Obama team promotes transparency

Posted on by ( 19 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

WARNING!
DO NOT READ FURTHER UNTIL YOUR POPCORN IS READY

From NBC’s Savannah Guthrie
Obama transition co-chair John Podesta issued a memo today to all transition staff, outlining new procedures on transparency. Team Obama has dubbed the new policy “Seat at The Table.”

In a nutshell, the Obama team will post any documents from official meetings with outside organizations on its Web site. The site also will feature dates of the meetings and the names of organizations involved in the meetings. In the memo, Podesta told the staff, “this scope is a floor, not a ceiling.” In other words, staff are encouraged to include additional materials.

However, for privacy reasons, information regarding hiring or personnel matters will not be posted.

link
12/5/08

12/17/08….not so much

0 0 votes
Article Rating
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Meanwhile, back at the ranch safe house, Obama continues in his socialist ways:

Item: Pastor Rick Warren to officiate at the inauguration

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner

“Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Item: Obama announcing Secretary of the Interior appointment

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/politics/18salazarcnd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=us

“We are pleased that the president-elect has chosen someone who understands that there is a direct connection between federal lands and access to affordable, clean natural gas,” Mr. Smith said.

While industry officials praised his moderation, Mr. Salazar drew harsh criticism from some environmentalists.

“He is a right-of-center Democrat who often favors industry and big agriculture in battles over global warming, fuel efficiency and endangered species,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of Center for Biological Diversity, which tracks endangered species and habitat issues.

Liberals/Progressives are apoplectic over Obama’s Cabinet appointments, even as he is still being slammed as a Socialist/Marxist in blogs, such as this one. Again, this indicates that he’s making himself at home in the sweet spot of American politics.

He’s pushing Sarah Palin so far to the Right (East), that she won’t be able to see Russia anymore.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

0

“However, for privacy reasons, information regarding hiring or personnel matters will not be posted.”

Lol and re-lol! This is where all the crooked deals are done, thru his associates; it is pay to play. Gee, this guy cannot speak without studdering… what a lousy speaker, he is hard to beat.

Transparency? This guy doesn’t have a clue of what the word means. As a matter of fact, he doesn’t have a clue about anything. I would really be ashame to have a President like him if I would live in the States. When he speaks without a teleprompter he really looks like someone coming out of the movie “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”.

0

Obama is quite transparent to those willing to see him for what he truly is. Others will have to learn the hard way. Some will never face the truth.

0

Here is another one for you, Larry:

Socialism, Marxism, Communism & Obama
http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

Plus the article that you have not yet seen because it was stuck in spam and that I have linked in post #16 on thread: The Obama “change”: Public perception and a higher tolerance of secrecy. You will not believe your eyes. Obama’s house address is link to the PSL Party phone number.

0

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/more_republicans_revolt_on_oba.html?nav=rss_blog

More about the ultra-conservative “echo chamber:”

As the Republican National Committee continues its attempt to tie disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich to President-elect Barack Obama, more high-profile GOPers are rebelling against the strategy.

Newt Gingrich (Ga.), the former Speaker of the House and a potential candidate for president in 2012, wrote a letter to RNC Chair Mike Duncan on Tuesday condemning the Web video circulated by national Republicans over the weekend that sought to link Obama to Blagojevich.

Calling the video a “destructive distraction,” Gingrich added: “This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation’s troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.”

His chorus of dissent was joined later in the day by Patrick Ruffini, a prominent online voice for Republicans. (Ruffini was the e-campaign director for the RNC during the 2006 election cycle and did the same for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign.)

“It’s fair to say that any residual connections Obama may have with Gov. Blagojevich as a result of being an Illinois Senator are not the strongest part of our argument. I can understand the desire to go at Obama. But with Obama at 76% approval for the transition, our hits against him have to be clean hits, or they will blow up in our face.”

The sentiments expressed publicly by Gingrich and Ruffini are echoed privately by a number of Republican strategists who view the attempts to link Blagojevich and Obama as nothing more than a fool’s errand given the lack of evidence that the public sees any real connection between the two men.

“If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.” — Lennon and McCartney

– LW/HB

0

Obamavich and the selling of Obammunsm isn’t going to be successful. Quickly, as Hugo Chavez finds out, the free pies run out …

0

Larry, you post an editorial as proof of…anything? As for Gingrich, he is history and should stay that way since he decided to sell out years ago. Ruffini, a guy who failed miserabely is someone we should listen to?

Yes Larry, keep defending your messiah no matter what. Keep telling us we need to move more to the left. We’ll keep shaking our heads at your denial.

Bill, chavez is hurting because the price of oil is down. Oil needed to stay at $90 for him to break even since he was giving away his oil to his regional flunkies. Not to mention he’s destroyed food production. Yeah, a real utopia he’s creating there.

