The Right seems to take a great amount of glee by sarcastically pointing out that President Obama has the "most transparent administration ever." I realize that it takes a great deal of effort to put down their copy of Atlas Shrugged, unbuckled their bathrobe and spend a few minutes away from right wing blogs to conjure up an attack like this.
As is invariably the case, however, I have to wonder if these denizens of classical liberalism are as familiar and knowledgeable with US History as they bloviate to be. Would it surprise them to learn this?
In early 1787, Congress called for a special convention of all the states to revise the Articles of Confederation. On September 17, 1787, after four months of secret meetings, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention emerged from their Philadelphia meetingroom with an entirely new plan of government–the U.S. Constitution–that they hoped would ensure the survival of the experiment they had launched in 1776.
WTF??!!?? It can't possibly be that our founding fathers, whom they claim to have a direct connection to in the afterlife, were not at all transparent about the formation of the document they claim to make love to on a nightly basis (missionary position, of course). Why on earth would they be so secretive? Could it be that they wanted to speak their minds without public pressure?
The delegates also agreed that the deliberations would be kept secret. The case in favor of secrecy was that the issues at hand were so important that honest discourse needed to be encouraged and delegates ought to feel free to speak their mind, and change their mind, as they saw fit. Thus, despite the hot summer weather in Philadelphia, and delegates who, on the whole, were rather overweight and hardly “dressed down” for the occasion, the windows were closed and heavy drapes drawn. The merits and demerits of the secrecy rule have been a subject of considerable debate throughout American history.
Feel free to speak their mind and CHANGE their mind as they saw fit? Oh. My. GOSH!!!
Cue the boiling pit of sewage...:)
11 comments:
Well, since you brought it up...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/cartoons_of_the_week/index.html
Yeah, except I do quite clearly remember a base platform promise of Mr. Obama was that if elected he would be sure to have the most transparent administration evah!
So yet again we have you parsing meaning from words worse than a toddler - the sarcastic glee is not because his administration is secretive, it is because it's secretiveness shows the lie.
Interesting that you don't hold the founding fathers to the same standard. I can just imagine what you guys would say about them changing their minds as they saw fit.
What standard Mark? Lying? You really think O reversing a major campaign plank is a simple change of mind?
I suppose if the founding fathers went in there saying they were going to create a new government of and for the people and came out with a surrender document for King George I probably would have the same kind of issue with it. But they didn't and you are still parsing like a toddler.
Oh, forgot, for juris...
Christie bridge thing? Snore...who cares? The media is making a much bigger deal out of it than it is.
IRS? Shown to not be a scandal at all. Liberal groups were targeted as well and it was all done out of laziness.
DOJ? Uh, huh?
Benghazi? Even before the Times piece, that one was done. Far too much out and out lying from the Right on Benghazi starting with the BS about a CIA listening station being an "embassy" or "consulate."
Fast and Furious? Not a scandal as much as a misguided attempt to catch big fish in the drug trade. Criticize the president for being a dink on continuing the stupidity of drug laws but not some weirdo, tin foil hat conspiracy about gun grabbing.
That leaves us with the NSA which isn't really an Obama scandal as much as a federal government policy that started after 9-11. Would we even be talking about this 10 years ago? Well, you would, juris, because at least you are one of the few who can be relied on to not be a hypocrite about government power. But the rest of the nation would cheer any president on who was trying to protect the nation.
All this being said, I think it is time to revisit our nation's policy on intelligence gathering and change the law. Edward Snowden is no traitor but I don't think he's a saint either. He simply pointed out policies that needed to be changed.
Yeah, the whole speaking their mind thing and changing it as they saw fit isn't really allowed with today's leaders, is it, GD? At least in your world...
The media is making a much bigger deal out of it than it is.
You fucking shit-bag - Holder's DOJ opened an investigation. That ain't the media. You want to know who is making a fucking mountain out of that molehill - you and every fucking Democrat scumbag in the country!
Transparency indeed. Here is an excellent point of contrast between your blog and TSM - they criticized the Bush Admin and you refuse to hold your fucking Obamessiah to any standard.
Yeah, the whole speaking their mind thing and changing it as they saw fit isn't really allowed with today's leaders, is it, GD? At least in your world...
Ever heard of false advertising? Deceit? Fraud?
I don't care who is making a big deal out of the Christie thing. It's just not that big of a deal to me. It hasn't changed my view of him. I think he'd be a great president.
Really, Markadeaffy? Just who promised the Constitutional Convention would be open and transparent, and when and where did they make this promise? As opposed to Mr. Obama repeatedly promising the most open and transparent administration ever? As usual, you are comparing apples with oranges and then deducing kumquats as the answer.
Still wondering what delegates to the Constitutional Convention promised the most open and transparent proceedings EVAR! If it were summer, there'd at least be crickets chirping, but there's not even that happening now...
Post a Comment