Most Transparent Administration EVER!

[Richard_Parker]

So, instead of responding to the discussion of the problems with your previous claims, you’re just going to make more? Ok. Have a nice thread.

[Shodan]

@Ravenman

First, the controversy about Bush’s signing statements was primarily about the EXTENT to which they were used.

On the SDMB, as I recall, it was that Bush used signing statements at all.

Third, as I said before, isn’t it reasonable to say that “the most transparent Administration ever” does not mean “metaphysical perfection in transparency?” To which Administration are you comparing Obama’s transparency?

For all conservatives complain about liberals viewing Obama as the second coming, they appear to be judging Obama’s successes and failures against Jesus’ record.

I would think the purpose of this thread would be to compare Obama’s record with his promises. If he promised to do something and didn’t do it, then that is a point worthy of discussion.

I realize the intense desire of certain folks to change the subject away from Obama’s shortcomings to the only topic they can tolerate for long - Bush Sux, part MCMLXIX - but Obama’s record needs to stand on its own.

Or fails, as the case may be.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

On the SDMB, as I recall, it was that Bush used signing statements at all.

Which is why I included the next sentence about “aside from the typical fringe…”

I would think the purpose of this thread would be to compare Obama’s record with his promises. If he promised to do something and didn’t do it, then that is a point worthy of discussion.

I realize the intense desire of certain folks to change the subject away from Obama’s shortcomings to the only topic they can tolerate for long - Bush Sux, part MCMLXIX - but Obama’s record needs to stand on its own.

Sure, there ought to be a discussion of what Obama promised and what he has delivered. There also should be some accuracy in what is alleged. For example, the OP accused Obama of burying the OMB Mid Session Review because it would contain bad news… but it appears that every president submits the report late due to the transition, and Obama never seems to have made any promises on the subject.

Or also on signing statements: Obama rejected during the campaign from pledging never to use a signing statement, but he said that he would limit their use to certain circumstances. (I’m paraphrasing, of course.) One can debate whether he has lived up to that promise, but just because Sam Stone trots out “OMG!! Obama did what Bush did how dare he not be everything the libruls want him to be which I would oppose anyway!!” then there’s really no hope for a rational debate. When Sam or anyone else makes rather egregious errors in what they allege, they ought to own up to it.

I believe it may have been you, Shodan, who commented that to his supporters, Obama takes on the appearance of anything the supporter wants to see. It appears to be the same with his most relentless critics,

[Shodan]

One can debate whether he has lived up to that promise, but just because Sam Stone trots out “OMG!! Obama did what Bush did how dare he not be everything the libruls want him to be which I would oppose anyway!!” then there’s really no hope for a rational debate.

This part is probably true, but not for the reason you state.

The reason we can’t have a rational debate is the dismissive attitude of 80% of the SDMB towards Obama-broken promises, and the furious attempts by another 10% to use ad hominems to change the subject. (Even tomndebb saw that.)

But this stuff about how criticism of Obama doesn’t count in some way because “you oppose him anyway” is just as self-serving as it would be from any of the Bush-bashers. Because a good proportion of the SDMB won’t criticize Obama for anything, and most of the rest will sort of shrug their shoulders and give a tepid “well, yes, I suppose that is too bad. Now let’s talk about something else”.

Regards,
Shodan

[CoolHandCox]

re: signing statements. Just to throw out some facts in case it matters.

Obama has issued 7 signing statements so far (5 concerning constitutional matters). Bush had issued 24 his first year (2001). Bush issued around 160 total over his 8 years.

Here’s a signing statement citedetailing each year and the signing statements issued.

(Some state Bush issued 750 signing statements; this number is not incorrect, but is derived at differently; basically, it’s 160 signing statements, affecting 750 different areas of law)

[BobLibDem]

I’m a purist on signing statements. The president should either sign the bill or veto it, nothing more and nothing less. Most of Obama’s are mere puffery (I thank the Congress for this wonderful law…) but some are dangerously close to doing the same things Bush did. I don’t like it and I wish he would stop.

I’m also troubled about keeping names of meeting attendees secret. I don’t think being critical of secrecy and signing statements is in any way inconsistent with supporting the actions of Obama in general. In spite of what our political opponents think, most Obama supporters are not delusional, do not view him as infallible, and are capable of criticizing him.

[SteveG1]

@Sam_Stone

Oh, and I forgot a new one:

TARP failing transparency test:

That would be a Democrat in the House lambasting the Obama Treasury department.

That’s a good thing. If a Republican did it, he would be blasted for being partisan, regardless of his intentions. It’s a little harder to cry “dirty politics” when it’s one of your own who is calling bullshit on something.

[SteveG1]

@furt

And the military can’t be cut? Education can’t be cut? The war in Afghanistan had to be ramped up?

Shit, I’m no liberal, and I think we could easily cut 5% of the penatgon.

I know how you could cut a lot more than that, without having to fire anyone.

Every few years, some new bigshot comes along with the brilliant idea to change everything. There are new outlooks, new procedures, new “One Books”, new paradigms, new boxes to “think outside of”, and reorganization.

Stop all this “change for the sake of change”. Stop fixing things that aren’t broken (until they get broken), and fix the things that were broken.

You’d save BILLIONS probably.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam_Stone

The Obama administration has habitually pissed on the U.S.'s best allies and sent mixed signals to America’s enemies.

First there was the serial insulting of Britain…Then there were the ‘buy American’ clauses, which pissed off all the U.S.'s trading partners and even triggered retaliation from Canada.

Then he went to Russia and put missile defense on the table before the talks even opened - pissing off the Polish politicians who stuck their necks out a mile to allow putting the missiles in their country.
…
Next, the U.S. has managed to piss off India…Finally, Obama is turning the Honduras thing into a potential disaster…
The people of Britain, India, and the new ex-Soviet states are the most pro-American people in the world. Their governments have been the most reliable allies. India is a huge trading partner. Whatever you do in diplomacy, you start by keeping your friends close. Obama has gone the other way. He’s pissed off allies and made things easier on enemies. This is definitely the wrong track.

Sez you. Sez the world:

President Obama’s soaring popularity has significantly boosted attitudes toward the United States in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia, surveys in 24 countries by the Pew Research Center finds…

Across much of the world, the first five months of Obama’s presidency essentially erased the battering the USA’s image took during eight years of the Bush administration…Whatever the impact on policy, there has been a transformation in views of the American president abroad. Confidence that Obama will “do the right thing in world affairs” was double that for Bush in China, triple in Japan and Mexico, quadruple in Jordan and Egypt. The contrast was even wider across Western Europe and in Turkey and Argentina. In France, 13% viewed Bush positively last year; now 91% express confidence in Obama…

For the first time in the Pew study, there was more confidence in the American president that in al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in such predominantly Muslim countries as Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria and Indonesia. Last year, most Muslim countries rated bin Laden as high or higher than Bush.