Obama asks for questions

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Obama's team has set up a new website asking for questions from the public:

 

http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions

 

The idea is that questions can be voted on by the public and the popular questions will be answered by Obama and his team. (It's based on Google's Moderator software, which they use in speeches and discussions at Google HQ.)

 

The first few questions are predictable, but there are some great questions in the top set, I think.

 

I had actually been thinking about this sort of thing before. It would do volumes of good (in terms of image and PR) if he'd make good on the idea and honestly answer the top questions. I'd like to know what my president is thinking. (A presidential blog would be awesome, though they'd never do that.)

 

Let's see how this works out.

[DrP]

I wish you all well - I really hope he makes a difference. I think the puplic forum thing is a great idea. Seriously - I wish him every success in office - I hope he does a fantastic job.

[npts2020]

The public forum is the reason he is in office. IMO how he manages it now that he is there will have more to do with his effectiveness than congressional action or inaction. With the proper use he may well be able to effectively change congress in 2 years if they are reluctant to support him.

[ecoli]

I thought the fact that he had a .gov was fishy: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84464

[Pangloss]

Well that's the problem with using right-wing sources -- you get the right-wing spin without any of that annoying truthiness. They call it "illegal" when in fact the GSA can give .gov domains to anybody its wants. It writes the regulations that decide whether or not something is "legal". They can give a .gov to SFN if they want to. (Hmm!)

[bascule]

I thought the fact that he had a .gov was fishy: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84464

 

Seems the only reference to illegality is on Judicial Watch's blog, and they don't say why.

 

The Obama campaign requested a waiver and it was approved. What's so fishy?

[ecoli]

Seems the only reference to illegality is on Judicial Watch's blog, and they don't say why.

 

The Obama campaign requested a waiver and it was approved. What's so fishy?

 

because a political campaign was approved to own a government domain before said politician assumed office.

 

It's obviously not really illegal, but I think that crossed a line. if there going to have rules for owning domain names, why make exceptions?

[Sisyphus]

because a political campaign was approved to own a government domain before said politician assumed office.

 

This is such a non-issue. If it was a campaign, I would agree, since that would be an unfair (though still practically meaningless) pulpit. However, it's not a campaign. It's the transition team of the President-elect. And while Obama does not currently hold any actual office, he is the Constitutionally designated person to be sworn in as President in a few weeks (I know, the electoral college hasn't had their ceremony, bla bla, harumph harumph), and in practice that is a real role to play. For example, Obama also currently gets the same security briefings as the President, even though currently he's technically unemployed, because he has to be fully brought up to speed before he takes office. Surely that's much more significant than domain names, no?

[iNow]

Aren't Senators allowed to use .gov domains?

[ecoli]

This is such a non-issue.?

 

in the large scheme of things I do agree with you, but it still bothers me for some reason.

 

Aren't Senators allowed to use .gov domains?

 

 

lets find out...

 

From this:

http://www.dotgov.gov/help_qualify.aspx

 

Registrations that qualify for a .gov domain

 

• U.S. Governmental departments, programs, and agencies on the federal level
  
• Federally recognized Indian Tribes (-NSN.gov domain)
  
• State governmental entities/programs
  
• Cities and townships represented by an elected body of officials
  
• Counties and parishes represented by an elected body of officials
  
• U.S. territories

Is Obama's 'transition team' a federal department or program? If so, shouldn't these things be approved by the constitution or legislature?

 

 

Registrations that do not qualify for a .gov domain

 

* International organizations

* Commercial firms

* Privately owned organizations

* Military entities (except in special cases)

* Local (e.g., city, county, township, or parish) government programs or initiatives

* Cities, townships, counties, parishes, and other local entities that are not represented by an elected body of officials

 

Who's funding the transition team... Obama's campaign money? Wouldn't that qualify it for being privately owned?

Edited December 28, 2008 by ecoli
multiple post merged

[Phi for All]

This is a silly argument. Would anyone deny that his transition is unique in American history and that our circumstances warrant a bit of leeway in this regard? Perhaps if we weren't at war, in a recession and divided as a nation he would have waited another few months before changing .org to .gov.

 

But we are, we are and we are. Judicial Watch my ass.

[ecoli]

This is a silly argument. Would anyone deny that his transition is unique in American history and that our circumstances warrant a bit of leeway in this regard? Perhaps if we weren't at war, in a recession and divided as a nation he would have waited another few months before changing .org to .gov.

 

But we are, we are and we are. Judicial Watch my ass.

 

Then how would having a .gov instead of a .org make a difference? Maybe by confusing unwary americans that Obama's rhetoric is akin to present government policy?

 

I don't really know, and I won't leap to conspiracy theories, but I still don't like it. It's misleading at best and I question the motives behind the move. Even the domain name, which comes right from his political campaign, seems like the usual empty rhetoric coming from Obama since day 1.

 

And , btw, I'm not endorsing the website of the content, just musing about the content.

[bascule]

Is Obama's 'transition team' a federal department or program?

 

No, hence why Obama asked for an exemption from the GSA. It could've been denied... but they decided to approve it because they felt it was warranted.

