Comments on: Barack Obama’s pledge to bring transparency to the White House gets A for intention, but a lower grade for implementation

By: joedoe

joedoe — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:30:45 +0000

Biden is having a meeting on transparency today…….. behind closed doors. True!

By: crich

crich — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:48:27 +0000

I don’t believe a word the president says. The man is not fit for this job:

http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/01/obamas-brownie-moment-not-the-same/

By: des1

des1 — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:13:41 +0000

Was there really anyone in America who thought this guy was serious about being transparent and getting rid of lobbyists? His big money guy in Chicago (you know, the one who helped him buy his house with Rod Blagojevich’s wife brokering the deal) is now a convicted felon who made millions off Obama steering him a deal on public housing (along with Valerie Jarett). He never once backed a reform candidate in Illinois, and in fact aligned himself with every machine politician who could one day help him as well.

If there is anyone gullible enough to have voted for him believing the nonsense about transparency and cleaning up Washington, they are proof that we need an IQ test for voting.

By: youngforlove

youngforlove — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:17:38 +0000

I fail to understand how such an astute mind could call something like that “egregious.” For example, Company A goes into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under this, they will propose a “plan” for “change” to “occur within the life of the plan.” Now Investors B and C, then buy into the plan, provide new financing opportunities to Company A, and sit back and wait for a return. If Company A does not accomplish ALL the goals in the plan in the first year of the plan, Investors B and C may be upset… but it certainly would not make Company A’s actions MORE egregious simply because it put some of those “changes” on the back-burner, deliberately. In other words, it’s fine to call a lack of action upsetting if it was promised, but it’s simply non-sense to call it egregious when the timeline for completeion isn’t even 30% complete.

By: spr8er

spr8er — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:11:30 +0000

high marks on his dealings with lobbiest,are you kidding me?theres much truth to the old saying “a man’s only as good as his word” ’nuff said

By: ilovelasolas

ilovelasolas — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:39:45 +0000

“He contrasts very well with the Bush administration, which didn’t even pretend to want to be transparent.” So Obama is pretending to be transparent.

By: terit

terit — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:11:45 +0000

Fix the millions and billions we give away yearly to computers hackers in Medicare before start something new Mr. Obama. The Federal Government must fix what is in place first. The people won’t support you until you do.

By: jmmagwood

jmmagwood — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:02:54 +0000

Obama had no plans for transparency. It sounded good on TV during the campaign. Much like most of what he said. Americans knew what they were buying, but took a defective product home anyway. There was a lot of “hope for the best” mentality out there, but also a lot of anger at the previous administration. I still believe a better campaign by Republicans could have won, but that’s another discussion for another time. The only thing that surprises me in all this, is the current administrations continuing surprise that people aren’t in lockstep with their continual nonsense. Obama and company really bought a set of good THEMSELVES when they fell into the media trap of “they really like me” syndrome. Just because the networks aren’t critical of you, doesn’t mean the truth doesn’t get out there, Mr. President.

By: ohthehugemanatee

ohthehugemanatee — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:23:04 +0000

Exactly what HAS the Dali Bama accomplished in a year? Maybe that would be faster than naming the things he epic failed at.

By: conservativefire

conservativefire — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:45:00 +0000

Obama is not the first president not to fulfill campaign promises, but the fact remains that his unfulfilled promises, as Sarah Palin astutely noted on FOX, are so much more egregious because they were repeated so many times during the campaign, yet deliberately not acted upon.