guys please stop responding, the baggers have been owned on the separation of powers issue and now they are just begging.
Please, show me where Obama said "I will make sure that every minute of the health care debate is televised." If he didn't say that or something like that, he is not a "liar."
Here is what he said: <embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgbu%2BTwI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
In his statements in the video, he specifically calls for the "negotiations" to be conducted on CSPAN. Feel free to click the link on the video above and see for yourself.
Riiiiiight. I don't think there is anything at all Obama could do to make himself "credible" in your eyes or in the eyes of any other Faux News watchers.
Yes there is. If Barack Obama were to diligently commit himself to telling the truth, and following through on his promises by doing what he said he will do, that would go a long way towards strengthening Obama's credibility in everybody's eyes. And not just here in the United States, but in capitols around the world.
I watched the video and subsequently asked you a question. Since you didn't answer, I will point out that at no time did Obama "promise" that every minute of negotiations would be televised (discounting the fact that such a promise would have been outside the scope of his power as the Congress sets their own rules). In addition, the entire debate (all three thousand mind numbing hours of it, excuse the hyperbole) was televised on C-SPAN, so the American people did see the debate. What is going on now is a high level reconciliation that is not happening on the floor of the Congress. When they have something concrete to debate (a reconciled healthcare bill), I would be VERY surprised if the debate over the reconciled bill was not on C-SPAN. So, given all of this, thumbs' accusation of Obama being a "liar" WRT this issue makes him look like a partisan ass and you supporting thumbs' accusation paints you with the same brush. Of course, we already knew that.
I can see it now: "President trying to overstep the bounds of his office telling the senate to televise their hearings."
The partisans here are those who can watch the video of his previous commitments on this topic and still blindly try to defend him on this issue.
You haven't been paying attention, apparently. America gained a LOT of credibility back once we ousted GWB and elected Obama. He has had so much credibility given to him by worldwide leaders that he got a (premature IMO) Nobel freaking prize. That is not something that happens when a leader lacks credibility on the worldwide stage. The only people who don't find Obama "credible" are the teabagging Fauxbots who wouldn't know a liar if he smacked them with the WMDs he found "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Forget Obama and his rhetoric. That was not the intent of the thread question and I apologize for letting myself go down that road. Let's get back to the question of whether C-Span should be allowed by Congress to televise the hearings. Is it better that the public understands what lawmakers want to put into the bill -- or not?
The debate over the reconciled bill will be on C-SPAN. The negotiations going on right now are relatively unimportant. Everyone with a brain knows that what will come out of these negotiations is a virtual copy of the Senate bill with a couple of tweaks from the House bill. The only reason the people who told you to take up this issue want to see these negotiations televised is so that they can cherry pick statements by members of Congress in order to use them for political gain.
Separate from the partisan silliness, I think the question is a good one (Should the currently closed door negotiations be televised?). I'm actually torn on that question. Part of me thinks it should certainly be televised. I'd like to know what is being discussed and why. I'd like to know what kind of backroom deals are going on. I'd like to know who is negotiating in good faith and who is more worried about getting re-elected. But at the same time, I'm aware that humans are a lot dumber than we think we are. There are probably a lot of dumb things said behind closed doors. If those things were shown, there would be a lot of people dumbly taking those comments out of context or blowing them out of proportion. In front of cameras and microphones politicians shape their messages and are (usually) more careful about what they say because it is all too easy to get into trouble even when you don't screw up what you're trying to articulate. If you televise everything there's the potential for even more politicking and statement manipulation and junk like that. I can't stand how much of that stuff is done now, and televising all negotiations would make it even worse. But if I had to pick I'd say televise them. I'd rather let people be dumb than not be able to see what is going on at all. I don't expect that to happen here, there is just too much political risk to showing those discussions, and since the Democrats are the only ones involved they won't add that burden on to themselves on such an important piece of legislation. But I would like to see it get done some time this year on other stuff.
I disagree (with the first part). The negotiations going on now, and the ones that happened already, are important, and are actually more important than the televised floor debates. Obama (for example) did want the negotiations televised, and not because he wanted statements cherry picked for political gain. There are legitimate reasons to want to do that. I just think that now he is backing off that pledge for the time being because the health care bill is too important to him and he doesn't want to risk a scandal (fabricated or otherwise) that could derail it.
Be serious. If any world leader were to diligently stick to his campaign promises regardless of the consequences, he'd be seen as a fool by foreign leaders, and domestic power brokers as well. If credibility is what he needs (which he doesn't), waylaying himself in a slavish adherence to electioneering promises is the last thing in the world he needs to be doing. What he would need to do is to get concrete things done -- like passing a huge healthcare reform bill. Thanks for trying to get us back on track. I think you are unduly villainized. In general, I don't see why any activity on the floors of the Senate or the House shouldn't be televised. So, yes, C-SPAN should be there if the congressmen are. However, I don't think it will add a whole lot of value. House and Senate have already debated this thing for months; both have bills; we already know 90% of what the final bill will look like. You should know where your congressmen stand on the issue already. Now, they are simply reconciling the two bills. The gulf between the Senate and House versions is much smaller than the gulf between doing it and not doing it.
Well, yes and no. The public really doesn't have a clue as to what the health care bill is going to look like. However, they should know how each legislator is approaching the bill so they know whether to support or challenge that legislator and why. The positive result of televising the hearings is that fewer cozy deals can be worked out, but the negative result is that legislators will be afraid to speak their minds. However, I tend to believe the former outweighs the latter. BTW, no one ever tells me to take up or drop any issue -- my total independence is too dear to me. I would think you already know that. I use my head to follow my heart.
You have to have an especially warped view of the world to regard the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama as being credible in any way. This was entirely a partisan political exercise, and the final diminution of any credibility that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee once had. The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, and the awarding of this prize to Barack Obama was an even bigger joke. There is a difference between popularity and credibility. There is a difference between being a celebrity and having respect. Obama is popular, and a celebrity of sorts, but he is not respected, and his credibility is rapidly waning, not only in this country, but around the world. A better measure of Obama's credibility around the world would be his international accomplishments, or lack thereof. A few examples would include: 1. His failed trip to Copenhagen in an effort to win the Olympics for Chicago, 2. His second failed trip to Copenhagen in connection with the Climate Change Summit, 3. His failed overtures to Iran, which included him standing idly by after the Iranian elections while the Iranian people protesting in the streets, with the Iranian regime brutal attacking the protesters. 4. His concession to the Russians canceling the Eastern European missile shield, and throwing our Eastern European allies under the bus, in exchange for an expectation that the Russians would press Iran with regards to their Nuclear weapons program, which of course has not happened and will not happened. 5. His failed trip to China and the far East, which yielded a lot of bowing by him, but no concessions or progress on any significant issue, especially with the Chinese. Get a grip. The world is laughing at us, and at Barack Obama, especially after this latest fiasco with the panty bomber. If we could not catch this guy, who can we catch? And then DHS Secretary Napolitano and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs came out immediately afterwards and insisted that the system worked just fine. The agenda of political correctness promoted by this administration is proving to be quite dangerous for us, and the world is laughing at the foolishness of the current administration as a result. Barack Obama is weak, and the major powers around the world treat Obama as the weakling he is. He is popular, but he is not respected, and he has the accomplishments and influence in matters of foreign affairs that would be expected to go with that unfortunate combination.
