Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

[RockX]

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

Groups that advocate open government have argued that it's vital to know the names of White House visitors, who may have an outsized influence on policy matters.

The visitor logs have been released in only a few isolated cases, most notably records of visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the Bush White House, and in the "filegate" investigation of the Clinton White House. Only the Bush and Obama administrations are known to have made an argument in court that the visitor logs should be private.

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, "such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge. The visitor logs are created by the Secret Service and maintained by the Secret Service, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in 2007 and again this January. CREW had requested records of visits to the Bush White House, as well as the residence of Vice President Dick Cheney, by leaders of Religious Right organizations.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

LOL

Another Obama promise broken. Guess the MSNBC ass kissers thought OB would just turn the lists over to them

 

[uscitizen]

Are you complaining about Bush or Obama?

 

[Damocles]

LOL. I think he is once again pointing out a new hypocrisy. Much of the criticism of Bush was how "transparent" he wasn't, and lists of WH visitors was one of the things that was complained about specifically. Now we see what I said before, Bush does it = Teh EEEvool, Obama does it = Find Excuses... It's the magic letter syndrome.

 

[Onceler]

LOL. I think he is once again pointing out a new hypocrisy. Much of the criticism of Bush was how "transparent" he wasn't, and lists of WH visitors was one of the things that was complained about specifically. Now we see what I said before, Bush does it = Teh EEEvool, Obama does it = Find Excuses... It's the magic letter syndrome.

How very sad. You used to post so intelligently. Now....this.

 

[uscitizen]

The hypocracy goes both ways.

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL. I think he is once again pointing out a new hypocrisy. Much of the criticism of Bush was how "transparent" he wasn't, and lists of WH visitors was one of the things that was complained about specifically. Now we see what I said before, Bush does it = Teh EEEvool, Obama does it = Find Excuses... It's the magic letter syndrome.

I think it's stupid for Obama to do it but I understand why he does it. That's the trouble with the expansion of Executive power. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Executive that decides to cede the power his predecessor obtained for the office.

 

[uscitizen]

I feel that all records pertainning to visitors under investigation should be released. And all official business of state visitore as well.

However the WH is a personal residence and all personal visitors do not need to be broadcast to the sensationalistic press for the paparatzi to hound.
'

 

[blackascoal]

I think it's stupid for Obama to do it but I understand why he does it. That's the trouble with the expansion of Executive power. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Executive that decides to cede the power his predecessor obtained for the office.

It's stupid of Obama to do it ... end of story.

But he's a centrist .. what else would one expect?

 

[Damocles]

How very sad. You used to post so intelligently. Now....this.

Actually I have much the same type of complaint about you. You used to be capable of some party introspection, but now have become a hack.

Was Bush ever criticized for not disclosing WH visitor records? Are you acting the same way now as you did during that criticism?

Questions if you ask/answer yourself honestly, may open your mind a bit. Such questions, when I ask them of myself, definitely make me more aware of how my own bias effected/effects me.

 

[Damocles]

I think it's stupid for Obama to do it but I understand why he does it. That's the trouble with the expansion of Executive power. You'd be hard-pressed to find an Executive that decides to cede the power his predecessor obtained for the office.

Now that is a fair assessment and I agree. It is tough to give up the power of the previous Executive, even when you think it is wrong.

However first to promise to be the "most transparent" then to take directly the same action that was first criticized is a bit foolish and is what I was talking about.

 

[Onceler]

Actually I have much the same type of complaint about you. You used to be capable of some party introspection, but now have become a hack.

Was Bush ever criticized for not disclosing WH visitor records? Are you acting the same way now as you did during that criticism?

Questions if you ask/answer yourself honestly, may open your mind a bit. Such questions, when I ask them of myself, definitely make me more aware of how my own bias effected/effects me.

BS, Damo. You project onto me the criticisms others made about Bush.

If you ever have a free 10 hours or so, do a search on "Bush" and "Onceler." Will you find the occasional post about transparency or WH visitor records? Frankly, I doubt it, though it's possible I made the rare comment on it. As far as my problems with Bush go, that represented about 1%, if that, and you act like I was constantly outraged by it & I'm a hypocrite for not raging against Obama for it.

