The Obama admin will generally prosecute the enemies of whoever pays them the most. We live in a representative democracy, but the representation seems to be auctioned off.
Most congresspeople spend more time raising money (banging the phones, attending fundraisers, etc) than they do on policy. You need a few million in the bank to be a "credible candidate", and lobbyists can get you a chunk of the way there.
Modern Vote Buying In The U.S., Koch , et al. 2000-
The fact that politicians go to great efforts to raise campaign funds proves that they think its worthwhile.
This post is dedicated to mathematics.
A felony conviction for campaign finance law violations. :-)
I don't think we would have an assassination... but I must admit I am so cynical that one would not terribly surprise me.
However, by no means would just the president be enough. You have to keep in mind both the house and the senate are just as much in the pocket of lobbyist as the white house, in fact probably more so. And the president alone can declare war, grant pardons, and not much else.
Also, we have to remember that a lot of Obama's funding, especially early on, came from true grass roots, and was in small units which added up big time. So he's as close to a people's candidate as we've had in a LOOONG time. And yet, even he black, constitutional scholar, the most charismatic public speaker in ~ 40 years, even he is succumbing to our cynical political realities.
If he is not a transformative president who could ever be? Oh I know he passed health care, but how is more spending radically different from the Medicare drug benefit, or any of the other ways both Republicans and Democrats have grown the size of government over the years?
I think $1B is enough to tip the scales for the right candidate, but if everyone knew one candidate was being propped up by a billionaire it would immediately backfire.
I wonder what would happen if some super-wealthy retired philanthropic billionaire with a sense of noblesse oblige decided to donate a vast sum to one extra-special Presidential candidate and if only that billionaire had no ulterior motive.
No way.
I'd go as far as to say the problem is more "Washington in general and Congress in particular" than Obama. I mean, last week he was a socialist and now he's a plutocrat, too? The two philosophies are diametrically opposed, pick one.
The Obama administration has already failed to respond to more FOIA requests than the Bush administration.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11758
Obama Administration Aides meet with lobbyists off the White House grounds to avoid logging meetings:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50081.html
More than 40 former lobbyists work in top positions in the administration, including three cabinet secretaries and the director of Central Intelligence.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/former-lobbyists-seni...
#1) Your first link makes absolutely no reference to the Bush administration. It supports my point, though, Obama created stricter guidelines instructing the agencies to fulfill more FOIA requests. And the agencies are falling short for whatever bureaucratic reason, seemingly that they can't work through the pile fast enough. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. Thanks for the link though, I didn't know Obama had done that. I approve.
#2) Some aides met with lobbyists off of white house ground to avoid logging the meetings? You mean to avoid the policy that Obama put in place and that had never existed before he was elected? Seems like he's working in the right direction, to me. Now we just need Congress to implement a similar rule.
#3) Yeah, again, not perfect just yet. Want to compare/contrast with the number of former lobbyists who worked in the Bush white house, on the McCain campaign, or on John Boehner's staff?
If you're reasoning backwards from "I've decided I don't like Obama", you can believe whatever you want.
But the guy's history and all of his public pronouncements since taking office have been on the side of openness, and consistently against the influence of lobbyists. He's actually created a bunch of initiatives for more openness, the lobbyist visit thing and the data.gov thing being two of them.
It's just plain disingenuous to claim that Obama is less in favor of openness than Dick Cheney.
EDIT: Wow. Not usually one to whine about the voting but the guy's links actually say the opposite of what he's claiming. And he's upvoted. Just goes to show, you can believe whatever you want and vote that way too.
That said, I naively expected Obama to do a much better job of holding to the platform that he ran on than he actually has. Aside from the Wall Street Scandal, there are regular stories of various parts of the Obama administration selling out to special interests or making decisions that are simply not in the best interests of Americans (e.g. TSA tactics & body scanners; net neutrality; etc.).
