New at Reason
Nick Gillespie introduces the Oath of Presidential Transparency, and the only three candidates who've signed it.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Lost_In_Translation | August 24, 2007, 1:12pm | #
This should intrigue libertarians wondering about an Obama presidency (raises eyebrow)There's no point wondering about an Obama presidency because HRC will be the Democratic nominee. This is fundamentally different that speculating about a RON PAUL presidency. It is merely unlikely that RON PAUL will be elected, but entirely possible. OTOH Hillary owns the controlling shares of the Democratic Party and CAN NOT POSSIBLY be defeated for the nomination.
Lost_In_Translation | August 24, 2007, 1:23pm | #
Warren,(blinks)(blinks again)(shrugs)(kicks rock)(wanders off)
x,y | August 24, 2007, 1:41pm | #
to cost a relatively measly $15 million between now and 2011, the searchable database will give watchdog groups, government reformers, and regular citizens unprecedented amounts of information about where taxpayer dollars are going and how their elected representatives are behavingGuesses on how much this will actually cost?
Dan | August 24, 2007, 1:46pm | #
I thought Reason Foundation just loooooved Rudy G.Why hasn't he signed?
Where's Dondero to tell us why Rudy is so awesome he doesn't need to pander to us. After all, USNews said he's a libertarian.
joe | August 24, 2007, 1:50pm | #
Warren,Just becasue the Repubican Party operates according to monarchist rules of succession does not mean the Democratic Party does as well.
Al Gore had a real fight on his hands just to beat Bill Bradley, fer Chrissakes.
Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman had the greatest backing from the Democratic establishment in the 2004 primaries. John Kerry was an unpopular loner with a bad relationship with his colleagues.
And Bill Clinton in 1992 - fuhgettabout it! A welfare-reforming governor of Arkansas?
Need I bring up Jimmy Carter?
Hillary Clinton may well win this nomination, because she's running a great campaign, because OMG OMG a woman!, but it is still very much an open contest.
And if Al Gore gets in, she's toast.
Pro Libertate | August 24, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Gore? The guy who lost to Bush? I've never understood your excitement about a Gore campaign.Otherwise, I more or less agree--Clinton is hardly a shoe-in. She could win, but I think she's very likely to run into problems in some major states. Florida is a good example of a place where I think she'll flop in a major way.
Christina | August 24, 2007, 2:19pm | #
Hillary Clinton will get the nomination because:a) Democrats are fools who think Americans want humorless wonks for President. What a great strategy that's been!
b) She's a woman and a Clinton.
c) She's seen as a moderate candidate, thanks to her waffling on Iraq.
I would love-love-love to see a Paul v. Clinton race. An anti-war Republican against a pro-war Democrat. Heads would explode all across the country.
These candidates say they'll be transparent, but I see right through 'em.
spelling marm | August 24, 2007, 2:42pm | #
Shoo-in, for Pete's sake. "Shoe-in" makes no sense.joe | August 24, 2007, 2:42pm | #
Pro Libertate,Two words: Do Over.
Coming out against the Iraq War before it started, without being a dirty fucking hippie, is a very strong hand these days.
Adam W. | August 24, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Another point for Obama.Interesting group that's signed it:
-a fairly conventional liberal
-probably the most socially conservative candidate
-the libertarian candidate
mk | August 24, 2007, 3:04pm | #
As a database weenie living in the DC area, I should really try to get a job with the group making this searchable database.An enormous well-funded IT project that the stakeholders don't want to actually work. It's like hitting the jackpot. Think about how much time I would have to read H&R!
Danny | August 24, 2007, 3:05pm | #
If the rest of them just signed the damn thing then they'd all go back to being transparent again. If everybody's special, nobody is!Pro Libertate | August 24, 2007, 3:09pm | #
Oops. I guess I have footware end mine win I thing of Sen. Clinton.Heh, heh. Maybe I should do this all the time. It's liberating.
Warren | August 24, 2007, 3:09pm | #
joe,Re 1:50pm That is all history. Within the DP HRC is an irresistible force, resistance is futile.
Kwix | August 24, 2007, 3:28pm | #
This is a amazingly laudable goal. I personally would be happy if we started with an even simpler set of goals.First, make the Congressional Record a, well record of what happens on the floor of congress instead of the story telling hour it is now.
Secondly, make every congressional vote a recorded vote. I am tired of finding crap ass laws being passed by a "voiced majority" and no way to see how my Congresscritter voted.
That being said, it dumbfounds me how the front-running Presidential nominees basically just said "I have lied to you and I am going to continue to lie to you" and the public doesn't so much as blink.
Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 4:52pm | #
Dan, that was actually pretty funny.Isaac Bartram | August 24, 2007, 5:04pm | #
"Shoe-in" makes no sense.I think Pro Lib is saying he'd like to give Hillary the boot.
"Shoe-In" makes no sense?? How hard is it to put your foot in a shoe?
jh | August 24, 2007, 6:40pm | #
First, signatories agree to conduct "THE most transparent Administration in American history--a lofty, laudable, far-reaching goal. This oath signals that whether it's earmarks, directives, or ongoing management of taxpayer expenditures, the goal of transparency will be evident throughout all policy making aspects of your Administration."Yeah, the Hawaii state legislature seems to annually pass a bill promising transparency -- with the details fleshed out in closed caucus meetings not open to the public.
How naive do you have to be to believe such campaign promises unless the candidate has a long track record of actually being transparent -- something Obama simply hasn't been in office long enough to do?
This Oath is nonsense, which should be transparently clear to anyone familiar with how politics works.
joe | August 24, 2007, 7:22pm | #
Warren,I'll grant that Hillary pretty much owns the Democratic DC establishment, but one of the most significant political stories of the past three years has been how that establishment has ceded power over control of the party.
Howard Dean, who made every Democratic lifer in DC freak the hell out, is now DNC Chair. Joe Lieberman, the Vice Presidential candidate, has been driven out of the party. Yearly Kos was probably the most important single event on the Democratic calender this year.
Warty | August 24, 2007, 8:37pm | #
tow the lineAuuuuugh, it burns, it burns! Joe, I know that was intentional, but it hurts my soul. Read this fantastic essay by Orwell for an explanation why.
joe | August 24, 2007, 10:18pm | #
Staleness of imagery and lack of precision?You could literally knock me over with a feather.
Neu Mejican | August 25, 2007, 1:41pm | #
Warty,My respect for Orwell was seriously damaged by reading that piece of shite.
Jen | August 25, 2007, 6:06pm | #
jh -"This Oath is nonsense, which should be transparently clear to anyone familiar with how politics works."
Ditto that. Efficiency and honesty is anti-government.
Warty | August 25, 2007, 8:21pm | #
nm:It's not my fault that your style is pretentious and Latinized, your metaphors flyblown, and your imagery stale.