Let me real clear for you

Post #278,917 by Seamus 3/20/07 9:16:00 AM Reply	Let me real clear for you The reason they don't want to tell us who they consulted with in determining their energy policy seems to be related to their belief that the president is first among equals. They have shown themselves more than willing to tell the public whatever they think we want to hear. Without seeing what formal advice they are getting, we have no way of knowing whether they are serving our interests or serving someone else's interest. This administration does not have a good record of serving the public interest if it conflicts with the interest of their donors. Seamus
Post #278,918 by bepatient 3/20/07 9:33:08 AM Reply	I don't see an issue here. I see you saying the administration acted exactly as it is supposed to to formulate policies (confer with their choice of experts) I then see you saying that the people are too lazy or too stupid to review the policies of the government. And SINCE that is the case, then what you want is the ability to witch hunt private citizens and field experts because because you have a personal beef with those setting policy. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,927 by Another Scott 3/20/07 10:45:11 AM Reply	My thoughts. Of course, there are cases when a president needs to be able to call someone and say, "Look Nancy, I need your honest advice here. What do you think I should do about XYZ?" I don't think anyone has a problem with a president getting honest advice like that. I think the refusal of Bush to disclose more about the workings of the [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html\|Energy Task Force] is bad because it's not just private advice by one or a very few people, it's a group specially convened to create a policy. Just as people got upset with Hillary's [link\|http://www.nlpc.org/ew/01-1hctf.htm\|health care meetings] because many thought there was too little transparency, people are upset with these secret policy meetings. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but as a general policy it's hard to go wrong with "Sunshine is the best disinfectant". Why is one of the reforms being pushed in earmarks the requirement to list who is pushing the legislation? Because transparency is best. The same thing goes for the Executive Branch. Cheers, Scott.
Post #279,504 by Seamus 3/25/07 2:11:07 PM 3/25/07 2:12:06 PM Reply	I am sure you don't I didn't comment on whether the administration acted as it should have, I believe the only asked for input on policy from those who agree with them. A polar opposite of a president such as Lincoln. I think a presidential administration has the duty to seek out as much input as possible when it come a important national priority such as energy. They did not. I also didn't comment on the intelligence of the american public. When it comes to politics, it seems to be disinterested in looking at the why behind the actions of politicians. Why they are disinterested I didn't offer an opinion. My comment was about how it seems to me that this administration only says what they think their base wants to hear. I believe we the people deserve a government where what that government does and how it decides what it does needs to be done is open to inspection and debate. A don't believe in witch hunts. Please leave your issues out of my comments. Seamus Edited by Seamus March 25, 2007, 02:12:06 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!