From December 2007 through January 2008, I've found 27 instances on the web alone where Obama pledged an open debate, full participation by all, and the process to be televised on C-span, specifically in reference to Health Care Reform. Will he honor this pledge? Per Nancy Pelosi, candidates say alot of things on the campaign trail. Do we hold him to his word and let the American people know what's going on and who gets what bribe or....do we accept Pelosi's explanation?
Links to these instances would be nice. I agree with the demand for openness but I've seen too many of Obama's words taken out of context for political ends.
You survived yesterday's fireworks I see.
William I can promise you that there are tons of clips of his c-span quotes and transparancy quotes. He has been caught in perhaps one of the most blatant broken promises I have ever seen.
I too am bothered by the Obama abministration having lobbyists in the White House almost daily and the staff coming from the big business backgrounds they do. But I don't believe that Obama is or will be able to enact a true socialist government with the people he now has backing him up. Big Business will drop him like a bad habit if he goes that direction and whether or not he is able to push socialist doctrine into law relies on the Supreme Court.
The funny thing about the health care plan of requiring people to buy health insurance is that without a public option they will be treading on thin ice with its' constitutionality. Requiring someone to buy something that will bankrupt them is not a good path to go down when you look at the constitution.
I've quoted the comedian Lewis Black a few times but when he told the joke about how congress passes laws he said "The Democrats jump up on one side of the isle and say, we've got a really bad idea. And the Rebublicans jump up on the other side and say, oh yeah, well we can make it s&*tier." Just a thought.
Clearly what is going on speaks for itself.
Who votes on Christmas Eve? Who hold votes in the wee hours of the morning.
Who precludes his own party from open discussion among themselves?
You are right on target. The proof is in the listening, and it's all there for all to hear. It's all about pushing through the agenda, to gain more and solidify power, despite what the majority of us oppose.
With this president its always been....it's not what I say, it's how I say it.
This is a universal truism across the world. City mayors promise no tax hikes then raise taxes, people enter coalition governments after promising not to, people backpedal on promises of course (tobacco ads in sports were going to be banned in Britain until Bernie Eccleston (Formula One king) gave a million pounds to Tony Blair's party). Obama, sadly, is a leopard with predictable spots, ie., he's a politician.
Having said this, in his case, I believe that he is partly so secretive because he would have to explain why he is kow-towing to all of the lobbyists (in this case health insurance companies), after promising to break the lobbying culture. THIS, to me, is the real broken promise.
With Bush, the vice-president WAS a lobbyist (in effect).
But I am not being partisan; the problem is lobbying in Washington, any way you cut it. Unless this problem is crushed, politics will always be about greasing palms, and no amount of "fighting terrorism", for example, will change this.
Obama is a liar and a socialist. I really don`t understand why anyone is surprised, if you were listening during his campaign you would have clearly seen what kind of politician he would be. He`s like all the rest of the career politicians except he hates individual freedom and wants to transform America into some socialist society he read about in a book. He`s evil pure and simple.
Odd, I have yet to find one thing he's said taken out of context. Seems any time he gets caught on his own words, they were taken out of context. It's an easy claim due to the fact that most news agencies do shorten the clips they air but anyone wanting to hear the full clip can find it very easily if they really want to. Obama can't stay off the air if he wanted to. The classic is when literally millions of us heard him tell Joe the plumber "I just want to spread the wealth around" and everybody fell over backward trying to claim either that's not what he really said or that's not what he meant. That is exactly what he said and now it looks like that's exactly what he meant.
I try not be too partisan as well. I justlong for the day when we somehow manage to elect a real statesman instead of a politician (as if that can happen anymore). It's really kind of funny, anytime one of these guys or gals gets caught they revert to that childhood argument of 'hey, everybody else does it'.
The minute I have some skepticism about the health care plans being negotiated in Congress, I read the rantings of teabaggers. And I find myself solidly in the Democratic camp again.
As bad as the Dems may be, the alternative is frighteningly worse.
Rantings? The facts speak for them selves! Everything Obama campaigned on, transparency, bipartisanship, earmarks, and lobbyists, all lies! Change we can believe in? Yeah, BS! He swore to uphold and protect the constitution, well the health care bill is a violation of the constitution!
His word means nothing! His actions prove he's a liar and a socialist there is simply no denying that! If you support him, them you are just like him!
Well, as you might imagine, I don't think tarring me with the "scumbag politician" thing is going to mean anything to me. Nice try, though.
Here's another perspective: He has been entirely *too* bipartisan, compromising too much with intransigent Republicans who just say "no" to everything he proposes. But, bipartisanship is something he promised in his campaign and he's certainly delivered that. (And no, I wouldn't expect a partisan Republican to agree with that, or even with the fact that the sky is blue if that came out of a Democrat's mouth).
Nor should we expect a partisan, leftist wingnut to see or agree that their guy lied. And how is cutting the other party out of the discussion bipartisan? I'm sure there's a winning explanation for that one. If this bill were worth the paper it's printed on, it would have been negotiated, passed, and covered on C-SPAN, and not shoved through on Christmas Eve.
