RECENT POSTS
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
- Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Include “Benchmarks” and “Off-Ramps,” Announcement Next Week
- The Presidential Planner
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
From the Fact Check Desk: Is McCain's 'Transparency' Attack on President Obama Accurate?
February 15, 2009 1:08 PM
On CNN's "State of the Union," today, President Obama's election rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., attacked the Democrat for lack of transparency.
"Candidate Obama said that these (legislative) conferences would be open to the public," McCain said. "Said that the American people would have 5 days to view (legislation) on the Internet. There (were) commitments made that certainly aren't being kept now."
Is that true?
Yep.
On June 22, 2007, at New Hampshire Community Technical College in Manchester, NH, then-Sen. Barack Obama said, "when I'm president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy. That's a commitment i'm going to make to you as president. No more secrecy."
And, the future president further pledged, "when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out whats in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing."
This was later massaged to a pledge that President Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
Clearly, as Politifact points out, President Obama didn't abide by that promise for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, or the S-CHIP bill.
Politifact thus labeled this President Obama's first broken promise.
The stimulus bill, meanwhile, wasn't posted onto the White House website until Friday. The President will sign it four days later, on Tuesday.
The stimulus bill clearly would be considered "emergency" legislation, but if one goes by the original language President Obama used in 2007, this bill will also fall short of the 'five days on the White House website before signing it' pledge.
The good news about this broken Obama promise -- he still can fix it for future legislation. It's not a one-shot deal.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor's response: "During the campaign, the president committed to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting nonemergency legislation online for five days before signing it. The president remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House has posted legislation expected to come to the president's desk online for comment. We will be implementing this policy in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar. In the meantime, we will continue to post legislation on our Web site for comment as it moves through Congress over the next few weeks."
In the next few days we will review the suddenly budget-hawkish rhetoric of congressional Republicans and the way they spent money in the Bush era. Feel free to post nominees below.
- jpt
February 15, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (184)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Wasn't the Obama "promise" above only one of seven he made in the same speech? How did the others fare?
Posted by: Tom Dittman | Mar 2, 2009 7:58:55 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
Posted by: Elaina | Feb 23, 2009 7:05:40 AM
Tapper, keep up the good work. At least you will ask a serious question not just set the Prez or his spokesman up for a good soundbite.
Thanks!
Posted by: alhauswife | Feb 17, 2009 3:01:12 PM
JKS..."Specifics are important here" NOT ON A PUBLIC SITE....PLEASE be mindful of your comments.........
Are you kidding me? This information is widely available.
Posted by: JKS | Feb 17, 2009 2:33:57 PM
JKS..."Specifics are important here" NOT ON A PUBLIC SITE....PLEASE be mindful of your comments.........
Posted by: Parallax View | Feb 17, 2009 2:24:20 PM
Change we can count on. Are you awake yet? If you would have done your homework before you voted, we wouldn't be in this situation. Well, if your on the pinko side, maybe it is the change you wanted. WAKE UP AMERICA!
Posted by: Foxwood | Feb 17, 2009 1:37:54 PM
"KR - The F22 can not land on an aircraft carrier."
I know that, I flew off carriers. I never said it DID fly off CV's, I mentioned CV's as one of our "edges" in superpower status as something that must be maintained and improved.
"It is estimated roughly 2/3 of the existing F 22's have major corrosion problems."
All new aircraft have development problems after production. Doesn't mean you scrap it or don't fix it. Complex aircraft in todays military MUST be funded and maintained, not only to keep the airframes viable, but to keep our flyers safe. I flew in the late 90's, I saw first hand 6 friends of mine perish from training. I blame at least 4 of those crashes on poorly funded maintenance. So don't lecture me on military funding unless you've been there.
"To suggest the F 22 is the only thing keeping America from losing its "superpower" status is selling America way short and simpleminded."
I explicitly did not say "only", it is definitely one of those assets contributing to that. The latest Sukoi's being sold around the world are on par, if not superior to our current inventory of F18's, F16's, and F15's. The F22 is the only thing in our inventory that is better than it is. For that reason alone, it is worth keeping it up. The Russians are also selling their most advanced Air to Air missile systems that, at least in the IR realm, is superior to ours until we get the newest AIM9 deployed. We still have a slight edge in radar guided missiles but that is fading fast. The last thing we want is to accept status quo while our competitors are advancing.
Posted by: KR | Feb 17, 2009 11:12:23 AM
KR - The F22 can not land on an aircraft carrier.
It is estimated roughly 2/3 of the existing F 22's have major corrosion problems.
To suggest the F 22 is the only thing keeping America from losing its "superpower" status is selling America way short and simpleminded.
There is something called options and with the BILLIONS in cost overruns and repairs for the F22, it would be prudent, wise and in the best interest of our National Security to consider all of them.
Posted by: JKS | Feb 17, 2009 10:23:53 AM
And btw, National Defense has always been, and will always be, a command economy. To lump national defense in the same boat as billions for community organizing is just silly. National Defense should always be steady and consistent, and in our case, on the tip of technology and capability to keep our edge over strategic competitors.
Posted by: KR | Feb 17, 2009 9:32:38 AM
On the F22,
The F22 serves an important strategic role folks. The F22 is the most capable air superiority fighter in the world. It is what keeps us one step ahead of everyone else. It is NOT a waste of money. I was a pilot in the Navy and if you study the history of air power, you'll know that whoever has that "edge" is the "superpower".
