Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The problem Craig is that you are making a faith based claim. You believe Obama will act in a fair way.
Sigh. I said no such thing.
Hyabusa: the government will always censor the tough questions.
Craig: Actually, they may or may not.
Hyabusa: Craig, you said they will definitely not censor the tough questions.
Well he just might. Then again he might not and you can't really know.
Funny, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for posting it like you're disagreeing.
I understand that people might come in and ask something completely ridiculous, like "Mr. Obama, when do you think your socialistic agenda will bring America to it's knees". That concern is realistic, so why not have people like Thomas review them first? They could work with the White House to avoid such obvious traps, but people would still have a chance to ask their own relevant questions, and there would be some accountability behind the scenes. Instead the whole process is completely opaque. That doesn't bother you? It should.
I think that's a very reasonable suggestion in the hands of a responsible journalist - I'd be fine with Thomas.
I'd prefer it. As for bother me, it's not really a boolean, it's degree. I'd rather they went with your approach, but I don't think this is that big a deal.
You have hope and faith. I do not. I won't give politicians the chance to trick me, and Gibbs performance is certainly no comfort. You say that Bush was likely to use the forum as manipulation and Obama isn't likely to. Sadly, there isn't as much of a difference as you believe. Bush didn't think he was doing wrong, he believed that he was doing the right thing. It was his UHC.
I don't think you're completely wrong or right about Bush, I do feel safe in saying that for whatever reason he was very comfortable misleading people.
I don't see the same in Obama to the same degree, even though I do think Obama has chosen to mislead on occassion as well (nd every president I know of - but there's a big difference between Carter renging on his pledge to pursue legalized marijuana, and Reagan's lies about his policies in Central America and the Middle East.)
Perversely perhaps, but UHC is Obama's Iraq. He believes in it so strongly that he is closely controlling the environment. He isn't just preventing random questions, he's selecting them without oversight or accountability.
That's a tortured analogy, no pun intended. What a big leap to take in making it just to compare to policies presidents strongly favored.
What they lack in comparison seems a lot more prominent than what they share. Yes, he's controlling this to get his message out. But at least the process is clear. If he just held a press conference and made statements, would you be happier with that? It's a way of providing some very limited openness, not what you or I prefer, but so what? What exactly will be so harmful about this process, it's hardly the first time Presidents did not have real open discussion on what they want to do.
It's a little like you are condeming him more for a tiny bit of oppennes than you condemn a president for no openness.
No accountability or oversight is a huge red flag. Yes, it's just a "town meeting" however this is not just a chat, it's a pitch for one of the most significant acts of government in the entire history of our nation. It's so important that no one even had a good chance to review it before voting.
I don't want to overdo the comparisons, but remember the last several years with major bills given to Congress to vote on with only a few hours to look at them? Insane.
Especially given that they'd sneak in major policy shifts in the small print hundreds of pages in.
As far as I'm aware, this is one media event and there will be all kinds of analysis and commentary with the press and Congress and other chances to ask Obama questions.
It's less that i'm saying you are wrong, than that i'm saying this is not some major scandal. We're pretty much in agreement on the issue, if not the impact.
I also submit that the entire concept of "turn about is fair play" is what has damaged this nation more than just about any other. When the Dems and Reps look at their turn in office as the chance to screw the other party, it's time for them to go. This is too important an issue for children to use as an opportunity to get back at each other.
My last comparison, you seem like an honest person to me, but I can say that it's always when the Democrats get power that you see the army on the right come out for every 'good government' demans you can think of, while they were basically invisible when Repubicans were in power, and I think there's definitely a limited valid point to 'turnabout is fair play'. The line is drawn in the partisan realm, while things that are simply immoral and bad for the nation, you can't copy the other guys on doing.
Unfortunately, you are not an exception in my recollection to the nearly complete lack on the right agreeing with any of the hundreds or more of valid Bush criticisms.
I've written at length about many examples like this - such as how the Democrats followed one long-standing set of processes for judicial nominations, then the Republicans got power in the late 90's and went nuts changing the rules to hurt Clinton's appointees, eveything from massive filibusters to 'approval blackmail' to changing the number of Senators in a state needed for the 'blue slip rule' to apply, and then when Bush became president they reversed their policies to favor HIM, all the while lying that it was the Democrats who were abusing them, and of course now that we're back to Obama we'll hear all about 'fairness' being so important. Sorry.
I'm all for fixing things in the long term binding on both sides, but not letting Republicans get a way with murder and double standards, which they already do.
Democrats have gotten a small bit of payback, but mostly they adopted rules that are fair to the Republicans, while Republicans keep breaking their own record for filibustering.
Rememvber how they negotiated with Obama on the Stimulus bill - meetings and complaints and demanding significant changes he agreed to - then zero votes for it.
But I'll close with repeating what we agree on that I don't care for this approach to this town hall meeting and would rather see something closer to what you suggest.
It seems like he's trying to get credit for more openness that presidents usually have, while diluting the definition of 'town meeting' that sets a bad precedent.
As the reporters suggested, even if they include tough questions, it's a problematic process because the next president might not.
By the way, would you think it was wrong, if it were more open, for Republicans to try to plant 'gotcha' questioners with prepared questions to try to hurt his support?
Facebook
Twitter