Political Discussions
Obama shies away from transparency.
Posted by anticsrocks • 7/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: chip reid, health care reform, helen thomas, lies, obama, planted questions, town hall, transparency
President Obama said the following:
“I will also hold myself, as President to a new standard of openness,” said Barack H. Obama on CNN on January 21st, 2009. He also said, during that speech that the way to make government responsible is to make it accountable; and the way to make it accountable is to make it transparent. Transparency is what we were promised. Obama went on to say in that speech, “Let me say it as simply as I can; transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this Presidency.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE
But in a recent "town hall" meeting, Obama planted questions and his staff called reporters the night before to tell them they would be called on. His "random choices" of the so called plain folks were people in the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America. The latter actually being a part of the Democratic National Committee.
Chip Reid of CBS and Helen Thomas of Hearst News really tore into Robert Gibbs on this.
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5129482.sh...
Evidently Obama realizes that the American people are not clamoring for his health care reform as much as he would like them to be. Otherwise, why control the "free" press?
User Comments
-
epic fail-
Yes, Agit8r. Obama failed on this one. However, I have a feeling that was directed at me. Why do you not want openness in our government?
Obama made the big deal about transparency and accountability, but we are seeing that it was all just lip service.
-
-
So...wait, the reporters were accusing of planted questions during an online town hall meeting BEFORE it happened? Is that what I'm reading? Because Gibbs told them that both the WHitehouse and the college (hosting) chose the questions to be asked?
*makes doubting mommy face*-
@sati...wow. Thank you for agreeing with me. Although I don't think you needed to turn this into a blame Bush thread.
@Anok...yes, this exchange between Chip Reid / Helen Thomas and Robert Gibbs took place BEFORE the town hall. However, I posted after the town hall and it was revealed that ALL the questions were planted. Helen Thomas made reference to the White House' new practice of calling reporters THE NIGHT BEFORE certain functions to let them know when and where they would be called on, even what questions they could ask. To me, this is wrong. It is not a town hall meeting, but a PR stunt to build support for his policies. It smacks of dishonesty and snake oil salesmanship. Definitely what I want from MY PRESIDENT!
Even the lady that has a kidney tumor and no insurance was a plant, unfortunately. Obama asked what her name was and asked her to give his staff her info so they could see what could be done to help her. The bad thing is, she has been working with Tom Daschle since December 23rd of 2008. Obama knows her and acted like he didn't. How can you trust someone who so blatantly lies like that? This also begs the question, if they knew her since December (at least), why have they not tried to help her before now? -
I have to look into this further, but at the moment, it is my understanding that the "town hall meeting" was actually online, and that questions had been submitted before hand (by everyone), and were then selected.
Is there any proof that the questions selected were actually planted? If so - an online format would seem an odd place to "plant" questions, wouldn't it? -
Anok, did you watch the video in the link above? In it, Helen Thomas and Chip Reid are asking Robert Gibbs why the White House called reporters the night before, telling them they would be called on. Also, you can see footage of the town hall meeting on youtube. But I also know that you have trouble seeing some videos on your 'puter.
It was a town hall meeting held in a community college in Annandale, Virginia.
-
-
I agree with AR on this one. This is in the news today:
A document filed in federal court this week by the Justice Department offers new evidence that former vice president Richard B. Cheney helped steer the Bush administration's public response to the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA and that he was at the center of many related administration deliberations.
The administration's discussion of Wilson's link to the CIA was meant to undermine criticism by her husband of administration allegations that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium, a matter that her husband had probed for the CIA, according to testimony presented in a 2007 trial.
A list of at least seven related conversations involving Cheney appears in a new court filing approved by Obama appointees at the Justice Department. In the filing, the officials argue that the substance of what Cheney told special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in 2004 must remain secret.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203608.ht...
This is OUR government, and we have a right to know pretty much everything that our government does, as long as it doesn't jeopardise national security. We have a right to know if the VP outed a CIA agent for political purposes.-
The lesser of two evils is, nonetheless... a politician
whether or not he's sticking up for family
www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama_bush_and_cheney_cousins/ -
I like the reason given (by I forget who) for maintaining secrecy: fear of John Stewart.
Or was that another recent case? -
the last of the hard hitting journalists...
*silently weeps for his nation*
-
-
Taking the OP at face value, without doing any research on my own, I don't see the example being one of transparency. Nor is it about "controlling" the free press. At most it would be an effort to steer the conversation or, if you prefer to see something more sinister, manipulate the press. It's up to the media to analyze and report on that. (I won't comment on the OP's assumptions about public opinion.)
There are, however, other areas where Obama is finding that governing seems to allow for less transparency than he originally advertised. While his administration is far less secretive than the previous one, his departure from the high bar he set during the campaign is ruffling some feathers.
Example: records of who visits the White House. I'm not sure why that would be kept from the public, but I assume it relates to the White House as a private residence, which it is. Do I really need to know who his mother-in-law hangs with and what children visit theirs? But the White House is also a public institution at the same time, one whose activities we have a right to know about. How and where to draw the line?
