“The Most Transparent Administration in History”
Whether or not we voted for him, Barack Obama is our president and will be for the next four years, which means that we are invested in his inauguration. We deserve to have it open to us so that we are able to witness it and so that we are able to glean something from it regarding the president’s plans for a second term.
Too bad that the Obama administration might be thinking otherwise:
The White House Correspondents Association is strongly urging the Obama administration to allow press access to the president’s official swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, following indications from inauguration committee officials that the event could potentially be closed to the press.
“Mindful of the historic nature of this occasion, we expect the White House will continue the long tradition of opening the President’s official swearing-in to full press access, and we as an organization are looking forward to working with the administration to make that happen,” Ed Henry, the Fox News correspondent and president of the White House Correspondents Association, said in a statement.
Because inauguration day falls on a Sunday in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts will officially administer the official oath of office in a private ceremony that day. The public inauguration on the Capitol Building’s West Front — at which Roberts will administer a second, symbolic oath of office — will take place the next day.
In early meetings with the inaugural committee, officials privately indicated to reporters that the Jan. 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza, sources familiar with the meeting told POLITICO.
[. . .]
“Call me shell-shocked. I’m stunned that this is even an issue; it boggles the mind,” NBC News White House correspondent Chuck Todd told POLITICO. “This is not their oath, this is the constitutional oath. It’s not for them. It’s for the public, the citizens of the United Sates. It just boggles the mind — How is this even a debate?”
Now, to be fair, as the story indicates, no final decision has been made to make the January 20th inauguration a private one. And even if it were, the public inauguration will indeed serve to indicate what direction the president wants to take when it comes to policy in the second term. But that doesn’t change the fact that the January 20th inauguration is the actual, official inauguration–the one that serves as a starting gun for the second term. It is bizarre in the extreme to contemplate making that event a purely private one. At the very least, the press pool should be allowed to witness the event, and as the story goes on to note, when Ronald Reagan faced a similar situation for his inauguration in 1985, “Reagan’s White House allowed complete news coverage of the private ceremony, including three reporters, three still photographers, and one network television pool camera, according to a Los Angeles Times report from the time. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN carried live broadcasts of the event.” There is no reason why the Obama administration should do anything differently.
But of course, we really shouldn’t be surprised if the administration does things differently. Despite the fact that Barack Obama promised “the most transparent administration in history,” a simple Google search reveals that promises of government transparency have been broken multiple times and for no good reason whatsoever. I’d like to think that Barack Obama will finally try to keep his pledge to run a transparent government–especially given the fact that we are discussing his own inauguration here–but I am not holding my breath.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
/rant on
Hey, Chuck "Shell-Shocked Mind-Boggled" Todd, you might have missed it but there was a major scandal this past fall involving this Administrations unwillingness to tell the truth to the American public about the murder of our ambassador by Islamist terrorists in Libya, and going so far as to incarcerate the film-maker of the film that was the party-line scapegoat under conspicuously suspicious circumstances in the dead of night--and the MSM response.....crickets......
So, how about instead of going ballistic over this extremely minor issue--over which, of course, you are right and the oath is for the American people--you might be able to summon some of this outrage for the truly outrageous failures of some administration officials to live up to their constitutional oaths!
/rant off
Edited on December 8, 2012 at 5:30pmMay '10
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
Crow's Nest beat me to it. The mainstream media is going to be treated like the lapdogs they are, Chuck needs to get used to it.
Jun '12
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
Does King Barack The First care what the voters and the press think anymore?
No. They served their purpose, he can't run for office again -- if he tries it will be blatantly unconstitutional, and even the press can't help him get over that hump -- so they are discarded and thrown under the bus, just like everyone else Obama doesn't need any more... see also Wright, Rev. Jeremiah.
Dec '11
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
He doesn't want people to know he'll be swearing on a copy of Das Kapital.
Oct '10
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
If the inauguration is on the 20th, why is there a giant public fantasy ceremony the next day? Either he's sworn in or not. Livestream the Sunday ceremony and screw the press. And screw the beltway gladhandlers and their Hunger Games celebration of access to power the Monday.
Nov '11
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
I don't see why Obama would want it private. It's not as though he's going to be asked difficult questions or anything. It's not like him to hide for something like this -- when did he start running away from positive media exposure? The only thing I can think of is that they're afraid it would detract from the ceremonies the next day.
I rather suspect someone simply hasn't thought things through, that they'll be backing down rather quickly, and that there will be plenty of cameras on him.
Nov '10
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
They want to be able to photoshop in a dove descending on him as he places his hand on the Qur'an.
Edited on December 8, 2012 at 7:37pmJun '10
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
I'm a bit more cynical. My suspicion was how exclusive it was going to be: Reid, Pelosi, union leaders, heads of [insert minority] Caususes, major bundlers, etc - with Boehner, McConnell, et. al., specifically not invited. You know just how incredibly skilled the Obama Protocol Office has been in the past.
But, they probably will back down, and the guest list expanded.
Jun '11
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
Chief Justice Roberts, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
Aug '12
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
I was in Washington DC last week taking photographs of the Capitol. There is an ugly 6-foot green chain-link fence around the entire Capitol to keep people out as they build a gigantic bleacher section on the steps for Obama's immaculation, take 2. To realize now that it's all for show is quite disgusting. Further, Obama is selling indulgences to corporate sponsors for access. We have installed a combination king/pope. If a Republican tried these stunts there would be crying and gnashing of teeth.
Oct '10
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
When the media gets upset over little stuff like this while ignoring the huge implications of what they are really hiding, it just shows how useless the media has become.
I agree with them on this, of course, but nobody's going to listen to you complain about the small when you ignore the big.
Re: “The Most Transparent Administration in History”
Quote of the Day, perhaps.
Dave Roy: When the media gets upset over little stuff like this while ignoring the huge implications of what they are really hiding, it just shows how useless the media has become.
I agree with them on this, of course, but nobody's going to listen to you complain about the small when you ignore the big. · 10 hours ago