Legal commentators did, however, express the hope that the requests were denied on the narrow grounds that the applications used the word "visotors" and not the more familiar and traditional "visitors."

It was suggested that the Republicans were not so smart putting together all the executive powers they did because the Dems would use them as well, and so they are.

What is really disappointing is NOT that Bush used the same arguments, but that the courts overruled them both times and Obama did it anyway. That's not stubborn, that's disrespectful of the law.

This is NOT what I voted for . . . .

Knowing who visits the White House is important because? Seriously, I'd like to know why this is important?

Personally, I am angry about these things. BUT, I live in Hyde Park and having followed Obama's rise since the nineties. I am simply not ready to distrust him and know better than to underestimate his intellect.

The way I see it, Obama is forcing us to protest him and to file lawsuits against some of these continuing iffy discretionary decisions that were perpetrated by the Bush administration. i see this as potentially establishing two goals:

First, it refreshes grievances and lawsuits against his administration on key issues, even minor and seemingly inocuous ones like this, versus just continuing to press the old complaints filed under the Bush years, which, on their face, may appear partisan. This keeps complaints current and not subject to statutes of limitations, deadlines or as having faded from the collective public memory. It also legally demonstrates that complaints/laws are not partisan and that they apply to a Democratic administration as well as the previous Republican one.

Second, Obama must know that the protests against a Democratic president continuing these policies, by his own supporters, will be much more vociferous and angry (and newsworthy) as they were when leveled at the Bush administration. People expected Bush to be that way, but they do not expect this from the leader of their own party. The media won't ignore that. Look at the increasing media coverage of the DOMA brief.

This will essentially force Obama's hand to reverse course and in doing so he will demonstrate that he is beholden to the law, and that, unlike his predecessor, he listens to people. It also brings these issues into the mainstream and forces public refelction, commentary and protest.

The way I see it, Obama can, at will, satisfy his base. All he has to do is simply reverse course on any of the issues where progressives are protesting. We are not an unreasonable bunch. We just want what's right. He's not an idiot and knows that full well. Moreover, he's demonstrated that he has no fear of apologizing in public. This is calculated. Some see it as weakness, but I see it as establishing precedent for humility and strength of character.

Does anyone think for one second that if tomorrow he decides to reverse his position on issues of transparency like this or DADT, for example, that Progressive activists won't herald and commend him because, upon reflection he did the legal and right thing?

Plus, he will have done so explicitly BECAUSE of the fact that Progressives angrily dissented in lawful and organized protest thereby strengthening the cause of their respective organizations.

Protest away! Disown him, curse his every decision. I'm with you! And, it's what he wants.

Another rollback from our "transparent administration" President.

I am now so disillusioned with Obama
that when he appears on TV I get the same negative feeling I get when Cheney or Bush appear.

Looking back on the Obama/McCain race I can now see I was going to lose with whoever won, it was simply a matter of degree.

The way I see it, the Obama administration is continuing some things that Bush was doing simply because he hasn't had a chance to deal with them the way he would like. Groups like the ACLU and CREW have been pushing on a variety of issues long before Obama took over at the White House and a lot of it was in process and came to a head before Obama and his team were ready to deal with it. Being the cautious fellow that he is, and given he didn't have time to thoroughly review this stuff, and given that a judge was tapping his foot waiting for a response, Obama did the cautious thing and continued with whatever position the Bush administration handed him.

In other words, the decision tree is like this:

Big pile of crap lands on us in court -> have we had time to review it? No? -> Do whatever Bush was doing until we can sort it out.

I'm willing to cut Obama slack for a bit longer. At a certain point, however, he's gonna own this stuff and I expect him to keep his campaign promises.

Troubling!

This has not been the only troubling indicator.There has been others.Don't forget anyone who would call GWBush to get feedback ought to make you think twice.(Obama has said he has spoken to Bush several timesa since Bush left office)

Obama has said he has spoken to Bush several timesa since Bush left office...

Of course... when crooks and cronies and those attempting to weld power they tend to consult with others who do likewise.

Heaven forbid any control actually gets away and ends up in the masses... no telling WHAT damage they will do with it. After all, they are just commoners in need of continual structure, guidance and control. they're too dumb to actually discipline themselves. The proof: Just look at how they continue to ask the mobsters to take control.. to protect them from the OTHER mobsters... IMHO

60th Street-- Your optimism is optimistic, but what you propose requires a double bank shot to hit the corner pocket. The visitor log seems like such a low-rent issue on which to take a defiant stand. Especially since it has already been settled for GWB. Maybe Obama is trying to rile up his base to get us to FORCE him to do the right thing/s. Supposedly FDR explicitly made such a challenge to progressives right after he was elected.

Jeff Gannon sighting? Obama's on the down low?