This will undoubtedly be an interesting area of public discussion in the coming months. -
"But in a recent "town hall" meeting, Obama planted questions and his staff called reporters the night before to tell them they would be called on. His "random choices" of the so called plain folks were people in the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America. The latter actually being a part of the Democratic National Committee."
If true, this news is disappointing.
Do you have links to more detail or proof? I have read the reports regarding Nico Pitney which I agree is a questionable scenario, but the above accusations are much more broad.-
But in a recent "town hall" meeting, Obama planted questions
That's a lie. -
It is not a lie, sati. Obama's admin planted those people. He has done it before.
newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/15/shill-attendee-obamas-h...
voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html
Read the article I linked in the OP. From that article, the exchange that happens on the video:
"This is a town hall," Reid said later. "This is an open forum for the public to ask questions, but it's not really open."
Responded Gibbs: "Based on what?"
"Based on the information that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected," Reid responded."
How can you say that its a lie? Is Chip Reid lying to Robert Gibbs? If so, if it weren't true, then why didn't Gibbs deny it?
When Bush did this, I said it was appalling. It is even worse now, because Obama made such a HUGE deal about openness and transparency in his campaign. -
I haven't read anything that said he planted questions. Sure he's picking questions that he wants to answer, but he didn't plant the questions. Of course, it accomplishes the same thing.
When Bush did this, I said it was appalling.
No, when Bush did this, it was hilarious because it was so obvious, considering the obvious political bias and softball nature of the questions that were asked. I remember one where the reporter behind the guy asking the question was laughing hysterically because it was so obvious the guy was a plant. -
Hilarious, appalling. Is it any less wrong for Obama to do it?
-
It's wrong to lie about what actually happened. Saying that he planted questions is a lie.
-
His staff went through the submissions from the White House web site and chose them.
-
-
I've been looking around for more on this - but it seems as if op-ed blogs have been accusing Obama of this for months now. Only one piece (other than what Antics provided) even addressed the most recent townhall meeting in any way other than a mere transcript of what was said. It was from a journalist's blog called "Thinking Right" and it doesn't even accuse him of planting questions, but rather preselecting the questions he would most like to answer/addressed issues he wanted to talk about.
I'm just not seeing anything reputable coming forward about this - lots of accusations in chat groups and personal blogs, though.-
Hmmmm, why does this not surprise me? Of course, if you come from a certain political persuasion, and you think the mainstream media is in the bag for the administration, then "reputable" takes on a whole different meaning. One has an excuse for believing conspiracy theories and rumors, and the lack of reporting on them in reputable sources becomes "proof" of those sources not being trustworthy. At least that's how I imagine such people might think.
-
He did notify one reporter that he or she (I don't remember who it was) might be called on, but that was the extent of it.
-
Well, it's no secret that politicians pick their questions wisely I'm just not sure when or how to draw the line between general audience participation know-how (even non politicians do it) and "planting questions to avoid transparency".
Damn you;re quick! Sati - do you have any links on this? -
It was the HuffingtonPost:
As background for those not following this media-centric debate, Mr. Pitney has been live-blogging the fallout from the Iranian elections, sifting through Twitter feeds and other available observations and reports for news about the situation for several days. As our own staff knows at The Times, this has been an arduous task, partly because some reality is ungettable, some reports are questionable and others are downright fictitious. But in a censored-world like that in Iran, the Internet, with all its access through sometimes circuitous routes, has empowered citizens on the ground and offered new, inventive avenues for getting information out to the world.
The latter touch-base seems to have been the motivation for the Obama communications staff to select Mr. Pitney as someone who could offer up a question solicited from Iranians to pose to President Obama on Tuesday. As reporter heads swiveled in the Brady briefing room, Mr. Obama called out to Mr. Pitney and asked: “I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,” the president said. “Do you have a question?”
“That’s right,” Mr. Pitney answered, standing along the sidelines, with access through a temporary White House pass. “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/huffpos-question-at-obama-news-confe...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/huffposts-nico-pitney-ask_n_219865.html -
Wow, that's cool.
-
-
Obama is one giant lie with growing tentacles that are stretching into everyone's lives. Obama is looking pretty unAmerican at this point. If you disagree then you disagree with the constitution and the founding fathers.-
It is becoming more and more evident with each passing day that Obama the candidate and Obama the President are two very different animals.
-
If you disagree then you disagree with the constitution and the founding fathers.
Who's constitution? Certainly not ours. Making a statement like that without backing it up with any evidence is anti-American. -
No, it's not, Sati. It's our God-given right as Americans to bask in the glow of our own ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and intolerance.
And Antirocks, your statement is kinda hard to take at face value, since conservatives like you disapproved of Obama in the first place. Actually, if Obama has done anything, it has been to move farther towards the middle, even right of center, than is necessary, although it doesn't surprise me. if you were going to make your critique credible, you would have to do it from the left.
