Interesting new rule "The Obama Rule"

[nathanm]

I guess my primary confusion is why would anyone on the left defend this rule?

Has someone defended the rule, or have they just disagreed with your framing of the issue?

[we vs us]

I guess my primary confusion is why would anyone on the left defend this rule?

The only thing I can conclude is that no matter what President Obama suggests, his groupies will lovingly march in that direction.

Who's marching?  I don't see anyone defending this at all.  As a matter of fact, the ACLU (one of Obama's supposed liberal labor allies) is fighting it in court. 

Or what nathan said.

[guido911]

Has someone defended the rule, or have they just disagreed with your framing of the issue?

How else could the issue be framed other than an attempt to limit access to government-possessed information? I do think as a practical and legal matter whatever the intended goal this rule might have had is doomed.

[Gaspar]

Who's marching?  I don't see anyone defending this at all.  As a matter of fact, the ACLU (one of Obama's supposed liberal labor allies) is fighting it in court. 

Or what nathan said.

You didn't.  I was speaking of others.

[Townsend]

You didn't.  I was speaking of others.

Point out anyone defending this.

[guido911]

Point out anyone defending this.

I probably would like to read some harsher scorn and condemnation over something that I think is so deserving. I have read that sort of response over Bush or republican decisions, and the lack of such here smells of a double standard.

[Townsend]

I probably would like to read some harsher scorn and condemnation over something that I think is so deserving. I have read that sort of response over Bush or republican decisions, and the lack of such here smells of a double standard.

Okay

[nathanm]

I probably would like to read some harsher scorn and condemnation over something that I think is so deserving. I have read that sort of response over Bush or republican decisions, and the lack of such here smells of a double standard.

I think the reason you're not seeing it is that this isn't really a material change in policy. It's merely a change in wording, and one that means even less in practice, given that agencies have been known in the past to say they have no records even as we come to find later that they did.

When the Bush Administration refused to release any minutes or other documentation about Cheney's energy task force there was indeed an uproar, but my understanding is that previous administrations had released such information.

That's my reasoning, anyway. Were this a change from "yes, we have such records" to "no, we have no such records". Rather than from "maybe" to "no," I would actually care. As it is, eh, I hope the ACLU manages to get the rule stricken, but I've got more important things to worry about.

[we vs us]

I probably would like to read some harsher scorn and condemnation over something that I think is so deserving. I have read that sort of response over Bush or republican decisions, and the lack of such here smells of a double standard.

Sorry that we're not as enraged as you are about this is weak-sauce Executive branch overreach . . . but, you know, it's pretty weak sauce, especially compared with some of the professional power grabs that Cheney + Co. perpetrated. 

[Townsend]

professional power grabs that Cheney + Co. perpetrated. 

We're supposed to defend those.

[Hoss]

We're supposed to defend those.

Yeah, and someone up above this post talks about 'double standard'...harhar

[guido911]

Sorry that we're not as enraged as you are about this is weak-sauce Executive branch overreach . . . but, you know, it's pretty weak sauce, especially compared with some of the professional power grabs that Cheney + Co. perpetrated.  

Being "enraged" and showing condemnation are two entirely different things. You appear to be "enraged" over what Cheney did, but you label as "weak sauce" an attempt by executive fiat to limit access to government information by an administration that campaigned on the exact opposite. With "fast and furious", Solyndra, LightSquared, and whatever else is looming going on, the timing of this "weak sauce" is to say the least curious.

[nathanm]

an attempt by executive fiat to limit access to government information by an administration that campaigned on the exact opposite.

That's not what actually happened. We weren't getting access to the information either way. The only difference is the way in which they say no.

[guido911]

That's not what actually happened. We weren't getting access to the information either way. The only difference is the way in which they say no.

We can disagree on what the result is, I'm more concerned about the motive. Again, none of this really matters as it's doomed imho.

[nathanm]

I'm more concerned about the motive.

Doesn't the rule specifically apply to classified (or other legally non-discloseable) information, not just stuff the government would prefer to keep quiet for political reasons?