Obama: "Sunlight before Signing"

[Tex]

Byron York:

Back during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised something he called “Sunlight Before Signing.” Obama complained that “too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them.” So he pledged that, as president, he would “not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.”

“Sunlight Before Signing” faded into darkness with the first bill that came across Obama’s desk. The new president signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act two days after it was passed by Congress — and without posting it on the White House Web site.

That lasted long.

[MikeWaters]

I wonder if Obama will go down as the president who most contributed to American cynicism.

Hope. Change. Kersplat.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I wonder if Obama will go down as the president who most contributed to American cynicism.

Hope. Change. Kersplat.

Nixon was never viewed as trustworthy, but Obama ran on "hope" for change. So will Obama go down as the president who shattered the delusions of more voters than ever before?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nixon was never viewed as trustworthy, but Obama ran on "hope" for change. So will Obama go down as the president who shattered the delusions of more voters than ever before?

Not at all, because Obama is earnest and no matter how often he disappoints us, we won't think he's actually lying to us (although we detect his craftiness -- he's no "sap"!).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

Not at all, because Obama is earnest and no matter how often he disappoints us, we won't think he's actually lying to us (although we detect his craftiness -- he's no "sap"!).

In reality, I don't sense that those most likely suited for disappointment and disillusion, the twenty somethings or thirty somethings are as politically invested or interested. People of the sixties were interested in major social changes, Civil Rights, Vietnam had dragged on, and rampant social change pervaded the campuses. Plus the media detested Nixon. You expected what we got.

With Obama, the odds of the media every getting on his case, is next to nil. They will defend him until the end. So I go back and forth whether his regressions will cause widespread disillusion with government. In one respect, I hope so, so that we can abandon reliance upon government solutions.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In reality, I don't sense that those most likely suited for disappointment and disillusion, the twenty somethings or thirty somethings are as politically invested or interested. People of the sixties were interested in major social changes, Civil Rights, Vietnam had dragged on, and rampant social change pervaded the campuses. Plus the media detested Nixon. You expected what we got.

With Obama, the odds of the media every getting on his case, is next to nil. They will defend him until the end. So I go back and forth whether his regressions will cause widespread disillusion with government. In one respect, I hope so, so that we can abandon reliance upon government solutions.

not true. the media is going to get bored and turn on him.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

not true. the media is going to get bored and turn on him.

No, he's one of theirs, he's their choice. If they were to turn on him, they would have to admit they were wrong. The media would never admit fault. The media never really turned on Clinton but did turn on Carter.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, he's one of theirs, he's their choice. If they were to turn on him, they would have to admit they were wrong. The media would never admit fault. The media never really turned on Clinton but did turn on Carter.

the news cycle was not the same during Clinton's era as it is now. It is 50x faster now.

[Tex]

From the "Audacity of Hope":

Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate — to negotiate in good faith.

If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'

My how times change with the rotation of the party in power. Or not.