Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies

[_MeDotOrg]

Mitt Romney told reporters on Thursday that if he were asked any questions about Todd Akin or abortion, the interview would be terminated.

Governor Romney is beginning to remind me of Ross Perot: He thinks that democracy has the sames rules of transparency as a corporation

Interestingly enough, Dr. John Wilke, who was Todd Akin's source for the "facts" about 'legitimate' rape, is a former Romney adviser and official Romney campaign surrogate in 2008, and has met with Romney this year. Romney said of Dr. Wilke:”I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement,”

if Akin sticks to his guns and does not withdraw, it will be very interesting to watch all of the GOP heavyweights who railed him try to back away from what they said

Romney and the GOP better start brushing up on their tap-dancing skills. Where's George Murphy when you need him?

[_Drifting]

Romney will be the first President to spend his inaugural press conference alternating between pleading the fifth and saying "no comment".

[_EAllusion]

Obama promised the most transparent administration in US history. When campaigning, he made informed, eloquent arguments about the benefit of government transparency. So not only did he promise it, he showed he understood what was good about it and why others care.

Then, Obama set up one of the least transparent, arguably the least, administrations in US history. It's darkly hilarious how far he 180'ed on that particular promise.

When thinking back on whether there were any signs that this was going to happen, some people have pointed out one that I think is pretty good. The Obama camp was near flawless in preventing leaks. Clinton's camp, by contrast, leaked like a polish submarine. Moreover, once he no longer had underdog status in the primaries, media access was drastically cut back beyond what is typical. That is suggestive how how serious and efficient the Obama camp is about controlling the message.

When trying to figure out how transparent Romney would be, my sense is "about as bad as Obama" in part because precedent has been set, Romney's reputation at Bain, and how he deals with leaks/media. Gaffes aside, it's a tight ship over there.

[_Kevin Graham]

Obama promised the most transparent administration in US history. When campaigning, he made informed, eloquent arguments about the benefit of government transparency. So not only did he promise it, he showed he understood what was good about it and why others care.

Then, Obama set up one of the least transparent, arguably the least, administrations in US history. It's darkly hilarious how far he 180'ed on that particular promise.

When thinking back on whether there were any signs that this was going to happen, some people have pointed out one that I think is pretty good. The Obama camp was near flawless in preventing leaks. Clinton's camp, by contrast, leaked like a polish submarine. Moreover, once he no longer had underdog status in the primaries, media access was drastically cut back beyond what is typical. That is suggestive how how serious and efficient the Obama camp is about controlling the message.

When trying to figure out how transparent Romney would be, my sense is "about as bad as Obama" in part because precedent has been set, Romney's reputation at Bain, and how he deals with leaks/media. Gaffes aside, it's a tight ship over there.

It can't be that bad can it? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -sunlight/

[_EAllusion]

It can't be that bad can it? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -sunlight/

Yeah, it's that bad. This is where politifact falls down. It doesn't know how to measure the relative importance of things. So that Obama has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers or has successfully lobbied the courts to not hear cases on government abuses where it merely asserts a states secrets privilege, or tried to weaken the FOIA, or expanded use of classification, etc. counts just as much as making some available forms of data more readily available electronically.

[_Kevin Graham]

It can't be that bad can it? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -sunlight/

Yeah, it's that bad. This is where politifact falls down. It doesn't know how to measure the relative importance of things. So that Obama has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers or has successfully lobbied the courts to not hear cases on government abuses where it merely asserts a states secrets privilege, or tried to weaken the FOIA, or expanded use of classification, etc. counts just as much as making some available forms of data more readily available electronically.

So why do you think he is doing this? To me it seems like he has nothing to lose by making everything transparent at the beginning of his administration, since anything bad would be a reflection of previous administrations. So the only reasonable explanation, to me at least, is that he has a valid reason for keeping some of these things from public awareness. Reasons he didn't anticipate while campaigning, because he wasn't aware of what was being hidden?

[_EAllusion]

So why do you think he is doing this?

That's a million dollar question. I think the basic reason is the same reason why all bodies remove transparency. It immunizes them from criticism and consequence. It's hard for Obama to have a Watergate when he has argued that all evidence is beyond judicial review when he makes an unverifiable claim of states secrets in the name of national security. Obama has won the argument Nixon lost. But that doesn't explain why he moved to protect Bush era abuses with such sweeping opacity. You are correct that he had an opportunity to go after that if he wanted. But it would've been politically damaging to do so, as Republicans would've portrayed it as an act of weakness and anti-Americanism. He's triangulating you on issues of national security. I also think we have to accept Obama is not as philosophically in favor of transparency as he portrayed himself to be. He's prioritizing America's reputation over justice. In the FOIA case I'm referring to, Obama sought to vanish the photographic record on American torture from public access. The argument used in court in that case was that seeing the photos of American wrongdoing might incite anger and fuel anti-American attacks. So we should conceal evidence of American crime because people might get upset with America if they knew.

Obama is more or less a mix of Tom Carcetti* and Clay Davis. It's not easy to figure out what the ratio is. As for your argument that we just trust that Obama has good reaosns he can't reveal for failing to reveal things, then shouldn't Democrats collectively apologize to George W. Bush?

*The real Tom Carcetti is a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, so heh.