Wanna know my main problem with Bush? The epic incompetence, which led to seemingly endless poor decision-making, which basically set America back years. I can't think of any area of American life that Bush's decisions didn't hurt us in some way. Naturally, much of it starts & ends with Iraq, a war of choice that I think we'll still be seeing negative ramifications on for the remainder of my life. But it goes so much farther than that...the man was so in over his head that it's tragic. If I'm asked to remove my partisan cap and genuinely think of a positive that came out of 8 years, I really have to rack my brains, and generally come up with "African aid," and that's it. That's no small thing, but man, was the last 8 years a disaster for everything I hold dear as a national priority - education, energy, the environment, equality, et al.

You will be able to find endless minutia - and yes, I consider this kind of stuff minutia in the scheme of things, no matter who is President - to post on and say "where is Onceler & the left?" and "why aren't they outraged about this like they were under Bush?" The fact is, like I said, this kind of BS is about 1% of what I couldn't stand about the Bush years. It does a great disservice to the things that DO bug me to even suggest otherwise.

 

[Bonestorm]

Now that is a fair assessment and I agree. It is tough to give up the power of the previous Executive, even when you think it is wrong.

However first to promise to be the "most transparent" then to take directly the same action that was first criticized is a bit foolish and is what I was talking about.

Being the "most transparent" doesn't require handing over every document that someone asks to take a peak at.

Its stupid to refuse to hand over the visitor logs because he's going to lose. Since the eventual outcome is that the courts will order the release of the visitor logs there is no reason to not cooperate. And if you release the documents you don't lose your "transparency" cred on a pointless endeavor.

I assume you think that, while the argument against their release is stupid, because this is a watchdog group and not a congressional committee with subpoena power Obama is within his authority to refuse to release the logs. No?

 

[Onceler]

BS, Damo. You project onto me the criticisms others made about Bush.

If you ever have a free 10 hours or so, do a search on "Bush" and "Onceler." Will you find the occasional post about transparency or WH visitor records? Frankly, I doubt it, though it's possible I made the rare comment on it. As far as my problems with Bush go, that represented about 1%, if that, and you act like I was constantly outraged by it & I'm a hypocrite for not raging against Obama for it.

Wanna know my main problem with Bush? The epic incompetence, which led to seemingly endless poor decision-making, which basically set America back years. I can't think of any area of American life that Bush's decisions didn't hurt us in some way. Naturally, much of it starts & ends with Iraq, a war of choice that I think we'll still be seeing negative ramifications on for the remainder of my life. But it goes so much farther than that...the man was so in over his head that it's tragic. If I'm asked to remove my partisan cap and genuinely think of a positive that came out of 8 years, I really have to rack my brains, and generally come up with "African aid," and that's it. That's no small thing, but man, was the last 8 years a disaster for everything I hold dear as a national priority - education, energy, the environment, equality, et al.

You will be able to find endless minutia - and yes, I consider this kind of stuff minutia in the scheme of things, no matter who is President - to post on and say "where is Onceler & the left?" and "why aren't they outraged about this like they were under Bush?" The fact is, like I said, this kind of BS is about 1% of what I couldn't stand about the Bush years. It does a great disservice to the things that DO bug me to even suggest otherwise.

I would add to this that your posts directed at me are nothing more than a projection of your own bias. A conservative on this board can post something absolutely insane, yet you consistently only comment on whatever some leftie posts in response to that insanity, focusing only on what you see as "right" in the initial post. You basically let everything else slide, as long as the ideology is more in line w/ yours.

 

[Damocles]

BS, Damo. You project onto me the criticisms others made about Bush.

If you ever have a free 10 hours or so, do a search on "Bush" and "Onceler." Will you find the occasional post about transparency or WH visitor records? Frankly, I doubt it, though it's possible I made the rare comment on it. As far as my problems with Bush go, that represented about 1%, if that, and you act like I was constantly outraged by it & I'm a hypocrite for not raging against Obama for it.

