During the race for the Democrat nomination Sen. Barack Obama pledged that he would "have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Well, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb took, then Sen. Obama, seriously and offered C-SPAN services to air the conference committee proceedings as leaders in the House and Senate look to merge the health care reform bills. The letter that CEO Lamb sent can be seen here: http://www.c-span.com/pdf/C-SPAN%20Health%20Care%20Letter.pdf. The offer by C-SPAN includes all the hardware to show all sessions "LIVE and in their entirety" while giving complete access to all footage to any "member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool."
In so many words, the Obama administration, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi are saying thank you but no thank you. The latest report on C-SPAN's webpage, http://www.c-span.com/Topics/Health-Care-Insurance-Reform-Legislation-Town-Hall.aspx, that "the leadership is considering bypassing a formal conference committee in resolving differences between House and Senate versions of the legislation." Now, why is there not more public outcry by Americans or the mass media? The potential passage of health care reform will have massive implications to every American. Shouldn't Obama be held to his pledge of keeping the negotiations open and "televised on C-SPAN"?
Why are we so content on sitting idly by and watch the majority party dictate reform to America? What are they hiding? Will another Nebraska deal come through the pipeline? Perhaps Rep. Pelosi has it right about Obama when she said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31180.html). Is this what we are to accept as free citizens of the United States a secret government that has expanded its power and reach into the free market? It's about accountability and by Congressional leaders and President Obama no televising the conference committee sessions and potentially skipping the conference committee process all together, why are more Americans not enraged by the trampling of the process?
I was told a long time ago that a man is only as good as his word. What does this tell us about those that run our country? What does that tell us about our society that accepts it?
That would be the legislative branch, not the administration as you state, that has rejected the request. The letter was sent to the legislative leaders, not Obama.
ReplyDeleteYet, the leaders of the legislative branch and member of the Obama administration held a meeting yesterday to discuss the merging of the two bills. Why not televise it? Are we naive enough to think that if the President requested the conference committee to allow the cameras in they would not comply? Really?
ReplyDeleteI think it's very clear based on the health care bill that Obama doesn't just get what he wants from Congress. There is also a seperation of powers issue. Obama doesn't control what Congress does. Far from it. He can't just tell them what to do. Should we televise every meeting our officials have in Washington? I'm sure each side would love to watch the others strategy meetnigs, which is exactly what that was.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, your headline state the administration refused is factually inaccurate.
I understand the seperation of powers issue and understand that Congress is entitled to go their own way. And by administration, I use that term in is most liberal definition as such it is not factually inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteNow strategy sessions are different than conference committee meetings. I think all committee meetings ought to be published, aired, and allowed entrance by any member of the United States. It would be fun to watch the strategy sessions. Why do you think the majority of debate in the waning weeks of the Senate last year took place during the wee hours of the morning...because the administration does not want to be as transparent as it touts itself to be.
The sad part is our Constitution is be trampled on and those that are doing the trampling are hiding in the crevaces of Capitol Hill. Let's demand a light be turned on so we can watch the rats scatter. This way we do not have to rely on media run media or talk radio to decipher the codex. We, average Americans, can witness our freedoms being stripped away.
There is no liberal definition of administration that would cover the legislative branch.
ReplyDeletehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/administration
Using the referenced website you gave, I can apply this definition to all leaders on the Hill:
ReplyDelete2. the function of a political state in exercising its governmental duties.
As the Legislative branch will be exercising their governmental duties to meet in conference committee to craft a bill that both the House and Senate are to vote on. Thank you for providing the link to I could define more clearly the manner in which I have used the word.
Admit it Ardent Viper, you just want to tie the President to anything bad that happens or any event or decision that would result in one of his promises being broken.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I'm not so "drunk" (one of your favorite words apparently; it could explain a lot about this blog) on Obama as some. I'm cynical enough to think that he made that promise knowing he'd be unable to really require the Congress to do everything on C-SPAN. Broken promise? Not really. Empty promise? Maybe.
Back to the original issue. The "Obama Administration" is just that, his administration as the President of the United States. He appoints, for the most part, his administration and some of those appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate. The "Obama Administration" is quite different from Congress, the House of Representatives or the Senate.
I think you need to wake up to the sad reality that "our freedoms" have been "trampled" for years and years. One could argue that this has gone on since the establishment of our country. It's nothing new. That doesn't make it right, but it should at least be acknowledged. It's all about who's ox is being gored. From what I've read of your blog, I'm sure you weren't so uncomfortable with the way in which Obama's predecessor trampled upon the Constitution.
Not everyone in this country is as interested in politics as you. In fact, I'd be so bold as to guess that less than half our country really cares enough about what goes on in D.C. to spend any time reading about it or watching it on TV. Less than half you ask? Just look at voter turnout in this country, especially on off year elections.
Finally, what makes you think that airing Senate or House proceedings would make them any less of a showpiece than they are right now? It would just be another forum in which politicians could grandstand. They'd create another layer of meetings out of the public spotlight so they could do the real dirty work of legislating.
If you think that definition and explanation really works for you and that's really, honestly what you had in mind at the beginning, thinking of that specific definition, which you didn't even know about, then I guess you are right, like always.
ReplyDeleteAnon..Yes my intention with the word administration was more than just the executive branch. I read the letter and I knew that to whom it was addressed. I lumped the Democrats into one pot as they are proceeding to bypass the conference committee and iron out the details behind closed doors - something that Obama campaigned he would not do and something that Pelosi is on regard as saying that this Congress will be the most ethical and a transparent. We are not getting that.
ReplyDeleteI am not looking to be right. I will attempt to do better with defining potentially ambiguous words in the future.
I acknowledge that “Obama administration” is separate from the groups in the Legislative Branch. At least that aspect of the Founding Fathers is ringing true. And yes, had I started this blog during the Bush administration there would be entries blasting the outrageous spending and insane legislation enacted under the guise of “protecting the nations security”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as well that many people are turned off by politics and voter turnout is rather low in comparison other industrialized countries. That is why I write my blog though. To talk about the politics of the day and I know that a few readers are better off from our conversations as they do not follow it as closely as you or I do. The entitlement attitude of many Americans that takes our freedoms for granted is bothersome as well. Perhaps that is why they don’t see the erosion of freedoms that is and has been taking place.
Obama is not the first President to break campaign promises or use Czar’s to circumvent Senate confirmations or even to use re-treads from previous administrations. Nor was he the first President to talk about change, unfortunately many believe him and I had hoped that his rhetoric had substance even though I suspected otherwise. We need to hold each other more accountable for our own actions and get back to someone’s Word meaning something. Until that happens, our politicians will continue to strip our freedoms, trample on the Constitution, and offer empty suits for the office of President.
To Anon that thought my Administration is a misleading statement...since I wrote this post the leaders in the House and Senate have meet with the President and his staff to hammer out what the conference committee is suppose to do. Here is what Nancy Pelosi said a few days ago.."We've had a very intense couple of days," Pelosi said. "After our leadership meeting this morning, our staff engaged with the Senate and the administration staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we're very close to reconciliation."
ReplyDeleteWhy cannot these meetings be aired on C-SPAN. These meetings President Obama has direct control over....Where is the transparency?