This morning from Washington comes news of Obama's latest triumph over Bush Jr.:
President George W. Bush's longest stretch between prime-time, nationally televised press conferences was 214 days, from April 4 to Nov. 4, 2004. Mr. Obama tops that record on Monday, going 215 days - stretching back to July 22, according to records kept by CBS Radio's veteran reporter Mark Knoller.
This is helping right? I mean this is Change, just not the kind none of us expected? Maybe this is some kind of Chicago poker tactic?
Oh, I think I know what this is. It's called: Plain Stupid.
Out of all the campaign promises Obama made, transparency has to be one of the easiest to implement and maintain because it only requires the support of one person: himself. Sure it takes energy to perform in front of a crowd but that's the show most of this country bought tickets to see. I don't care how difficult it has been to run the country through a recession, two wars, Snowpocolypse, and a fight to change healthcare; that doesn't give any leader the privilege to hide.
None. None what-so-ever.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I agree. I appreciate the perspective.
Well said.
That's a really weird article. It (almost grudgingly) admits that the President did, in fact, hold a "mini-presser", but quickly discounts it because of—what? The location? The lack of television coverage? And then there's this bit:
> He has given 66 interviews since July 22 - including two that day, according to Mr. Knoller's records.
I'm actually curious: What was Bush's record in a comparable span of time? Or Clinton's?
I strongly agree that the executive branch should make itself more available to the press, and more frequent Q&A sessions would be excellent. But I don't see this as a general failure of the administration's larger transparency campaign, which has frankly accomplished quite a bit.
Hmmmm - He seems to be everywhere. Is it just that he doesn't do press conferences with the jokers in the White House press core? Just because he's snubbing them doesn't mean he's snubbing us does it?
Couldn't agree less, Greg. Obama is in front of cameras answering questions far more often than his predecessor. And he's doing it in far less controlled environments than an official press conference. The Times is a partisan rag grabbing hold of a single statistical anomaly to make a Fox-News-like point. You just bit the bait.
Imagine this is software. Do you prefer the wait for the big update from IE6 and IE7, or do you prefer the small but frequent updates of Firefox?
Even that article, if you read past the biased language to the end, states:
-----
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama tops his predecessor in total output. He has given 43 press conferences of various degrees, six of which were solo White House sessions, Mr. Knoller said. During the same period, Mr. Bush gave 24 press conferences...
-----
The 'Obama Epic Change Fail' meme has really taken hold, even more than I expected.
First, that's a terrible way to measure transparency, isn't it? Measuring the number of appearances doesn't tell you how substantively he engaged them OR how honest he was.
Second, (not that you'd be aware given your location, but) those of us in the DC area know that the Times is a conservative paper that is (supposedly) about to shut down news operations completely and become JUST and opinion paper. It's owned by the Reverend Moon (of the Moonies) and reflects his personal POV, and has never even tried to seem like a reputable news organization.
It seems timely that the health care summit is on live right now. Seems fairly transparent, and the GOP is not happy, the right wing tends not to like a public, open forum, because they get hammered.
I would say the right wing tends not to like a public, open forum that is moderated by a left wing president, just as the left wing would not like a public, open forum moderated by a right wing president.
In all fairness to the president, while he may have intended on being transparent, he may have found out after entering the White House that it would not be as easy as he thought.
Greg, you are accurate in your assessment. While I do not identify with either the right or the left, I do feel that any politician (even the president) is subject to scrutiny when he or she simply does not follow through with a commitment.
> I would say the right wing tends not to like a public, open forum that is moderated by a left wing president, just as the left wing would not like a public, open forum moderated by a right wing president.
The left would LOVE an open, public forum moderated by a right wing president. The right depends on misinformation, so they do poorly in a forum where the truth can get out. In fact, that's how Obama got elected, the social web was an effective 'open forum' that made the traditional right wing machine much less effective.
It's kinda funny that Americans think Obama is such a lefty. Here in Canada he'd still be right leaning. To us, single payer healthcare is a centre/moderate position. To you folks your heads explode when anyone even mentions single payer. It's crazy. C'est la vie, it's an interesting show to watch anyway.
All speeches are essentially and at their most fundamental level dictatorial in nature. I'm continually amazed by how many people get a shiver down their leg each time they hear anyone give a speech. Only he or she who will take my questions and answer them directly respects me enough to consider my true needs.
As for single-payer health, or Canadian socialism in general: I have to say that most every Canadian I've met seems hard working and has a great sense of community and patriotism - all essential elements to economically-sound socialist policies. Regretfully, I'd say most Americans do not support such policies here because we don't have that same confidence in our fellow Americans, and thereby we have good reason (and the data to prove it) to believe that such policies would have disastrous results here. I wish it weren't so.
I always knew that you were a closet NRA member and Sarah Palin supporter, Greg. Now we have proof. You have committed blasphemy by criticizing Obama.
> all essential elements to economically-sound socialist policies
I would take out the 'socialist' part. Sure, we're socialist, if you need to define it that way, but that's really just putting a label on policies that make sense and are good for everyone. Why not just say 'economically sound'? The 'right' is fundamentally wrong with the idea that individualism should be paramount, that assumption leads to a lot of flawed policies. Single payer healthcare is objectively better, there's no question about that, but the folks on the right will never accept it because it goes against that core belief that an individual's rights and freedoms come before all other things. So a good idea is rejected because of a belief. I think it must be a cultural difference, the US is heavily programmed with the notion of individualism, a good, common sense idea like single payer will never happen, even though most of the issues that both the left and right are moaning about re: the current US healthcare system would be solved by single payer.
Individualism is a good and important facet of humanity. The notion of society implies ceding individual liberties such that the group can function, but not all of them. It's a balance. As in all things, the "truth" about healthcare is nowhere to be found, because no objective truth exists. The the best approximation of it is somewhere in between the extremes.
I'm sorta libertarian and am not sure about the various points of the healthcare "reform" plans being discussed. I do think it's only sensible for states to subsidize at least preventative healthcare, considering how American society is rife with easily-prevented ailments. It costs orders of magnitude more to treat most problems as manifested disease than it would have cost for routine, state-sponsored checkups and preventative care.