Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history—disclosing donations, shunning lobbyists, and broadcasting important meetings on C-SPAN. Transition captain John Podesta reiterated the point Tuesday when he said Obama’s would be “the most open and transparent transition in history.”
But once a candidate becomes president, he faces a transparency trade-off: More transparency may make the government more accountable, because the public can learn the rationale behind policy. But less transparency may allow for more wide-ranging and honest deliberations, which can lead to better policy.
So what would a radically transparent administration look like?
New York Times reporter James Risen, who is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him, opened the conference earlier by saying the Obama administration is “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” The administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” Risen said, to “create a path for accepted reporting.” Anyone journalist who exceeds those parameters, Risen said, “will be punished.”
That’s exactly the opposite of what usually happens when someone with socialist tendencies takes power, isn’t it?
Most voters view the new national health care law as bad for the country and want to repeal it.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 35% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe the trouble-plagued health care law is good for America. Fifty-five percent (55%) consider it bad for the country. Only two percent (2%) think it will have no impact.
When you ask Google to define “chuzpah,” you get this:
I think that’s the best way to describe this:
“We should have anticipated that that would create a rockier rollout than if Democrats and Republicans were both invested in success,” Obama said. “One of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure, and that makes, I think, the kind of iterative process of fixing glitches as they come up and fine-tuning the law more challenging.”
The reason they didn’t see this coming is because Republicans have been so busy saying it wouldn’t work?
But then, why wouldn’t he say whatever he wanted? Who’s going to call him out on it?
In a recorded recitation uploaded to YouTube on November 9, President Obama read the address in its entirety. However, when it came to the line “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” the President left out the words “under God.”
Obama’s omission occurs at the 1:35 mark.
Obama respects the feelings of those who might be offended by hearing “God” than he does the words of Abraham Lincoln or America’s history.
Turns out, back in 2006President Obama wasn’t a fan of what he’d doing today:
Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches–to ensure that our Government could not come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power. It is possible to do that. We have done it before. We could do it again.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one’s (future) actions or knowledge.
Now we’re being told that senior people in the White House knew about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. And by “senior officials,” I don’t mean Obama.
It amazes me how little Obama is involved in considering how much credit he takes for all the good that happens.
But then, maybe he doesn’t have time to learn about the IRS abusing its authority, what with him leading raids on compounds in Pakistan.
While I was driving back from Columbia today, I listened to El Rushbo. One thing he does, and I think Hannity copies this, is compile different sound bites from different news broadcasts that not only have the same message, but actually all use the same terminology.
We’ve got a media montage here. That press conference the other day really rattled these guys in the media. They thought that Obama’s reelection was gonna usher in an LBJ-style, Great Society avalanche of liberalism — and they’re getting worried Obama can’t deliver. He couldn’t deliver his own party on a gun control bill. Let’s listen to the montage. We got Dan Balz, Jessica Yellin, Al Hunt, F. Chuck Todd, Bob Shrum, Tom Brokaw, and Cokie Roberts.
BALZ: Analogies are made to Lyndon Johnson and he should be more like Lyndon Johnson, breaking arms and legs and twisting everybody.
YELLIN: He’s not LBJ! Everybody knows that!
HUNT: He’s not LBJ.
TODD: He’s not gonna ever be LBJ.
SHRUM: The Lyndon Johnson comparison…
ROBERTS: Why doesn’t he just knock heads like LBJ did?
BROKAW: Lyndon Johnson gave quite a few press conferences, and he shut that down.
ROBERTS: When you listen to LBJ, that is leadership.
RUSH: Where in the world did this come from?
That’s a good question, but not what I want to focus on. I want to focus on how LBJ operated.
He was a bully. Flat out.
Take a look at this photo:
That’s not LBJ going in for a little open mouth guy on guy action. That’s Whitney Young getting “The Johnson Treatment.”
Here’s Johnson pulling it on 90 year old Senator Theodore Green:
Here’s one of the most iconic photos of Johnson being a bully:
The Johnson Treatment has been described as having ‘a large St. Bernard licking your face and pawing you all over.’ LBJ was a big man, and the original “close talker.” The Johnson Treatment was a singular combination of physical intimidation and coercion, and it was one of his most effective tools as he mastered the Senate, and later, to a far lesser degree, the Presidency. The phrase “The Johnson Treatment” is sometimes also used to describe being violated by unwanted company. LBJ would paw you, lean into you, get right up in your grill and ask you for a favor. Except it wasn’t really asking.
So when these guys say Obama isn’t Johnson, they’re saying he’s not able to lean into people’s grill and intimidate them.
I don’t disagree. Does this guy intimidate you?
Yeah, me neither.
And another way he’s not like LBJ is an assumption on my part, but I’m confident he’s not dropping N-bombs during casual conversation:
[LBJ's] racial attitudes were mixed up beyond any possibility of our untangling them cleanly now: Mr. Dallek quotes him defending the Supreme Court appointment of the very well-known Thurgood Marshall, rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, by saying to a staff member, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”
And, let’s not forget:
The man those leftist journalists want Obama to be like dropped N-bombs like a hipster drops “before it was cool.”
So, today’s media wants Obama to be more like a racist bully from the 60s.
And the only thing saving their play is the collective ignorance and apathy of a majority of the public schooled American public.
And, who besides the new media is going to call them on it?
For some reason, when Barack Obama promised the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that he would push for comprehensive immigration reform, the not only believed him, they rose to their feet and applauded.
Barack Obama won a standing ovation Friday at a Latino conference inFlorida Friday in which he promised to press for wholescale immigration reform and described his temporary measure last week to help undocumented youth as simply right thing to do.
He said that his move, giving a temporary two-year visa to an estimated 800,000 young people whose parents moved to the US illegally, was aimed at “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving them a reason to hope”.
He added: “That was the right thing to do.”
The president also used the speech to make repeated digs at his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who spoke the previous day to the same audience, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (Naleo), near Orlando. He reminded the audience of things Romney has said over the last year about immigration.
By contrast with Obama, Romney received only intermittent and tepid applause.