 

If so, shouldn't these things be approved by the constitution or legislature?

 

No, Congress decided to delegate these duties to the GSA, and the GSA decided to approve the request.

 

What's the problem?

[Pangloss]

He's not a Senator or a government official of any kind, but I really don't see a problem with authorizing the president-elect to use an official government information outlet that is clearly, transparently stated to be coming from where it is coming from. The Post Office isn't a government entity either, nor is the Federal Reserve, but both have .gov addresses (though the USPS one seems to redir to a .com).

 

I don't think it was misleading either -- I think the reason for making it ".gov" instead of something else is so that people would know it's really Obama and not somebody else pretending to be Obama. I don't think it was because he wanted people to think that his statements there carried official weight as an officer of government -- he's been extremely careful to support the current government, even going as far as backing President Bush in many public statements.

 

I don't have a problem with the suggestion that the rules need to be tightened up or clarified on who gets .govs and who doesn't. More clarity is usually a good thing.

[ecoli]

He's not a Senator or a government official of any kind, but I really don't see a problem with authorizing the president-elect to use an official government information outlet that is clearly, transparently stated to be coming from where it is coming from.

me neither

 

I don't think it was misleading either -- I think the reason for making it ".gov" instead of something else is so that people would know it's really Obama and not somebody else pretending to be Obama.

Fair point, I hadn't considered that. OTOH, other websites have managed to establish legitimacy without "official" distinction.... like any candidate's campaign website.

 

 

- he's been extremely careful to support the current government, even going as far as backing President Bush in many public statements.

Yeah, that scares me more than anything else.

 

I don't have a problem with the suggestion that the rules need to be tightened up or clarified on who gets .govs and who doesn't. More clarity is usually a good thing.

Yeah, perhaps this was the point I was trying to make.

 

No, Congress decided to delegate these duties to the GSA, and the GSA decided to approve the request.

I meant labeling the authority of "transition team," not in granting domain names. In this case a government entity granted government recognition (of a sort) to a non-government organization. I don't think this sets good precedence. Not to say it will definitely be abused, but since we're treading on new and "historic" grounds here, might as well not let Obama bend the rules that others can take advantage of in the future.

[ydoaPs]

Questions are once again able to be submitted. There are already quite a few questions requesting the legalization of marijuana.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Did they ever post answers to the previous set?

[ydoaPs]

Yes

 

 

 

Hmm....it seems my questions aren't very popular.

Edited December 29, 2008 by ydoaPs
multiple post merged

[Saryctos]

Q: "What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?" Kari, Seattle

 

A: President-elect Obama is deeply committed to restoring the rule of law and respecting constitutional checks and balances.That is why he has pledged to review Bush Administration executive orders. President-elect Obama will also end the abuse of signing statements, and put an end to the politicization that has taken place within the Department of Justice and return that agency to its historic and apolitical mission of fair and impartial administration of justice.

 

For ****'s sake...This is the kind of crap that's allowed on government websites?

[Pangloss]

What are you objecting to, the question or the answer?

[Saryctos]

That is the sort of question you don't respond to in a public forum, it's tasteless.

[D H]

Seems the only reference to illegality is on Judicial Watch's blog, and they don't say why.

More here: http:// http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/GSAResponse2changedotgovfoia.pdf

 

Is Judicial Watch a right wing group? I just thought they were an overexuberant watchdog group who sometime yell fire when there isn't even any smoke.

 

There is no smoke here.

 

The Obama campaign requested a waiver and it was approved. What's so fishy?

Nothing. The Obama campaign team requested a .gov site before the election and that request was appropriately rejected. Granting that request would have a clear violation. The Obama transition team requested a waiver the day after winning the election, and that was appropriately approved. Failing to grant that request would have been a dereliction of duty.

 

The GSA is required to help the president-elect come up to speed on the nature of the job. Having a .gov site for the president-elect is part of coming up to speed in the internet age. The Obama team has been very adept at use of modern media. This is just a continuation of that savvy.

[Phi for All]

That is the sort of question you don't respond to in a public forum, it's tasteless.

It's the kind of question that's asked and responded to on C-SPAN. I've seen other questions of impropriety with much less to back them up come up on pundit shows on Fox. Why is it inappropriate for an internet forum?

[Pangloss]

I think I see where you're coming from there, Saryctos, but it doesn't quite cross that line with me.

[Genecks]

I'm guessing y'all like the gestapo tactics of the Bush administration? All of you want that patriot act to hang around? I sure don't! I think it is fascist!

 

Bush did indeed cross the line and ignore the judicial branch.

The idea of using a warrant to invade a person's privacy was thrown away.

 

If Obama gets rid of it, I suspect I'll vote for him again, regardless of what armageddon come our way.

 

TO CONTRIBUTE, however, to the thread I can say this: Obama wants to integrate the America public and technology. He wants to find a way to get responses from society in order to make change happen faster. Obama wanted a lot to happen in congress, and now that he's going to be president, he wants to find an efficient way to get things done.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Genecks