I am hugely disappointed in the President's administration in that regard. As a voter, I have no options left; I have to conclude that there is no hope of the Federal government acting in the best interests of Americans, regardless of which party is in charge.
He may not be as bad as Cheney, but that's a long way from adhering to the principles of his campaign.
He told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
In the current environment, Fox News is one half of the discourse and CNN is the other half, while the pundits split the difference in the name of "balance". If you want change, get active, make him do it. We all live here.
How are we supposed to "make them do it" besides letting them know through poll numbers, protests, etc. what the public is feeling? They're elected to be representatives who in most cases side with a clear majority except where that would overstep their authority. If FDR wanted to have real democratic voting processes on specific issues, for which he is mandated to carry out whatever the final result is, he should have said so.
(I also don't like the false equivalency of Fox News and CNN/MSNBC/NPR/whatever-alternative-to-Fox, but that's another issue.)
B) Totally agree on the false equivalency, was trying to highlight that rather than propagate it.
...because, if I can't, I'll have to take Chile up on their offer.
Chile isn't without its own problems, but a lot of the climate is similar to California, they're enthusiastic and well-developed, great people overall, beautiful country, great food, great environment, lower cost of living. So far I haven't read any negative reviews of their program, only positive ones.
If you're not especially tied to the U.S., I'd recommend applying. Even if you go and it doesn't work out, you'd get a tremendously worthwhile experience from it.
Obama denied 70,779 requests in his first year, vs Bush at 47,395 in his last:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/21/nation/la-na-ticket2...
Just to get this straight, you're contending that this is a matter of deliberate policy by Obama in direct contravention of all of his public statements and his official memorandums on the subject? Like, there was a "wink, nudge" in there? He met them over coffee and said, "I just published that memo to look good, I actually want you to deny more requests"? What's your allegation, exactly?
Both of your links emphasize that Obama has published regulations instructing the agencies to grant more FOIA requests than they were previously, but that the agencies are struggling with the implementation. Just going to restate that one more time.
I don't see where he's saying that. Where does the buck stop, anyway? Does Obama get a pass because he's an ineffectual leader, a gold star for trying?
If you want to prosecute to Julian Assange, you are not for openness in Government. If you put Bradley Manning not in jail, but under the jail, and refuse to let even Congressmen like Denis Kucinich even visit Manning to witness first hand the conditions under which he is being held, you are not for openness in Government. http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/03/12/rep-dennis-kucinich/ If you fire State Dept Spokesman P.J. Crowley because he makes an off the record comment at MIT about the deplorable treatment of Manning, you are not for more openness in government. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
I voted for Obama. In many ways he is a huge improvement over Bush, but let's be realistic, and face the facts.
Lastly, there was an article about whether Obama has lived up to his transparency pledge on NPR yesterday. http://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134540530/has-obama-lived-up-t...
I mean, he did get into office and immediately push a bunch of initiatives regarding openness. Maybe it didn't go as far as you or I would want but even slowing the descent is an improvement.
As to #3, how can you claim that "the guy's links actually say the opposite of what he's claiming" and agree with him about his third link?
Absolutely agree with you about #1. FOIAs have definitely gotten better.
Anyways, yes, creating a system that people have to actively circumvent is progress. Any meeting in the white house has toe be disclosed, and staffers have to use tricks in order to not disclose a meeting. As compared to before, where no meeting was disclosed, ever, and there was nothing wrong with that (and no gotcha articles, either!).
Oh, and #3 is basically a nonpoint what with the overly vague "40 officials" and total lack of comparisons or context. I clicked through and one of the first names was Tom Vilsack, who spent 30 years as a politician and then a couple as a lobbyist in between gigs. Another was a lobbyist from the ACLU, which really does not match up with most people's definitions of "lobbyist" as far as being paid a lot of money and having an expense account.
Socialists don't generally appoint lobbyists to important administration positions and bring in ex-presidents to defend tax cuts for the rich. So I'll pick plutocrat.
Obama, pre-election: "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."
Obama admin, post-election: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8167