Where’s the sunshine? Obama’s eclipse |

Where’s the sunshine? Obama’s eclipse

Both left and right are denouncing the latest outrageous action that belies President Obama’s “most transparent administration in history” claim — and mocks the very concept of government openness with its timing.

Monday, National Freedom of Information Day, was part of Sunshine Week. So, for a White House that preaches but doesn’t practice openness, Monday was the perfect day to announce that its Office of Administration no longer will be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations. The administration claims it’s merely aligning FOIA regs with a 2009 court ruling that exempted the Office of Administration, which archives emails, among other functions.

Anne Weismann of the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose lawsuit over millions of deleted Bush administration emails led to that ruling, calls this week’s action “completely out of step with the president’s supposed commitment to transparency.” Tom Fitton of the conservative group Judicial Watch says that “when it became politically inconvenient, they decided they weren’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act any more.”

And it’s a pattern, as The Associated Press detailed in a scathing dispatch noting how “more often than ever” the Obama administration censors government files or outright denies access.

A spokeswoman says this White House remains committed to “unprecedented openness in government.” But its actions speak louder than its duplicitous words, making clear that opacity is its real goal.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.