Obama Most 'Transparent' President?

[Kathianne]

He claimed he would be. So he gets an award, LOL!

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0311/not_a_secret_anymore_a00ccd98-0d9e-4822-8936-168f3a51b959.html


Not a secret anymore
Shh! Obama gets anti-secrecy award
By ABBY PHILLIP | 03/30/11 4:17 PM Updated: 03/31/11 2:35 PM

President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.

The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.

This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.

...

Nope, couldn't make this up, it's that good.

[Gaffer]

As transparent as a brick wall he is.

[fj1200]

Transparency is overrated. It's a myth that individual citizens have more control over a process that they've clearly delegated; We elect representatives for a reason. For example, posting a bill for 48 hours, or whatever, before BO signs it is purely pointless. You know he will sign it and citizens input means nothing Congressionally at that point.

We need to demand reasonable things like not piling on unrelated amendments to specific purpose bills.

[Kathianne]

Transparency is overrated. It's a myth that individual citizens have more control over a process that they've clearly delegated; We elect representatives for a reason. For example, posting a bill for 48 hours, or whatever, before BO signs it is purely pointless. You know he will sign it and citizens input means nothing Congressionally at that point.

We need to demand reasonable things like not piling on unrelated amendments to specific purpose bills.

I agree and disagree. Changing the outcome because of 'transparency' won't happen on individual matters, but will possibly over the long run, energize the people if they don't like what they see.

I also agree with you, no caveats, that one issue or at least related issues are all that should be on bills.

[fj1200]

I agree and disagree. Changing the outcome because of 'transparency' won't happen on individual matters, but will possibly over the long run, energize the people if they don't like what they see.

Hmmm, I still see it as a distraction issue at least as far as Congress is concerned but the major area that needs an injection of transparency is on the regulatory side. On Boortz or Limbaugh I heard that 6 pages of BO care was turning into 1000 pages of regulation. Even after all the debate of what was truly in the bill there will be zero debate on the regulations that are created as a result of it.

The problem again is that Congress has created another law/bureaucracy where they have delegated their responsibility to another branch of government.