0

Contrasting Obama’s transparency with these numbers:

(WP) Just 23 percent in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said they trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the main problems facing the nation, the lowest level reached by either party in surveys dating back to 1982.

A majority, 56 percent, trust the Democrats to handle the nation’s top issues over the next few years, also a record in Post-ABC polling. But the GOP’s recent losses have not translated into big Democratic gains, instead the proportion who trust neither party has climbed to 15 percent.

Trust in the GOP has fallen nine points since May, driven by a 19-point decline among conservatives. Nearly one in five in that group said they trust neither party.

Among independents, nearly twice as many said they trust neither party to cope with the nation’s problems than trust Republicans – 28 percent to 17 percent. Nearly half – 46 percent – have more confidence in the Democrats, down seven points since May.

Republicans last held a significant advantage on this question in 2002.

0

You miss my point, Hard.

Gingrich isn’t saying that the GOP should move Leftward. Gingrich is saying that the GOP message has to stop being a continuance of the McCain strategy to slime Obama as being a corrupt socialist. This isn’t resonating with anyone, beyond the ultra-right echo chamber. This ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Gingrich and I don’t agree on a whole lot, but we do agree on that. Gingrich was also the most effective Republican political leader of my adult life, second only to Ronald Reagan, before he imploded over largely personal reasons. He knows the difference between effective and ineffective politics.

I personally think that Mitt Romney could have won the general election comfortably, had he remained the same sort of politician he was when he was the Massachusetts governor.

We need true economic conservatives, where the emphasis is on pay as you go economics, which is the bedrock of responsible economics, whether personal or governmental. We need at least a nod to environmental stewardship. We need no segment of society imposing its personal morality on our individual lives. We need to be more cautious about starting land wars in Asia. We need leaders who can communicate effectively and, when necessary, inspire us to make personal sacrifices for the country we profess to love. We need to recognize fellow citizens with honest differences of opinion as opponents, as opposed to enemies. We need to be pragmatic, when necessary, as opposed to being dogmatic. It’s all well and good, if arguable, to say that 11,000,000 undocumented Mexicans are a net drag on our country, but the solution to the problem has to go beyond building a big fence and dreaming of the day when they can all be deported (recalling how much trouble it was do deport a single child named Elian Gonzalez:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/world/main4185799.shtml )

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

0

Larry, I agree that we need *true* economic conservatives and government (as well as personal) responsibility. These are not issues that Obama campaigned on, nor seeks to this day. He is one big spender for government programs and expansion.

What you call “character assassination”, I call labeling Obama’s campaign promises exactly what they are using his own words… social welfare expansion (since you’re so danged hypersensitive to the word socialist…). Evidently this promise to move to government sponsored welfare “resonated” with 47.2% of the nation who did *not* vote for more social welfare, bigger government… nor a President Obama.

Ironically, what did “resonate” with Obama’s 52.8% of voters is the promise of tax cuts… a traditional conservative message that the conservatives appear to have abandoned in both principle and deeds. You should weigh this reality very carefully for assessing the future. Because if you ask most Obama voters why they voted for him, the promise of cutting taxes… i.e. leaving more in the working man’s pocket… is topping the list.

I don’t expect the Democrat party and Obama to become the “new conservatives”, despite his promises of tax cuts. It is economically and mathematically impossible for that to happen, and still allow Obama to implement his spending plans. And when that does not happen, you might want to remember that you and other voters bought Obama’s mathematically impossible campaign promises, thinking you were electing a fiscally conservative POTUS.

But, as I have said over and over, I will wait to see what a President Obama and his Dem dominated Congress does with this oppressive power in his term to cast my judgment. So far, he’s proven himself to be the campaign chameleon ( a kinder word for a politically expedient liar) as President-elect. Now it’s a waiting game to see if he and a very pushy Congress intend to over reach on their social welfare designs.

0

With the dems in charge watch that “confidence” drop like a lead balloon. Many only remember that the last time a dem was president the economy roared. They don’t recall that internet boom was the driving engine of the economy and that Clinton had nothing to do with it. They will have no such boost now.

It also doesn’t help to hear 8 years of biased attacks on the reps for simply being in charge denying the dems their “birthright”.

0

Clinton was a deficit hawk. He raised taxes and he and the GOP had an effective partnership in restraining spending. It was the best economic program of my lifetime. Pity that the GOP lost its interest in bipartisan governance toward the end of his administration, in favor of pursuing a vendetta based on character assassination, which continues to this very day as the most important plank in the GOP platform, as evidenced by many of the postings on this blog.

