UPDATED (3), below: 01/07/10
Naked Emperor News, ht, Brietbart·TV, here.)
UPDATE: And here is the Presidents mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, refusing repeatedly to answer any reporters questions about what happened to the President's repeatedly expressed commitment during the campaign to ensure there would be open C-Span coverage of the development of the healthcare "reforms" as they proceeded through the Congress.
And here is C-Span CEO, Brian Lamb, in an interview expressing the view that C-Span was used as a political football during the campaign. And he further notes that there has only been one hour of the White House part of healthcare coverage by C-Span that has been permitted by the White House, and readily concedes that it was merely for a staged event in the East Room.
Finally, here is Brian Lamb's personally expressed view of why he believes the the process should be televised, and why C-Span made the request to have the remaining healthcare negotiations and debate televised.
Notwithstanding Mr. Lamb's expressed modesty, could it possibly have been put a better way? I can't imagine how!
"The American people pay for all of this that goes on in this town. It's always been my contention, and it's not a sophisticated, intelligent position. It's just a gut reaction -- that if we pay for something, and it's the public's business -- we ought to be able to see how it's done. It's just that simple. Has nothing to do with this particular fight right now."Yep!
UPDATE 2: 01/07 -- At the Washington Examiner, Byron York posted late yesterday, exposing the Wednesday dissembling by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs at the daily briefing, during which he made a pathetic attempt to disembroil the White House from the C-Span story.
The reporters questions naturally arose in light of the stories regarding the "secret negotiations" over the healthcare bills, and following the release of the viral video (embedded above) stacking the eight clips of Mr. Obama repeatedly promising back during the campaign to ensure wall-to-wall C-Span coverage of the healthcare debates and negotiations. In his post, York included a transcript from Tuesday's press briefing, featuring a recreant Mr. Gibbs pleading he had not had an opportunity to read Mr. Lamb's letter, and would therefore be unable to fully respond.
Byron then noted that at Wednesday's press confab, when the questions came back about the President's campaign promises about openness and transparency, Gibbs simply balked at giving the reporters any answer at all, and actually referred their fresh questions about the several Obama campaign commitments, back to his Tuesday non-answer!
Here is how Byron York aptly summed it up:
And that was the end of that. If the public wants to know why President Obama didn't keep his pledge to hold televised health-care negotations, they'll have to look for answers elsewhere. The White House isn't talking.UPDATE 3: 01/08 -- Newt Gingrich agrees with President Obama . . . or at least candidate Obama!
Me too! I think I'll tell him. And so can you. That was easy.
posted by Trochilus @ 1/06/2010 03:42:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Being that your so fond of video how about some video taking questions from Republican leadership at the Republican retreat where the President admits mistakes and but makes clear the deceptive nature of Republican "Talking Points".
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/obamagopqa/
Well, Anonymous, above, at 4:56 PM, February 07, 2010, thanks for posting the link late in the afternoon on February 7th, alerting me to a "grassroots" event that was held on February 4th!
Your link would have given me the opportunity to post a question to the President, as per the following information which was posted at that site:
"Submit Your Own Question to the President
On February 4, 2010, President Obama will be speaking to grassroots supporters like you and answering your questions about our plan going forward. You can RSVP to join this event online and submit a question for the President using the form at right."
Well, okay, Anonymous. Your posting of the form was a little too late for that event, but I can think of several questions I would like to ask him regarding the ongoing healthcare issue.
Do you think you could use your influence to get him to answer my questions now?
Here are two questions for openers.
If the White house would like to get his answers to these questions out there in public, I'd be more than happy to post them in full on my website.
Here is my e-mail address:
trochilustales@aol.com
Or, they could just post the answers here in the comment thread.
Do we have a deal? So, here are those first two questions:
1. President Obama . . . Are you now willing to at least admit that your absolute commitment, the one you frequently made to the American people during your campaign for the Presidency, which was to employ a completely open process for addressing healthcare reform, including having it all openly televised on C-Span, was a commitment that you personally failed to keep at the executive branch level, and one which you also failed to encourage at the legislative level and with both houses of congress which are heavily controlled by your political party?
2. President Obama . . . Given the fact that the two healthcare bills which were both created in that secretive process, the process that violated your absolute commitment to the American people, and each of which resulting bills very narrowly passed the House and Senate respectively, and on a completely partisan basis with no Republican support, please explain how you can claim that it is "bipartisan" to now move forward using those bills as the central basis for the final healthcare package? As you know, both of those bills are highly unpopular with the American people, and for a variety of reasons. So why won't you now keep your commitment to the American people and, through a completely open process, build a new framework for healthcare reform, one that would benefit all Americans? It's not too late.
Hi Troch,
It's me again. Good to know you now know that their IS a process for sending information/ideas up the chain of command. Funny, I don't remember there being any such vehicle during the Bush years. That is of course unless you got an invitation to The Western Whitehouse.
I can answer both your questions because ironically enough your question(s) was addressed DIRECTLY in the President's Q&A. If you bothered to watch the video you would know that.
There were numerous house and senate committee hearings and meetings broadcast on C-span. I watched some of them. Now when it came to reconciling the Senate and House bills that went off the rails. And the President admits that and takes responsibilty for it you ass.
It is completely illegitimate to assert that both bills were created in a secretive process. It's equally illegitimate to assert that we now start from scratch.
It's not too late for you to watch the video Trochilus. Or are you too scared? I know you don't like having your world view assaulted but come on......!
Sabastian
Pardon me for being a bit puzzled, but Sabastian -- Sabastian . . . can't say I recall any of your comments being posted here. I think I would have remembered, given the somewhat unusual spelling, unless that was a typo on your part.
Perhaps you were the same commenter as the first unsigned anonymous commenter on this thread? If so, welcome aboard!
Before I respond to your points, here's a little tactical hint for you about attempting to persuade others of your viewpoint. Calling them pejorative or otherwise deprecatory names, especially in the midst of a fitful response, is almost always counterproductive. I'll assume, therefore, given your resort to such name-calling, that persuasion is not your intention in posting here.
Accordingly, and in response to your "points" I'll simply urge you to go back and this time carefully watch the videos. Then you should read both the original post, and my first comment again.
Obviously, key elements of BOTH bills were created in an entirely secretive, unconstitutional, abusive -- and some might even say criminal process. Just as a few examples, the Nebraska deal (which the , the so-called "Louisiana Purchase," and the Florida exemption, were all attempts to fundamentally circumvent basic constitutional guarantees, including the equal protection of the law, as well as directly violating the open process the President so pompously and repeatedly assured the American people would never be tolerated on his watch. He laid claim to being beyond such partisanship . . . don't you recall?
Both of my questions were NOT addressed in the video. But if you continue to insist that they were, please forward me the exact citations and transcripts thereof.
Sorry, but your polemical rant is neither responsive nor convincing. And given the nature of the proceedings to date, there is no question that the Obama Administration is now obliged to go back for a "re-do."
If the various elements of the original bills are so defensible, his Administration should have no concerns at all about defending them, one by one, in public, now should he?
Heck, if they're so good, that should work to his advantage, and to the advantage of those in his party. Right about now they coud use a leg up! So, please . . . tell me where I’m wrong? Why aren't you clamoring for a re-do?
And, since that completely open process was precisely what he promised the American people to begin with, what possible political downside could there be to his keeping his word?
What say you to that, Sabastian?
Post a Comment
<< Home