Signing Hypocrisy?

During the campaign, then candidate Barack Obama had as his position that he would let the public have a fair view of proposed legislation before signing it. This was known as the sunshine pledge. Below is the pledge:

So, as it turns out this pledge has been broken. Is it hypocrisy? In a formal sense it is although it is of almost no importance. In addition, it is also evidence of the fact that the Obama campaign really didn't understand the legislative process in much detail.

Some people may wonder why it is so hard to post legislation for 5 days before signing it. Unfortunately, I have some experience in this matter. As it turns out, many bills are a convoluted mess when they are voted on. In a lot of cases the 'bill' exists as a combination of several printed documents together with handwritten notes. This occurs even as late as the signing. Many times, it takes the Library of Congress a few weeks before they have a readable bill.

So, yes, the Obama-Biden team is hypocritical but it is a very minor thing.

Here is a post about the late June retreat on the pledge from Volokh conspiracy, a law blog
Here is a post about the July abandonment of the pledge from the same blog.
Here is a post where a blogger identifies the 40 bills that President Obama has signed and calculates that the campaign promise was met in, at most one bill.
Here is the Obama-Biden website with the sunshine promise

Biden vs. Palin Hypocrisy??

VP Biden and Gov Palin have both said similar things about Israel vs Iran and the US. But TPM poster M.J. Rosenburg (who is also a director of the Israel Policy Forum, a 'two-state' advocacy group), and Matthew Yglesias, propriator of "Think Progress", a self described progressive website, have different reactions to Biden and Palin.

Basically, both Rosenburg and Matt Y. call Palin 'stupid' for saying something similar (in 2008) to what Biden said (in 2009). They might be able to claim the situation has changed but, if that is the case, doesn't it make Palin something of a prophet (in any case their Biden comments did not refer, or link back, to their Palin comments)?

So are they hypocrites? It seems to me that they are, although a better description would be that they are partisen hacks. As for the degree of hypocrisy I'd rank it pretty low since they are just repeating what other partisen hacks have said. On the other hand, both the TPM and the Think Progress website get a lot of hits so maybe they have a 'spread the word' influence that is more than I suspect.


Here is a transcript (earlier this month) of Biden speaking to George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.

and here is the Palin transcript (from a 2008 interview with Katie Couric):

Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, “second guess” Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?
Palin:

We shouldn’t second guess Israel’s security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn’t second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don’t think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?
Palin:

No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …

Couric: But you said never second guess them.
Palin:

We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Here is the the TPM commentator on Biden's comments:

Obama Today: No Green Light to Israel

By M.J. Rosenberg - July 7, 2009, 10:03AM

So much for that.

The President said today that he has "absolutely not" given Israel a "green light" to attack Iran.

So Biden either misspoke, was misinterpreted, or has just been corrected by his boss. Israel will get no green light to attack. We will, as Obama said all along, rely on diplomacy to solve the Iran problem.

Good. But we need to do something. I think the mullahs have demonstrated that they are capable of absolutely anything -- including nuking Israel despite the cost to their own people (about whom they care not at all).

But an Israeli attack would not solve anything; on the contrary it would create the havoc in the Middle East like nothing we've experienced yet (and jeopardize the lives of 120,000 American troops next door).

Obama knows that. And if anyone can unravel this knot, it's him.

Here is the TPM commentator on Palin's comments:

Now we know why among the very first people Sarah Palin sat down with after being nominated was Joe Lieberman and the head of AIPAC.

She needed the latest talking points and, boy, did she learn her lines.

Matt Y on Biden's comment:

This is being read by some, including Marc Lynch, as a “green light” for an Israeli attack. Like Robert Farley I think the most straightforward reading of what Biden said is rather different, he’s trying to distance the United States from any possible Israeli military action by making it clear that what Israel does or doesn’t do is decided in Israel rather than in Washington.

Matt Y on Palin's comment:

Palin is okay at repeating various “pro-Israel” buzzwords, but she can’t run away from the fact that her underlying position on this topic is stupid.


Biden transcript here
Palin transcript here (for the Couric) and (here for the Gibson interview)
Rosenberg on Biden comment here
Rosenberg on Palin comment here
Matt Y on Biden here
Matt Y on Palin here

WaPo Accuses Capital Hill of Hypocrisy on Gitmo


Here is part of a Washington Post Editorial entitled, "Hypocrisy on the [Capitol] Hill"

"FOR YEARS, Democrats clamored for the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using the prison to pummel President George W. Bush for abusing his authority, violating domestic and international law, and tarnishing the reputation of the United States. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) felt so strongly about the issue that she sponsored legislation in 2007 to force Mr. Bush to shutter the facility.

Now lawmakers are making it nearly impossible for President Obama to close the notorious prison by year's end, as he promised to do...."Ms. Feinstein, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and 88 other senators -- including every Republican -- voted to attach to a must-pass, supplemental war spending bill several provisions that tie the president's hands. Ms. Feinstein complained that the president lacked a detailed plan to deal with detainees...."

It seems to me there are two parts to what Congress did.

The first part concerns bringing of detainees into the US. I'll agree here that anyone (Senator, Representative or otherwise) who pre 2009 said, "we must close Gitmo" and now says, "Detainees must not be brought to the US" is a hypocrite. I don't think it is a very serious hypocrisy for reasons I'll get into later.

However, there is another part to this. President Obama has issued an executive order to close the Gitmo detention center but has not submitted a plan for how to do this. It seems to me reasonable to deny an appropriation to close the detention center without such a plan (although, it also seems to me that it would be unreasonable to deny an appropriation to develop such a plan).

With respect to the seriousness of the hypocrisy, I think the WaPo is missing an important point (and I can't find it specifically addressed anywhere). This point is that there is no assurance that Gitmo Detainees brought into the US will not be released by courts. Some people may consider this an unreasonable fear but without some assurance in statute (which the Congress is free to develop but which, IMO, the Administration, specifically DOJ should develop) that the detainees will remain in maximum security, it seems to me a reasonable fear.

The WaPo Editorial is here.

Sarah Palin Threatens Lawsuit

(from an article in CBS news) "Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."

This follows an announcement by the FBI that Governor Palin is not under FBI investigation nor has she been under investigation.

The issue of the alleged FBI investigation is apparently the funding of a sports arena in Wasilla, Alaska. That's it in the image.

But, my brother Irwin reports that Palin spoke against frivolous lawsuits in the 2008 campaign (we can't find any specific speech on the subject on the internet but the 2008 Repulican Platform is clearly 'pro-legal reform'). Let's suppose for argument, Palin made general statements such as 'we need to reform laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits.

If that were true, I see no hypocrisy. The Palin attorney who is threatening a lawsuit is only threatening people who spread manifestly untrue matter, and that, on only one issue.

This is the article about the threatened law suit

This is an article noting that Palin is not under FBI investigation.

A list of 3 ethics complaints aginast Palin in 2008. I'm not sure if this is correct, but the people who posted it think Palin is the victim of frivalous lawsuits and complaints.

The 2008 Republican Party statement on "Reforming the Civil Justice System..." is here. I couldn't find any statement on the subject in the 2008 Democratic Platform.