Comments on: White House Breaks Transparency Promise

By: Paul Blumenthal

Paul Blumenthal — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:24:51 +0000

How is this important? First, this was an important pledge made by Obama as a candidate and then as President. I’m not sure of the merits of it necessarily, although it could provide a forum for organized opposition to a bill to be laid at the President’s desk. More important is the pressure it could put on Congress to follow a similar path, which would have a much greater effect than the President posting bills.

In regards to the bill being “emergency,” there is no crisis that the bill is meeting that can’t wait five days. The general definition of “emergency” relates to emergency funds needed to stem a crisis or attack. Now if this bill was meant to relieve some situation that had a time limit placed on it, then perhaps it could be viewed as emergency. Instead this bill lifts a time limit, thus meaning that there is no potential loss in waiting 5 days before signing it, if that means following a pledge that was a major part of Obama’s campaign.

For a long discussion on both the merits of the policy in dispute and the definition of “emergency” I suggest reading this thread on the Open House Project Google Group:

http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject/browse_thread/thread/aa81325888746f2a#

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:11:28 +0000

sorry, but there is a bigger issue here: how does it even matter, realistically, that he will post legislation for five days before he signs it? do you really think an administration will change legislation based on posted comments?

it is a lovely gesture, symbolic even, but i fail to see how it is legitimate in any concrete way…

btw, how could equal rights NOT be emergency legislation? what comments, exactly, would you be looking for before this bill was signed?

By: Paul Blumenthal

Paul Blumenthal — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:20:20 +0000

I’m certainly willing to give the White House some slack on this, but only to a degree. This was supposed to be a major development in the transparency of the White House operations and could set a precedent that would hopefully put pressure on Congress to do a similar thing (which would be far more effective). If they weren’t ready to go, they shouldn’t have made such a big deal about it on their first blog post.

Of course, the President has done some great things in terms of restoring transparency to the Executive in terms of FOIA, revolving door, and other aspects of the White House web site. In comparison to the lack of transparency over the past 8 years, this is a breath of fresh air. Still there is more work to do, and if we just start cutting slack here and there then we lose the ability to criticize. There’s nothing wrong in pointing out when the White House slips up.

And yes, I’m fully aware of the situation regarding the IT system in the White House, the EOB, and the OEOB. I’m sure they felt like they transported back to the mid- or early-90s, which is what the system looked like the last time I saw it in 2000. It’s ugly, and I hope they figure out how to fix it, or work around it.

By: Eric Mill

Eric Mill — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:18:42 +0000

The most likely scenario to me is that their system isn’t ready for it yet. I’m also inclined to “cut him some slack”, though I think it’s interesting that so many people put it in personal terms, like “Barack’s got a lot on his plate right now”. The guy’s got a huge team.

By: joe

joe — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:34:40 +0000

I agree with Preston, cut him some slack. This is the first bill he’s signed. Also, what is the point of putting something up for comment 5 days before signing… is the idea that he might not sign it given the right public input? That is, I’m not sure what this kind of promise means instrumentally.

By: Libby

Libby — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:36:09 +0000

Good catch Paul, and thanks for the good work you do here, but I’m inclined to agree with Preston. Nothing’s perfect and the man has a lot on his plate right now.

Good to keep Obama honest, but I’m not particularly alarmed that this slipped through the cracks. Still, it’s good to keep track in case it becomes a pattern.

Otherwise, as Preston says, the transparency reforms overall have been heartening. The FOIA order alone should buy him some forgiveness if he doesn’t change everything in the first two weeks. And I assume you saw the major change in the coding of the White House website. I don’t think he’s deliberately trying to renege on his promises.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:47:50 +0000

The Obama team is still getting settled in, and they have a ton of stuff to coordinate while still figuring out all the systems and processes. It’s not surprising that they’d drop a few balls early on. I’m sure they’ll do better in the near future.

By: mk3872

mk3872 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:12:01 +0000

I have a novel idea … Let us take Obama’s “failed” transparency on the first bill he signed after being in office for 2 weeks with an antiquated IT system, making it nearly impossible to post such things on line as promised for the time being … and compare that to Bush W “transparency” of the past 8 years and see if you notice any difference, Paul.

Hmmm … let us see … Obama supports the freedom of information act and an anti-lobbying ethics commitment from his admin. W orders his staff to not comply with congressional subpoenas and to not mingle with the DC socialites so as to not accidentally leak anything.

Nice to know that the press was completely useless and castrated for W, but nitpicks to no end, every little thing that a Dem administation does or doe NOT do … Gimme a friggin break.

By: Preston L. Bannister

Preston L. Bannister — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:27:29 +0000

Give the guy a chance – he has only been in office a bit over a week. Not everything works perfectly from the start. He does seem to be headed in the right direction – which is an enormous relief, after his predecessor.

Heck, I did not vote for the guy, and am willing to cut him this much slack. I am more interested in the results over time.

By: Bill Flynn

Bill Flynn — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:23:12 +0000

Surprised, all smoke & mirrors. What change has come out of Chicago politically for 100 years? Old rhetoric, different ethic body, wow what change. Everything the Dems say means the opposite anymore. You can fool all the people most of the time with a media that has a middle school crush just like Pravda in Russia. Will they media hold Obama accountable for anything/ See Obama being made fun of for weeks & weeks for going to a window to enter the whitehouse?. Bush was called stupid in hundreds of articles for months. This present moment in political & journalistic History is saddening.