It was the Don McLean’s The Day the Music Died, politically speaking.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

0

#11, delusional Larry returns. No, Clinton WAS NOT a deficit hawk. The GOP which took over in 94 was. They went to war with him over spending and he eventually gave in–but leftists and people like you gave him credit.
As far as the economy being good, Clinton had nothing to do with it. The internet boom did. Larry, I don’t know why I bother with you. You are not capable of facing reality. You can only see what you want to. Clinton was a deficit hawk, there was no media bias against Bush, obama is a moderate…sheesh.

0

Hard, If you read anything about the Clinton economic team (e.g. Robert Rubin), and Clinton’s “focus like a laser” on the economy plan, you will understand that he was indeed, the consummate Presidential deficit hawk. That’s why he raised taxes. It’s also why he did, indeed, work very effectively with the GOP on matters such as budgetary restraint, NAFTA, and welfare reform. Under all US Presidents since WWII, the ratio of GNP to national debt increased markedly, save for the Presidencies of Reagan and George W Bush, where this ratio fell precipitously. This is because, to Reaganomics, deficits don’t matter. We’ve got two wars going on? No problem, let’s just cut taxes, so that the only people who have to feel any pain are our soldiers, and our children, who must pay back all the money we have borrowed.

The Clinton administration made reduction in deficit spending their number one economic focus, because they realized that deficit spending is the mother of all ponzi schemes; it is a massive tax increase on generations to come; true taxation without representation.

Here’s an article from 1996. Notice that this is another example of a Democrat who governed quite differently than he campaigned. Note also that Dick Morris, even then, was a True Believer in the false promise of Voodoo Economics, this being the theory that cutting taxes and borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts is politically expedient and that kicking the can down the road makes for smart macroeconomics. The current President gets credit for tax cuts, and future Presidents have to re-pay all the money borrowed to pay for those tax cuts. The GOP hasn’t been concerned about budget deficits in the past 30 years. It’s all tax cuts (borrow money), tax cuts (borrow money), tax cuts (and borrow more money).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19961216/ai_n10096716

Rubin is seen as the chief architect of the policies that helped to provide that economic performance — namely an insistence that Clinton switch course in 1993 and emphasize deficit reduction rather than the investment spending and middle class tax cuts he had campaigned on. Rubin and fellow deficit hawks carried the day in internal debates against administration liberals who grumbled that Clinton’s presidency was being hijacked to humor bond traders. The carping quieted, however, as falling interest rates helped spur higher economic growth and the creation of 11 million jobs in Clinton’s first term. Rubin also was influential in the types of campaign promises Clinton made this year, defeating arguments by political consultant Dick Morris that Clinton should offer voters hefty tax cuts to counter Bob Dole’s 15 percent across-the-board promise. Instead, Clinton campaigned on a hodgepodge of education and child care credits that were much less costly than Dole’s proposals. Those tax cut proposals and other small-bore campaign promises in such areas as tax incentives to inner city neighborhoods will be part of the budget Clinton sends Congress in February. While Clinton has pledged to make a balanced budget the top priority of his second term, he is giving few hints on how he will accomplish that balance. Administration officials are hinting that an advisory commission proposal last week to trim the consumer price index could be part of a final agreement with the Republican-controlled Congress, but so far an internal administration debate over whether Clinton should take the lead on this issue is unresolved. Negotiating a budget deal with Congress most certainly will be the major economic test faced by Rubin and the other members of Clinton’s team in a second term.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

0

Boy you sure know how to pick your icons, Larry.

Let’s see. You agree with your link that said:

Rubin is seen as the chief architect of the politices that helped to provide that economic performance

May I draw attention something else said… and maybe you’ll connect some dots.

Note also that Dick Morris, even then, was a True Believer in the false promise of Voodoo Economics, this being the theory that cutting taxes and borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts is politically expedient and that kicking the can down the road makes for smart macroeconomics. The current President gets credit for tax cuts, and future Presidents have to re-pay all the money borrowed to pay for those tax cuts.

My my… could it be that a credit crisis today didn’t happen overnight… (as that would be impossible), but instead was the “can, kicked down the road” by your heroes? Or does that time lag effect only apply to Reagan and Bush in your book?

May I now point out that your economic icon, Robert Rubin, was the architect of the CRA compliance regulations rewrite, which you continually swear has nothing to do with where we are today in the subprime/credit crisis. Mind you, I’ve never said it was the *only* cause, but it most certainly was the snowball kicked off the mountain ledge that turned into an avalanche as it gathered more snow/crap enroute.

Your same icon, Robert Rubin moved on to Citibank, and was replaced by now Obama’s pick, Larry Summers… that would be the same Robert Rubin who is in the bailout line with his coin cup for Citibank.

I’d say with his ol’ pal Larry in the inner circle, and Geithner rolling in the bailout money without oversight and culpability, Rubin’s got a good chance of getting his tin cup for Citibank filled.

