Transparency Schmansparency

[boutons_deux]

But the foreign policy that set the stage for these abuses was enacted by decades of corrupt Republican AND Democrat administrations, dumbass......

for example:

??

Clinton took the terrorist threat seriously and was actually shooting at OBL, not invading/occupying oil countries. while the 2001 Repugs totally ignored terrorist threat, until it gave them false pretext to invade Iraq. St Ronnie let Iran escape punished for the US Embassy destruction, hostages. Repugs even negotiated with Iran to hold the hostages until St Ronnie was elected.

[RandomGuy]

Marks for trying? Obama tried how, please?

I didn't say they were good marks. I give him some small credit for dimly trying with his memo. Odds are that other stuff has been going on since 2010. D- for good intentions. F for results.

More recent bit on the LA Times, much more damning than Yoni's stupid OP:
http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/12...-transparency/

Don't ask me to defend him or his efforts. I am deeply disappointed.

Quite frankly, the efforts at transparency seem to be suffering from the same malaise his efforts at reforming regulations, i.e. good intentions, but lack of follow through.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Efforts" = boilerplate election talking points. Nothing more.

[RandomGuy]

"Efforts" = boilerplate election talking points. Nothing more.

I generally take most people, even those running for office, at some grain of truth when they say what their priorities are, until proven otherwise. I don't think they were totally empty words, I just don't think they reflected overriding priorities, as they obviously don't seem to have.

This time around, given Obama's track record, I know better.

I didn't expect an Obama administration to make some huge sea change and live up to the pie in the sky stuff, but even so, the bull factor is high. I keep this in mind when people start talking about how many things Romney will change if he gets elected.

[z0sa]

first few replies made me

[TeyshaBlue]

I generally take most people, even those running for office, at some grain of truth when they say what their priorities are, until proven otherwise. I don't think they were totally empty words, I just don't think they reflected overriding priorities, as they obviously don't seem to have.

This time around, given Obama's track record, I know better.

I didn't expect an Obama administration to make some huge sea change and live up to the pie in the sky stuff, but even so, the bull factor is high. I keep this in mind when people start talking about how many things Romney will change if he gets elected.

Maybe I'm ahead of the curve. I've felt this way for the last 20 years for either side.

[boutons_deux]

"how many things Romney will change if he gets elected."

If Gecko/Ryan are elected with control of the Congress, a LOT of disastrous changes will follow. Just like the Repugs in 2001.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not really.

[boutons_deux]

Not really.

How eloquent.

Gecko/Ryan budget policies have been written up and voted up twice in the Repug House. Why doubt they wouldn't pass them if they could?

[TeyshaBlue]

You're a complete idiot of you think 3% of either party's platform gets enacted. I take that back. You're a complete idiot anyway. gfy.

[RandomGuy]

You're a complete idiot of you think 3% of either party's platform gets enacted. I take that back. You're a complete idiot anyway. gfy.

He did ask a fairly cogent question. What parts of the GOP agenda would go through if they controlled two out of three (if not all three) branches of the Federal government?

What 3% of the GOP platform would they go for, if getting things past Democrats weren't an issue?

Would you support that?

[boutons_deux]

who said anything about Repug party platform.

Ryan's twice-passed House budget bill and his secret tape aren't in the party platform.

[TeyshaBlue]

He did ask a fairly cogent question. What parts of the GOP agenda would go through if they controlled two out of three (if not all three) branches of the Federal government?

What 3% of the GOP platform would they go for, if getting things past Democrats weren't an issue?

Would you support that?

Since the chances of this happening approach zero, I'm unsure as to exactly how cogent a question this actually is. More like navel gazing. The lack of any particular legislation as an example, makes this exercise even more worthless.

[Winehole23]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/...oring-law.html

lawsuit claims the DOJ lobbied against transparency and refuses to release records about its contacts with Congress related thereto:

The Department of Justice helped kill a bill intended to enhance transparency and refuses to release records on its efforts to block the legislation, the Freedom of the Press Foundation claims in court.

The nonprofit watchdog sued the Department of Justice in Federal Court Monday, seeking immediate disclosure of its communications with members of Congress on bills that would force the DOJ to release more records to the public.


The foundation claims the DOJ has failed to abide by its own Freedom of Information Act guidelines, amended under the direction of President Barrack Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder.


On his first day in office - Jan. 21, 2009 - Obama issued a memo directing agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open government."
Despite that proclamation, backlogs in FOIA requests have more than doubled across all agencies since he took office, according to the complaint.

http://www.courthousenews.com/CNSNEWS/Story/Index/85122