net results are poor. But there have been some missteps. To not acknowledge that is to deny Obama's humanity. Fortunately, most people here haven't deified him. Only a couple seem to hold onto that illusion.
Making rational observations versus desperately trying to cling to a deification. Yeah... I'm the one grasping at straws.
Debate tip: You know what good debater would say?
Yup, there have been a couple of hiccups. Overall, though, Obama is a vast improvement over Bush. Take Guantanamo, stem cell research, abortion policy changes, (and on and on).
That's how an intelligent person makes a counter-point.
You know things have degenerated on this board when I have to give both sides of the debate because the other side is satisfied to just whine.
I also love the reading comprehension on this board: A party-neutral statement was made. Joe misses this entirely. Ugh. Joe was so desperate to grab at something that he created a straw of his own out of thin air. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.
Good on them. Fuck Citibank. I paid to bail your asses out; the last thing you need to be doing is spending money on a corporate jet.
Had to happen eventually.
As far as that five-day reviewing period, are they talking about the stimulus bill? Many would view the stimulus bill as an emergency bill whether or not it was actually labelled "emergency".
The things to focus on are that he's already shown that he's not going to stand for any GWB shenanigans, all the GWB people are gone, and he's going to be the one to appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices. With these considerations, there would have to be many major promises broken to even tip the scale of my Obama admiration to neutral.
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't vote for him because of his proposed five day review period or even because of earmarks, so I just flat don't care.