Concur. However, Obama was very specific on many occasions about televising the Congressional health care debate on C-Span.
Please restate your question. It is too oblique. However, it is the "herd mentality" that I often challenge.
Don't misconstrue my intention with that comment. I wasn't declaring Obama a liar for promising a televised senate debate on healthcare reform and not delivering on it, I was implying that you (and MojoMan) are calling him a liar for it as clearly you are. Personally, I think y'all toss the term "liar" around too much. It's a venomous term that you're using for something that's actually pretty insignificant: a campaign promise that Obama couldn't make true because of the separation of power mentioned above. It's like someone accidentally giving you the wrong address and then you calling them a liar for it. Ridiculous, IMO. Again, this thread was derailed from post #1. The title suggests it might be a thought-provoking discussion as to whether C-Span should be allowed to cover senate debates on healthcare reform (and the pros and cons of it), but the OP and subsequently MojoMan have already devolved it into "OBAMA LIED!!!" making it a complete waste of space.
He did mean this particularly. See for yourself: <embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgbu%2BTwI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
You have not read my responses for what I said but rather for what you wanted to hear me say. As I said, I do not believe Obama has yet made his recommendation to Congress about televising the hearings on C-Span. I merely pointed out that I agreed with him on his campaign statements. He is not a liar -- unless he does a 180 on his campaign rhetoric.
In Fact . . . TV should be allowed to cover every part of government that does not involve national security Rocket River
So you think being unable to televise the proceedings (which is not in his power) is a "180 on his compaign rhetoric"? Given the statement above and the statement I quoted previously, that seems to be what you're implying.
How could anyone who is familiar with his campaign rhetoric honestly believe otherwise? Here are his campaign remarks on the topic. <embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgbu%2BTwI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Sanity, at last. Thanks for saving me the trouble, JV. Some have forgotten which branch of the government the President resides in. (and yes, a lot of it would be like watching paint dry)
If President Obama insisted in public statements that he believed it was important that this process be conducted in the open and on television, the Democrats in Congress would surely go along. The problem is that Obama does not want this done openly and on television any more than the Democrats in Congress do. He has clearly reneged on this campaign promise.
And as even you note the Congress doesn't have to listen to Obama and there have been several instances where the Congress hasn't listened to a president even when the majority party in Congress is the same party as the president. Consider that under the last Admin. even the Republican congress contradicted the President every now and then.
So then was GW Bush lying when he said Harriet Miers would be the next US Supreme Court Justice? There is a reason why we have seperation of powers.
In your opinion. The only thing the President could do to address this is use the bully pulpit to call for televised hearings. If he has been told privately by the leadership "there's no way in hell!" then what incentive does he have to do it? Piss off the congressional leadership of his own party? What possible good does that do him?
He's saying that when he is president he would like to see that happen and as president he has called for that. The problem that you have is that you have no clear sense of what the PResident can or cannot do and consequently are blaming everything on the President even though such things are beyond the purview of the office. You might as well accuse GW Bush of lying since Bin Ladin wasn't caught dead or alive.
don't you get D???? IT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO DO HIM GOOD!!! It is their attempt to make him do something foolish so they can get PALIN in the whitehouse Rocket River
Don't be obtuse. GWB obviously did not "promise" that Harriet Meyers would be confirmed to be on the Supreme Court. He just nominated her for the position. The President has the power of the bully pulpit with which to pressure Congress when he considers it important to do so. Clearly, Obama considered it important to press this issue when he was running for office. Now that he is President, not so much. In fact, he is encouraging Congress to avoid the conference process all together: [RQUOTER]Obama Prods Congress to Pass Health Bill (WASHINGTON) — President Barack Obama is prodding House and Senate Democrats to get him a final health care bill as soon as possible, encouraging them to bypass the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed. Obama delivered the message at an Oval Office meeting Tuesday evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined in by phone. They agreed that rather than setting up a formal conference committee to resolve differences between health bills passed last year by the House and Senate, the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting. Obama himself will take a hands-on role, convening another meeting with congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday, the aide said. ....[/RQUOTER] Obama is clearly not interested in any sort of an open process on this issue, and that includes televising the negotiations on CSPAN, as he promised repeatedly would occur during the campaign, if he were elected President, which he has been.