I am in general at the opposite (generally) end of the spectrum from you politically, but I have to say most of what you write here above seems right to me. (except your comments on the health care thing, about which I am not in the loop, living in a country that has had socialized medicine for decades, and which most people love. But America is not us, so each place is different. And the comment about him being a socialist; if he was a socialist he wouldn't be bowing to the demands of corporations, ie., he would have broken the back of the lobbies as his first move in office. But the word socialist gets kicked around by all sorts of people, including those who like to pretend they are "socialists", so let's not get into that one)
He took over many publicly held companies. He is running them through the government. Socialism would not be the correct word. Fascist seems to fit pretty snugly however.
The fascists loved free enterprise. They did nationalize some stuff too, I suspect. But I really didn't want to get into this. My point was that he promised to break the backs of the lobbies and he hasn't. For those who believed him when he said he would do this, I'd like to see more action... because I think they are the worst threat America faces, and undermine rule by the people, by paying off congressmen of all stripes...
Don't waste your breath, Poppa. These people just don't get it. That and they keep sticking fingers in their ears to keep from having to hear the truth about their messiah.
Anyone with half a brain who paid attention during the campaign to the associations Obama had been keeping knows he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. There's no talking sense to people who are in denial. They just want to keep blaming the other guys, as though they matter at this point. Typical.
Those 'teabaggers' you're so afraid of are Americans exercising their right to protest. To quote the beloved Hillary, "We have every right to protest. We will not go away". Never ceases to amaze me that when the left does it its fine, when the right does it, fear and trembling should be felt across the nation.
No one's arguing that they don't have a right to peaceful protest. I'm just saying their ideas are either bad or really, really hypocritical.
That's the word I was waiting for, "hypocritical". Webster's dictionary defines that word as "a person who pretends to be what he is not". Anybody want to take a shot at defining Obama and his administration which brings us all the way back to holding open hearings on C-span doesn't it?
The teabaggers remind me of the movie "Network" when the battle cry becomes "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore". The aimlessness alone is self-defeating.
The hypocrisy is most galling. These same "fiscal conservatives/limited government" types were silent for 8 years when Bush and a Republican Congress ran the government, and ramped up an enormous budget deficit during an economic boom and expanded both the non-military and military government. To suddenly pretend they really care about the size of the government and the deficit now makes them utter hypocrites.
It is galling alright when the left won't speak up about the broken promises of their candidate, and wants to keep complaining about the previous admin. Two wrongs make right, is it? The tea party people I've heard from mostly are unhappy with both parties, but are very vocal at the speed that this current Democratic majority is expanding government.
And, uh, it was six years with a Republican Congress, and the Dems failed to check Bush like they were sent in to do.
Yep, your party is full of hypocrites also.
EDIT, but hey, on a bright note some of them have decided to jump ship rather than have their arms twisted up behind their backs by "progressives" in addition to facing a likely defeat this year.
I have yet to see any real evidence that Obama has broken any promise. Is this something he actually has power over? What exactly did he promise in the first place? Did the public debate already seen meet that promise?
I'm not saying I know if it did or not, just that you guys haven't presented me with any facts to back up your argument.
Why would I bother? I didn't elect him based on this "promise" alone. In fact I never knew he had made this promise.
So if you folks are going to accuse him of lying then you should be prepared to deliver some evidence, otherwise, why should I pay attention to what you have said?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ns-C-SPAN/
Taken from: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … se-broken/
And, you weren't paying attention to the campaign if you missed him saying that about the health care negotiations. I remember multiple mentions, but here is a video:
Now, politicians on both sides break promises. Are you ready to admit the chosen one is no better than the rest?
Thank you Jeffrey!
Ok - maybe this promise was broken (I'm not convinced, keep reading). Forgive me for not being too worried about it. I agree with you that more transparency is good. But 1). Obama doesn't have a whole lot of control over this apparently, and 2). Much of the debate has already been televised on C Span. See my earlier post in this thread on the Seattle PI link that someone posted here.
From the politifact link you provided:
"Part of the issue here is that Obama has announced broad outlines for a health care bill — primarily lower costs and expanded access — but he has left the details of legislation to Congress. That gives Congress a lot of the power to control the debate, as then-candidate Hillary Clinton warned Obama during the Los Angeles debate. "Certainly, it is important that the president come up with the plan, but we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN. Now, I think we might be able to do that, but that's a little heavier lift than what the president is going to propose," she said at the time."
I don't see this as a completely broken promise (maybe I'm just drinking the koolaid, whatever) because so much of the debate has been public. Yes, there are backroom deals going on, and that's too bad.
And I don't see it as terribly important. I'll be happy to see the health care system in this country reformed. This promise is pretty minor.
You provided a link to Politifact's broken promises by Obama. Nice - but even better is the front page for the Obamameter which shows 87 promises kept, 241 in the works, 28 compromises, and only 11 promises actually broken. That seems like a pretty good record.
Am I ready to admit that Obama is no better than the rest? Did I ever say he was?
Yeah, thanks, I've read it.
I think, specifically, the part that stinks is the negotiations with drug companies, etc. THAT part was behind closed doors. If Obama meant what he said it would have been done, I don't believe that he has no control. He told them they weren't going home on Christmas Eve until they voted on health care didn't he?
