While most everybody aside from elected Democrats is willing to
acknowledge that President Obama broke his pledge to have C-SPAN
cover the health care talks, the one thing that he could still
theoretically argue is that he doesn't have control over whether
Congressional leaders allow negotiations to be televised. This is
partially how he responded when asked about the C-SPAN pledge at
a July press conference (from the official White House
transcript):
With respect to all the negotiations not being on C-SPAN, you
will recall in this very room that our kickoff event was here
on C-SPAN, and at a certain point you start getting into all
kinds of different meetings -- Senate Finance is having a
meeting, the House is having a meeting. If they wanted
those to be on C-SPAN then I would welcome it. I don't
think there are a lot of secrets going on in there.
It's a typical Obama answer. First, creating the false sense of
transparency ("our kickoff event was here on C-SPAN"). Next,
making the issue sound much more complicated ("at a certain point
you start getting into all sorts of different meetings"). And
finally, pretending that he isn't President and suggesting
somebody else is responsible for the decision ("If they wanted
those to be on C-SPAN then I would welcome it.")
The kick off event, of course, was a joke -- there's a reason
C-SPAN's Brian Lamb
called it "a show horse type of thing." I happened to have
been there, too. Basically, the event started with Obama
delivering some remarks. Then a bunch of people representing
insurers, drug makers, hospitals, unions, etc. broke into
separate rooms and discussed general principles -- some of those
break out sessions were televised. Then Obama gathered everybody
back in the East Room, summed up some of the discussions, and the
various participants stood up and talked about how they looked
forward to working to get health care legislation done. As I
wrote at the time, those advocating a free market approach to
health care were shut
out of the process.
So then most of the action moved toward Congress, and the
President has no control over what happens on the Hill, right?
Er, not exactly. As the New York Timesreported
in August: "Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials
on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration
stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional
effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an
agreed-upon $80 billion." (Emphasis mine).
And then yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, and all the heads of the relevant committees
met for eight hours in the White House. The Hill
reported that, "President Barack Obama sought to muscle House
and Senate Democrats to reach an accord on healthcare reform
during a daylong White House meeting Wednesday." So in other
words, Obama was leading the talks himself, from the White House,
which he has absolute control over, and yet he still wouldn't
allow C-SPAN cameras in. In fact, while he, Pelosi, and Reid
released a statement saying that they had made "significant
progress," they weren't offering any details. So instead of
having the open process that Obama promised during the campaign,
we get paragraphs like this from the Hill story:
While aides shed no light on the substance of the discussions,
a senior House aide said the appearance of the key participants
working into the night left the impression that Obama was
looking to “force some decisions and that takes a lot of time.”
Or
this line from the Politico: "Those involved in the
talks sought to keep details of their progress under wraps."
We are both old enough to know that transparency and Washington
are incongruous because of campaign donations. If this bothers
you so much, why don't you recommend that the Republicans open up
their meetings to CSPAN?
Obama clearly underestimated that Republicans were going to have
a strategy of "Just Say No" instead of arguing on the merits.
Imagine, politics getting in the way of truth and discourse....
I don't think Obama has been a great President so far, or even a
very good one. However, he is better than "W" (not very high bar
to jump over). But criticisms should be relevant with perspective
-- that would be a nice change for at least one side. We need
some grown-ups in Washington on BOTH sides.
KD| 1.15.10 @ 12:38AM
Hey, Bob.
Is this about George Walker Bush, or is this about Barrack
Hussein Obama?
Stop deflecting. It's not biased reporting when it's reporting a
specific promise that Barrack Barroke. You can't deny he broke
it... Have you seen any of the talks on C-SPAN? Tell me this,
Bob, tell me a little bit of the details about this plan that you
clearly support.
You can't, because you don't know them. Yet you support the plan
anyways.
"Wait I can get healthcare without paying for it? Screw the
details count me in!"
You will pay for it... And you will pay for your ignorance too.
Stop trying to deflect just because you can't disprove.
That politifact looks cool, I'll definitely check it out, but
democrats often use Snopes to prove or disprove things... Snopes
is run by democrats and carries an obvious bias they don't seem
to care about.
But I'm happy he's kept his word the majority of times but look.
I can promise not to commit a crim 90 times, and keep that
promise 89 times... I'm still a criminal when it's all said and
done.
Stop deflecting, stop minimizing. It is what it is, Bob.
pricila| 4.24.10 @ 9:17AM
Such a definition could include human-animal hybrids, I suppose.
ecommerce
Marinusha| 1.14.10 @ 11:20AM
Good topic! Thanks
Bob| 1.14.10 @ 3:24PM
Biased reporting again, Philip??? Here's a breakdown of Obama promises by Politifact:
* Promise Kept 91
* Compromise 33
* Promise Broken 14
* Stalled 82
* In the Works 273
* Not yet rated 9
Politifact did not keep stats on Bush, but here are a few of his broken promises:
http://www.americanprogressact.....omise.html
We are both old enough to know that transparency and Washington are incongruous because of campaign donations. If this bothers you so much, why don't you recommend that the Republicans open up their meetings to CSPAN?
Obama clearly underestimated that Republicans were going to have a strategy of "Just Say No" instead of arguing on the merits. Imagine, politics getting in the way of truth and discourse....
I don't think Obama has been a great President so far, or even a very good one. However, he is better than "W" (not very high bar to jump over). But criticisms should be relevant with perspective -- that would be a nice change for at least one side. We need some grown-ups in Washington on BOTH sides.
KD| 1.15.10 @ 12:38AM
Hey, Bob.
Is this about George Walker Bush, or is this about Barrack Hussein Obama?
Stop deflecting. It's not biased reporting when it's reporting a specific promise that Barrack Barroke. You can't deny he broke it... Have you seen any of the talks on C-SPAN? Tell me this, Bob, tell me a little bit of the details about this plan that you clearly support.
You can't, because you don't know them. Yet you support the plan anyways.
"Wait I can get healthcare without paying for it? Screw the details count me in!"
You will pay for it... And you will pay for your ignorance too. Stop trying to deflect just because you can't disprove.
That politifact looks cool, I'll definitely check it out, but democrats often use Snopes to prove or disprove things... Snopes is run by democrats and carries an obvious bias they don't seem to care about.
But I'm happy he's kept his word the majority of times but look. I can promise not to commit a crim 90 times, and keep that promise 89 times... I'm still a criminal when it's all said and done.
Stop deflecting, stop minimizing. It is what it is, Bob.
pricila| 4.24.10 @ 9:17AM
Such a definition could include human-animal hybrids, I suppose. ecommerce