Interesting that the “fix” for problems, caused by many of the same players along with Congress… yes a GOP majority Congress (which is why the budget deficit was reduced… by Congress as the only authority to do so. NOT a POTUS)… now lies in the same hands. Forgive me if I’m not feeling optimistic…

But this is not the first time Rubin’s worked overtime to protect Citibank… even before he was an exec there. He’s got a few more questions he should be answering after his Treasury years… i.e. from the very progressive/socialist site, Common Dreams in Jan 2002, written by Mark Weisbrot of the Ctr for Economic and Policy Research

One of the leading political figures embroiled in the Enron scandal is being handed a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, and he doesn’t deserve it. That is Robert Rubin, President Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary.
Rubin seems to have everything he needs to be inoculated from the scandal’s contagion: one of the most powerful and influential people on the planet, he has charmed not only bankers and political leaders of both parties, but the media and opinion-makers as well. In the press he was often portrayed as a primary architect of America’s longest-running economic expansion, in the 1990s.

A cover of Time magazine in 1999 displayed Rubin, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Larry Summers (number two at Treasury, later replacing Rubin) as “The Committee to Save the World.” But more recently he has been caught peddling his influence for the financial giant Citigroup, where he left public office to become a top executive.

As Enron’s accounting irregularities were being discovered and its fortunes rapidly sinking, Bob Rubin placed a call on November 8 to Peter R. Fisher, current undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance. According to Treasury, Rubin wanted to know if the Bush administration was going to intervene with the big credit rating agencies, who were about to lower their rating of Enron’s debt. Since Rubin’s Citigroup was holding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Enron’s debt, it had quite a large stake in the outcome of any such decision.

Treasury told the press that Fisher said no, and Rubin agreed with the decision — as if this were just an informational call to discuss the pros and cons of political intervention to protect the credit rating on Enron’s bonds. But this should not be allowed to drop.

The public needs to know more about this phone call, and any others that Rubin may have made on Citigroup’s behalf. Whether or not they are technically illegal, such actions are a blatant and corrupt abuse of one of the highest offices of our government.

Did we ever learn more? Nope… The beltway power elite rarely have this happen… most especially those from the Democrat side.

But ol’ Rubin, (and apprentice Larry Summers) he’s experienced at this bailout stuff, deftly transferring corporate debt to the taxpayers… again with a protective eye on Citibank. Only he learned his chops with the Asian bailout of $120 bil while still with the Clinton admin… an action that not only did not help the taxpayers of those nations, but *caused* and *worsened* the crisis. He had help in this debacle… that would be Tim Geithner, Obama’s new Treasury Secretary.

Oh goodie..

Yeah, you sure have a strange criteria for economic icons, Larry.

0

Larry, I lived thru Clinton, so please don’t give me the BS that he was a deficit hawk. That was the work of the GOP. Bipartisan? Clinton fought them tooth and nail…and lost on the economy. Not to mention the tax increase wasn’t needed and generated less revenue than a tax cut would have.

0

Larry wants to see the rosy side of things. Interestingly enough he has mostly seen only the rosy side when it comes to dems.

0

BTW, Larry… from your link: the last paragraph you opted *not* to provide. Too bad. The cast of characters in there does even less to give me optimism. But then again, you don’t place much value on associations, do you?

Here’s what Larry left out.

Concerns have already begun to surface. Some of the recent stock market turmoil has been attributed to investor worries that post- election euphoria about a quick budget compromise was unwarranted. And Clinton’s second term team will have a noticeable lack of congressional negotiating experience.

New White House budget director Franklin Raines insists that the fact that he was not involved in last year’s bitter budget battle will prove to be a plus not a negative, but others are skeptical.

“Clinton’s new team shows continuity in terms of policy but it is limited in terms of having important ties with people in Congress. That will be a big question mark,” said Lawrence Chimerine, chief economist at the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington. Given the recent market volatility, it may be a question the administration will want to clear up quickly.

Well, as we can all see, Clinton and the GOP Congress did manage to get along after all. They managed to reduce the deficit… including cuts in military and intel. And of course, Franklin Raines went on to big stuff, benefiting with his newly honed Congressional contacts, in the GSEs.

Yeah… this is a group of folks, and their apprentices, that I want advising my new POTUS.

Meet the new boss…
Same as the old boss….

The Who: “Won’t get fooled again”

Looks like we got fooled again afterall.

0

Mata,

“My my… could it be that a credit crisis today didn’t happen overnight…” (Mata)

Did you read my post # 5 in Curt’s thread today: “Media Didn’t Report That Blagojevich (D) Ran A Bookie Operation In The 80’s” ?

According to the analysis of Celent, a Boston-based firm that provides independent information and advice to financial services companies, the so called “financial crisis” is not true. I have provided excerpts and the link on Curt’s thread. I would like your opinion on this.

0