If you wish to reduce our status as a superpower, by all means kill programs like the B2, F22 and support for new Aircraft Carriers. Maybe we can join the likes of Ukraine, Poland, and Taiwan and get bullied by Russia and China in geopolitics.
Fact is Russia is reconstituting, China has been building its military capacity for a decade. The last thing we should do is get off our game.
American's live a sheltered life under the umbrella of such assets as aircraft carriers, B2s, and F22's. Don't go poking holes in the umbrella. You won't like a your life without that shelter. Ask the Georgians.
Posted by: KR | Feb 17, 2009 9:27:35 AM
Have some of you even looked at that bill? Huffington post has 3 versions. The House version, the Senate Version and a brief Summary by theSenate Appropriations Committee of the finaly bill.
From what I see there are quite a few mistruths on here as to what actually passed. Go do your research and quit whining. Just type in 2009 stimulus bill Huffington post. It's that simple.
Posted by: Jwench | Feb 17, 2009 7:14:57 AM
Barack Obama is dishonest. Simple as that.
Posted by: mary | Feb 16, 2009 6:52:15 PM
The real question is ....IS MCCAIN ACCURATE ABOUT ANYTHING.
Give him a day or two he will flip flop on anything.
Hmmmmm.....
Wonder why he didn't get elected????
Posted by: Omentum | Feb 16, 2009 6:29:42 PM
Parallax View - Specifics are important here. No one is suggesting compromising National Security. F 22 was designed to fight the likes of China and Russia for the Cold War. It performs substandard in heat, does not have long range capability and must take off and land from a fixed base. Yes, it has many great features too that are mind-blowing, but it doesn't change the question if this the best area of National Security to spend taxpayer's money?
Posted by: JKS | Feb 16, 2009 5:02:58 PM
Johnny just wants to spend money the traditional GOP way: on fruitless wars and tax cuts for the rich!
Posted by: wickedlittledoll | Feb 16, 2009 4:37:22 PM
JKS..Without going into specifics and enough said, you could never be MORE WRONG regarding the F-22...The Raptor does not just dominate the airspace...IT OWNS IT..How much is too much when you are talking National Security...Infinite
Posted by: Parallax View | Feb 16, 2009 4:28:16 PM
Mike_C - I think the F 22 is already outdated, overblown and not necessarily where the military needs to be spending money. From a stimulus perspective, yes, it will keep jobs, but the complete irony is watching all these free market, hyper fiscal conservatives suddenly find their inner Karl Marx and go all command economy on us when it comes to big defense programs - like yourself......
Posted by: JKS | Feb 16, 2009 4:10:44 PM
got this from newsmax. same thing is popping up on other sites.. there's a video of Obama pledging to have a 5 day wait period before signing anybills and promising to go thru it line by line with us to elimate pork. there is areason why he broke his pledge, he is getting a piece of this pork, i wonder how much....
The bill now spans more than 1,000 pages. While Democrats removed some provisions that fiscal conservatives objected to, most of the pork remains. Among them:
The plan has more than $3 billion in “neighborhood stabilization” and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which may go to benefit ACORN, a low-income housing and voter registration “community” organization that is under federal investigation for its suspicious voter registration practices.
$1.3 billion to bailout AMTRAK, the perennial money-loser railroad.
$1 billion for educational programs, including courses on sexually transmitted diseases.
$30 million for restoration of wetlands to be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district. The money will go in part to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.
$200 million for a low-pollution, coal-fired power plant in President Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois.
$45 million for ATV four-wheeler trails, and government office renovations, according to RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
$200 million to provide computers to community colleges.
$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.
Over $650 million in coupons to help consumers buy digital TV converter-box coupons.
A reported $300 million for hybrid vehicles and electric-powered cars. According to the Washington Times, this item will include buying golf carts for federal workers.
Posted by: jaj | Feb 16, 2009 3:53:56 PM
Maybe Obama wont sign the bill for the F22 because it is a collosal waste of time and money. Sorry about the 100 K jobs but seriously join the rest of the country who are already in the toilet. Maybe the money can be done to support something besides make work for defense companies.
------------------------------------
mike,
Now here is the real voice of reason...LOL
LETS SPEND 700 Billion & HOPE we fix the financial system.....
LETS SPEND 800 Billion & HOPE we can create/save a few jobs.....
Lets NOT spend 9 Billion and KEEP nearly 100,000 jobs!...
So, now you liberals get to choose which jobs we should save. Im sure that will fly well with American public. Talk about destroying ALL confidence!!!!
JKS,
If you knew ANYTHING at all, why not bring it up over the past few weeks? It was a slam dunk for the DEMS & Obama, yet they continue to let 100,000 familes sway in the wind. Proof Positive that this adminstartion and its congressional allies care more about their agenda than the American people and their jobs!
Persoanlly I couldn't care less what you think about me. I am not the issue, the issue is JOBS & CONFIDENCE.
We know where mike stands, he has no interest in working towards a solution!
Do you favor extending the F-22 ? OR do you want put another 100,00 on the unployment rolls?
Posted by: Mike_C | Feb 16, 2009 3:16:37 PM
Maybe Obama wont sign the bill for the F22 because it is a collosal waste of time and money. Sorry about the 100 K jobs but seriously join the rest of the country who are already in the toilet. Maybe the money can be done to support something besides make work for defense companies.
Posted by: mike | Feb 16, 2009 2:57:45 PM
Post a comment