Course, none of this has anything to do with transparency, but the OP doesn't either. -
@jhix,
That's a pretty broad definition of "unAmerican," but i'll accept that--so long as it cuts the other way as well -
mark...what has Obama done that is "right of center?" How can you be intellectually honest and make that statement.
"...since conservatives like you disapproved of Obama in the first place."
For the record, I opposed Obama's election. Then when he won, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It didn't take him long to start making me see what kind of President he was. I am against almost all of his policies. His approval ratings are beginning to dive and it is only a matter of time until the main stream media abandons him as well.
How does my OP not have anything to do with transparency? He purported to be an instrument of change for the American people. Yet he is going about business as usual on Capitol Hill. mark, tell me this, do you find ANYTHING wrong with what Obama does? Or is this just another way to take a personal jab at me?
btw, I found this from 2007. Looks like candidate Obama and President Obama are on opposite sides of the fence on this one.
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/no-planted-ques.html -
RIght of center on health care is the big one. I'm also worried about his unwillingness to push back on Guantanamo. And I mentioned his turn towards less transparency above (where I also talk about what the issue of transparency in the media is actually about at the moment: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/obama-shies-away-from-transparen...).
Still, I always knew he was a moderate, and I considered him more electable for it. He hasn't surprised me much so far.
[edited to add:] And really, anyone who takes a politician at his word on specific policy stances during a campaign is bound to be disappointed. Candidates give us an idea of where they stand, but they can't lock themselves in completely. Otherwise they have no room to maneuver in the game of politics. I believe we might have argued about this before, though. My politics are in no small measure informed by Machiavelli's The Prince, updated, of course, for modern notions of democracy, accountability, human rights, and so on. -
That is odd, because with his stance on health care and cap and trade, I see him as a leftist. The fact that he has all but caved on Gitmo, I think is due to reality more than political leanings. He is finding out that no one (other countries, that is) wants those terrorists.
Thank you for clarifying. Without that, it seemed more like a personal jab at me or my position.
Communication can be a wonderful thing. -
Indeed. And funny how I would even see cap and trade as a play to industry, since it offers a capitalist solution to a problem and pretty much leaves the fossil fuel industries free to do what they want.
Or to get real specific: Obama has not stopped mountain top removal in West Virginia. He's biding his time for a review, letting it happen, thereby giving something to each side, way too much to coal. -
The thing that I think many conservatives might not appreciate fully, are all the forces that Obama has to balance within his own party.
-
He's choosing the fights that are most important to him, such as health care and the environment. I'd like to see some investigations into issues like how we got it so wrong in Iraq. Whatever happened to Part II of that investigation?
-
I hear you on choosing his battles. That's why I don't raise a stink about my few disappointments. He's a great politician. I'm not.
-
Regardless of whether cap and trade is a play to industry, it is a blow to consumers who will ultimately pay the price.
-
... and reap the benefits. Cleaning up the environment is good for everyone, like it or not.
-
Tell that to the single mom with 3 kids when she has to decide between buying groceries and heating her house.
-
What the hell is she doing having all those kids when she's not married?
-
Her husband was a liberal and didn't believe in family values - or her husband contracted a fatal disease and died - or what the hell difference does that make?
The point is, cap and trade will cost consumers greatly. -
Less for those of us who have largely opted out of the national food system and instead get most of our stuff locally.
But I'm just being a smart ass, talking about an issue most people can't control.
Really, I don't buy that whole argument about cost. Sure it will cost and sure it will hurt. But we can't keep exploiting the earth without paying the real cost. And if there are people like your hypothetical mother who need help, we'll have to help her. But she's no excuse to not undertake a reduction of our carbon emissions. -
Well there are lots of ways to help the environment without penalizing our present energy producers. Why not structure incentives to alternative forms of energy with the money that will be spent on creating the new bureaucracy of cap and trade?
But we need to be honest, ANY costs that companies receive will be passed on. That is something that I am sure everyone agrees on.
As a side note mark, this new exchange of ideas is refreshing. I prefer it to the usual tit for tat. -
"Cap and Trade" (based on the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005) is a right-center approach--hence why it is regressive (hitting the consumer hardest)
-
Compounding the problem is the fact that Vaseline is a petroleum product, so it too will rise in price. Since the consumers are going to take it in the...well you know; it makes it that much worse when Vaseline won't be affordable.
-
"Well there are lots of ways to help the environment without penalizing our present energy producers."
You mean the energy producers the US government and tax payers subsidize? The poor energy companies that were reporting record profits while consumers were paying record prices for gas?? -
unfortunately the giving away of energy credits that can be sold at whatever cost to other carbon producers amounts to yet abother bounty!
-
Yes, those energy producers. Since it is obvious that keeping prices low is not high on their priority list, why make it worse by taxing them on top of everything else?
-
Actually, if we successfully transition to renewable energy, our utility bills will be dramatically reduced. It's not going to happen overnight, though.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