Wanna know my main problem with Bush? The epic incompetence, which led to seemingly endless poor decision-making, which basically set America back years. I can't think of any area of American life that Bush's decisions didn't hurt us in some way. Naturally, much of it starts & ends with Iraq, a war of choice that I think we'll still be seeing negative ramifications on for the remainder of my life. But it goes so much farther than that...the man was so in over his head that it's tragic. If I'm asked to remove my partisan cap and genuinely think of a positive that came out of 8 years, I really have to rack my brains, and generally come up with "African aid," and that's it. That's no small thing, but man, was the last 8 years a disaster for everything I hold dear as a national priority - education, energy, the environment, equality, et al.

You will be able to find endless minutia - and yes, I consider this kind of stuff minutia in the scheme of things, no matter who is President - to post on and say "where is Onceler & the left?" and "why aren't they outraged about this like they were under Bush?" The fact is, like I said, this kind of BS is about 1% of what I couldn't stand about the Bush years. It does a great disservice to the things that DO bug me to even suggest otherwise.

No, I don't. You simply personalize every comment I make then attack me as if all of them are about you and defend others by attempting to be the martyr.

You criticize me for pointing out that people on your side criticized Bush for this, yet will excuse Obama for it by pretending I made the comment directly about you. Then when I point out how hackish it is you pretend you are a victim. It's fricking sad.

 

[Damocles]

I would add to this that your posts directed at me are nothing more than a projection of your own bias. A conservative on this board can post something absolutely insane, yet you consistently only comment on whatever some leftie posts in response to that insanity, focusing only on what you see as "right" in the initial post. You basically let everything else slide, as long as the ideology is more in line w/ yours.

Seven "lefties" come to a thread, no "righties", I work to continue the conversation by adding differing points of view that are not the same as the original posters, otherwise some threads would become:

"Bush is bad."

"yeah, Bush is bad."

"Mmmhmmm, Obama is good."

"Yup, Bush is bad, Obama is good."

And the site would be boring.

Or conversely:

"Obama is bad"

"Mmmhmm, very bad"

"And he's a muslim"...

I've been called a lefty, a RINO, and a "Neo-Con", I've been called a religious righty, Ive been called an atheist all on this one board.. because I can argue any position and often will to find what people think, and IF they think.

 

[Onceler]

No, I don't. You simply personalize every comment I make then attack me as if all of them are about you and defend others by attempting to be the martyr.

You criticize me for pointing out that people on your side criticized Bush for this, yet will excuse Obama for it by pretending I made the comment directly about you. Then when I point out how hackish it is you pretend you are a victim. It's fricking sad.

No point in continuing if you can't even be honest with yourself.

 

[Damocles]

No point in continuing if you can't even be honest with yourself.

See my post just previous to this one. And you need a mirror.

 

[Bonestorm]

Seven "lefties" come to a thread, no "righties", I work to continue the conversation by adding differing points of view that are not the same as the original posters, otherwise some threads would become:

"Bush is bad."

"yeah, Bush is bad."

"Mmmhmmm, Obama is good."

"Yup, Bush is bad, Obama is good."

And the site would be boring.

Or conversely:

"Obama is bad"

"Mmmhmm, very bad"

"And he's a muslim"...

I've been called a lefty, a RINO, and a "Neo-Con", I've been called a religious righty, Ive been called an atheist all on this one board.. because I can argue any position and often will to find what people think.

Why don't you offer your opinion for a change? What's your personal take on Obama's refusal to hand over the visitor logs to this watchdog group?

 

[cawacko]

Why don't you offer your opinion for a change? What's your personal take on Obama's refusal to hand over the visitor logs to this watchdog group?

I'm not Damo but I'll answer. When you run a (very successful) campaign that your predecessor was too secretive and that you plan to make government more transparent and then you end up following what your predecessor did it reasons you might get some heat for it. At the end of the day its far from the biggest issue facing the country but to this layman and others in this instance he is sort of becoming what he has mocked.

 

[Damocles]

Why don't you offer your opinion for a change? What's your personal take on Obama's refusal to hand over the visitor logs to this watchdog group?

Well, as I said back then with Bush. I think that some things should be "private", however if the meetings were about the job they should be public record. We don't need to hear about every friend who stops by with a toy for the kids, to drop by his kids for a play-date... we do need to hear about who he meets with when creating policy, much like the energy meetings with Bush.

I also think that apparent hypocrisy is noticeable and does not add to his positive rating among those who are not in either Party who vote.