I don't support him or his policies, so we're on opposite sides of bias here, obviously. What would make me happy is for some new blood in the system, but as I said in a thread yesterday, by the time they get to Washington their hearing is severely impaired. Something has got to give, as I don't believe the American public (the ones in the middle) will tolerate their antics indefinitely.
When you have Pelosi and her assistant telling a reporter that questioning the Constitutionality of the bill is not a serious question, I have zero faith in the jive they are talking.
Learning is not hypocritcal...it just took a hell of a lot to learn for some...there were many that have been up in arms about government non-constiutional actions for decades.
I am just glad to be more awake and aware and that more people are becoming more so too.
this can't go on...
The folks who elected Obama and support him are also Americans bro.
http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/413911_tvgif6.html Even C-span is calling Obama on his campaign promises.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the reminder of Obama's campaign promise by simply saying: "There are a number of things he swore on the campaign trail."
Can anyone say Marie Antoinnette??????
Instead of 'Let them eat cake' it's now become 'Let me have your cake so everyone else can have a piece'
Obama broke a campaign promise nooooooooooooo cant be hes special
It is a flexible word, I think we can at least say that much. Normally, however, the first thing a socialist (is supposed to) do(es) is line up all the mega-capitalists along the wall and shoot them. I don't see much of that up there on that there hill... (Quite the contrary)
most of those capitalists are armed watch for gun control to pop up anyday
That is because he is a Social Democrat.
Good Lord, someone using political nomenclature correctly. Got my vote there, Arthur. And there is a difference between a socialist and a social democrat. Though, of course a social democrat is further to the left than a conservative, and so automatically closer to a socialist than a conservative. If people ditched this whole Obama is a Marxist stuff, and Obama is a Socialist, but stuck to Obama is a Social Democrat and I don't Like That Crowd, the whole debate would be much saner.
Because as far as I know Americans have never known what truly nationalized industries look like. The British car industry was nationalized, and it was a shambles... and I mean, REALLY nationalized. (Of course, the auto industry may not be the best example for the free market crowd to be using either......)
Yeah, let's not forget there was a reason why Obama took those companies over. The Free Market didn't help GM make good business decisions, no sir.
Actually, if GM had really been interested in market forces it wouldn't have allowed the Japanese to dominate the niche. It is exactly because that corporation was so BAD at capitalism and enterprise that they failed so miserably. An attitude of "global warming is not real" for example, fails to account for the likelihood of the green trend catching on among car-buyers IRRESPECTIVE of whether it was real or not.
But has Washington really taken over GM? I mean, as I say, I know a lot about socialist govts. I was in Britain under the old Labour Party... what's going on in the US bears almost no resemblance to those days...
The unions might have something to do with the demise of GM.
I had to look up nomenclature. you taught me something today.
Please stop referring to Obama and I as Socialists. As of today we are both officially Communists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3spl48_0Y The new national anthem??
From the Seattle PI article posted earlier in this thread:
"Republicans say Democrats are backing away from Obama's pledge of transparency.
But Democrats' efforts to work out a compromise behind closed doors may be about avoiding Republican interference, not cameras. Holding the debate in the congressional chambers would not only open it up to cameras, but expose the legislation to a filibuster by the minority party."
"C-SPAN had already covered hundreds of hours of debate on health care"
So it looks like 1) it's the democrats in Congress, not Obama, who are not happy about having the final negotiations televised
2) the Democrats have a genuine tactical concern of losing the bill if they allow the debate to be televised
3) There has already been a great deal of transparency surrounding this (although I would add that I think more transparency, not less, is better).
Ford is turning a profit how could they without the annointed one's guidance and input.
if there is any doubt about Obama saying healthcare debate will be on CSpan....here ya go...
http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … -Care-2982
Yes, he made this promise on the campaign trail, and yes, he wasn't able to keep it. It just isn't possible to televise every conversation, every meeting, every session revolving around the health care bill. Plus, as someone pointed out, he doesn't actually have control over that anyway.
He certainly isn't the first President to not fulfill a promise and he won't be the last.
However, he has made some progress in the area of government transparency, including a full accounting online of where the stimulus money is being spent.
by Harvey Stelman 10 years ago
With the quick falling of The President's poll's, it is evident many have changed their minds. Jump in pro or con.
by Laura Izett-Irwin 7 years ago
How does Obama have time to campaign and be on TV with so many issues going on?I've just been wondering how Obama allocates his time between business and campaigning. With turmoil overseas and problems in the U.S, I get a little upset seeing Obama on the Late Night Show or on TV shows. I'm thinking...
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both today at rallies on the campaign trail.What do you notice?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … rally.htmlhttp://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309198-1
by nicomp really 10 years ago
From the What Else is New Department...The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda. White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration...
by JOC 2 years ago
This will not turn out well for the left when it gains traction during midterm season, and it does help to back up reasons to not have voted for Hillary. Another reason why I hope they investigate her foundation, so obvious how shady she's always been with...
by MikeNV 10 years ago
“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” the Obama-Biden campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|