But, without getting into the nitty gritty of whether this is correct or not (which would require oh so much research, and heck, we never do that, unlike the blogosphere which is just full of , objective, crack research and support), the question does arise:
Since this well written piece is obviously done by a skeptic of the Obama Administration, a serious skeptic, why is it that it seems to be the right wing of the Republican party that cites back to key, critical statements; then attempts to show, rather then tell; and that understands the importance -- in connecting with those who otherwise are at first ambivalent -- of using the statements of one's opponents whenever possible, to make one's point? (We have a hunch.)
It's an intriguing, and funny, read. We'll provide a quick sampling of its more serious point, but really, you have to read it. The squirrel part is comical. (Not quite hysterical a la the cat scene in "Meet the Parents;" but then again, this is on the boring subjects of politics, and policy, so a rather large adjustment seems only fair).
And it has to be poor eyesight on my part, since I plainly remember during and after the campaign promising the following:We're all for openness.
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”
Harry Truman said it best (or at least he said it): "Secrecy, and a free, democratic government, don't mix." They Don't. And they haven't all decade.
But this applies to all administrations. Not just the administrations of one's political opponents.