22nd
NYT: White House Changes the Terms of a Campaign Pledge About Posting Bills Online
Huh. You can “change the terms of a campaign pledge” and it’s not “breaking the pledge” it seems. Jim is right. Waiting five days to sign a bill matters. Why else wouldn’t they be doing it? There isn’t anybody in this town who doesn’t know that the “technical difficulties” excuse is B.S.NYT is indeed clever here. And I don’t care what anybody says, they did have a double standard about keeping their reporter’s kidnapping quiet for his safety (which I’m all for btw, props to the paper and the other publications that abided by their desire) and keeping state secrets quiet, despite concerns over national safety. (Of course, that being said I’m skeptical of any claims the administraation made over what was keeping the US safe, though I doubt the Times was in a position to adquately judge is.)
This is highly selective quoting. If you don’t want to read the original, here are some of the important (read: relevant) points.
1. The period of time has been a little as two days — which is better than any other president (this is the first time bills were widely available for review), but they are still being posted (the implication in the quote above is they aren’t available at all).
2. The administration acknowledged they perhaps over-reached, as there are limitations to this promise (the fact that the bill was already passed, obviating the chance for much revision, and unspecified ‘technical’ limitations, which does strike me as dodgy).
3. Consequently, they are looking into posting bills that are still in Congress — by doing this, it will effect the letter of the promise (at least five day review) and perhaps even the spirit of the promise (allowing public review and comment might provide feedback that shapes legislative will to better reflect public opinion).That’s a far cry from ‘breaking a promise.’
Me, actually read the story? Pfft.
