Obama '08?

The government needs to stop appointing lawyers to every post they can think of -- they know how to squirm out of the law just as much as following the law. We already have too many in the Senate and Congress.

Please don't confuse pathetic lawyer bashing for intelligent comment, okie.

Woiyo, You really are stupid; blame everything on Obama. CLUE: The president isn't informed about every detail on everything.

President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it's the promise that keeps on breaking. He has now signed 11 bills into law and gone, at best, 1 for 11 on his five-day posting promise. The Obama administration should deliver on the Web-enabled transparency he promised and post bills for five days before signing.

But nine days after taking office, he signed a bill into law without posting it on Whitehouse.gov for five days. Since then, 10 more bills have become law over the president's signature, and only one has been posted online for five days " and that was for five days after it cleared Congress, not after formal presentment. Two bills have been held by the White House for five days before signing " but they weren't posted online!

Whitehouse.gov has seen some bills posted, and some have been posted before the president signed them, but a few things have to happen for the president's promise to see real fulfillment.

Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress.

One bill, the DTV Delay Act, was posted after it was cleared for presentment by Congress February 4th, with the President signing it February 11th. This arguably satisfies the five-day promise, though presentment - a constitutional step in the legislative process - would be a better time to start the five-day clock. (Congress presented it February 9th.)

Several times the White House has posted a bill while it remains in Congress, attempting to satisfy the five-day rule. But this doesn’t give the public an opportunity to review the final legislation - especially any last minute amendments. Versions of the children’s health insurance legislation, the omnibus spending bill, and the omnibus public land management bill were linked to from Whitehouse.gov while making their ways through Congress, but not posted in final form.

(The page linking to the omnibus spending bill was not highlighted in the White House blog or anywhere else on Whitehouse.gov I could find. The only evidence I found of when it was posted comes from Web commentary.)

"will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

Heres an interesting article about Obama and one of his campaign promises, one he appears to have no plan to keep...

And on this forum, you will have the Parados's, etc., equivocating, justifying, and spinning, till the cows come home.

okie wrote:

And on this forum, you will have the Parados's, etc., equivocating, justifying, and spinning, till the cows come home.

Which is essentially what other people are doing when they're claiming that the previous President was a "decent man" after it's become a well-known fact that he instituted a secret state-run torture program.

Well okie.

I pointed out that there could be difference of opinion about which bills were emergencies. Since the statement by Obama clearly states it is only the bills that aren't emergencies that will have the 5 day period, it would make sense that you have to apply the emergency test to a bill before you can see if Obama kept his promise or not.

The problem okie isn't what I said but with your argument. You are clearly so invested in attacking Obama that you can't see when someone distorts what he said to argue against him. There are probably hundreds of very real reasons to dislike Obama. Why do you have to distort and manufacture reasons? Why not use the real ones? I am only pointing out that cato completely ignores part of Obama's statement to argue against what they want to rather than what Obama statement really was. It's a classic strawman tactic. Reasonable people recognize it is a strawman and it only hurts your side to use them. It seems to indicate you can't come up with strong reasons to dislike him but only made up ones.