White House To Release Visitor Logs

In a clear break from the George W. Bush White House, the Obama Administration has agreed to release its White House visitor logs, giving the American people a remarkably candid look at who is meeting with the President and top advisers. The logs will be released on a three to four month delay, and there will be exceptions that will remain secret, as USA Today, which broke the story, explains.

Exceptions would be made in cases of national security, extreme confidentiality — such as a visit by a future Supreme Court nominee — and strictly personal visits to the first family, including daughters Malia and Sasha.

Still a major step forward. In the past visitor names have been released usually as the result of legal proceedings, but they were not disclosed as a standard practice. Bush, who maintained that the records were protected under the Presidential Records Act, was forced to give up information about how often the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff visited the White House. The ethics group, Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington (CREW), which originally sought the disclosure of the records, cheered the Obama White House decision.

“The Obama administration has proven its pledge to usher in a new era of government transparency was more than just a campaign promise. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to keep secret the identities of those who visited the White House. In contrast, the Obama administration – by putting visitor records on the White House web site – will have the most open White House in history. Because visitor records will now be available online, CREW dismissed its lawsuits.” Sloan continued, “Providing public access to visitor records is an important step in restoring transparency and accountability to our government. CREW is proud to have been part of this historic decision.”

Related Topics: transparency, Barack Obama, Media, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Secret

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty Images

    A Tale of Two Economies: Mitt Romney vs. Republican Governors

    The great recession has left the state of Ohio battered and bruised–and Mitt Romney would have you believe it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Writing in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer on May 4, Romney advised Ohioans that the President has delivered them “paltry results,” and that their state is in need of “a fundamental change in direction.”

  • Paul-no not that one

    Who decides the exceptions? I assume the White House.

  • grape_crush

    Well, who else would do it? A special judge to identify if ‘national security’ or ‘extreme confidentiality’ applies? A special court to determine if the name of Sasha’s friend from school can be released to the public?
    .
    Some level of secrecy/privacy determined by the White House is understandable…besides, in the time it would take to review, decide, and appeal those cases, most of the impact of a potential nominee’s visit to the White House would be moot.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    It is a major step forward but it also a major departure from their previous stance. What do you suppose changed?

  • grape_crush

    correction, should read:
    .
    …most of the impact of something like a potential nominee’s visit…

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I know this is off topic but Joe Klein recently reassured us that this would stop happening:
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

  • gysgt213

    While this as a step forward its only a small step. Just like the release of the CIA IG report. However, I don’t think its necessarily going to turn out like people who are really concerned about who the comings and goings at the White House for transparancy or accountability sake. It has a downside which I will explain later.

    Another aspect of this story is how its seems to have becoming soley the job of groups like CREW and the ACLU to actually get information out of the administration, the past one, current one or any future one. The media is reduced to pretty much blogging or writing about it.

    The downside of this is that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are going to have this same information. Its not that they are not entitled to have it and if it was even remotely possible that they would use this information to responsibility hold the Obama administration accountable I would not even bring them up.

    The issue is though they have a proven track record of using this type of information to conjure up all kinds of imagined nefarious goings on at the WH that will dominate our discourse. And why not its not anyone is going call them on it.

  • pierogielunaire

    On the other hand, gysgt2123, LimBeckOHannity have proved time and time again that they don’t need actual information to make up the vilest of lies, so how will they really be advantaged by the change. Over all I think the WH made a good choice in this instance.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    Yes. WH decides.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    I hope you are not saying that the white house has no rights at all are you Paul? Because I think the President has an obligation to protect certain secrets whether we like it or not, and I hope that we aren’t so disillusioned by the abuse of power by one president that we don’t seek to neuter them all.

  • stuartzechman

    Gunny:
    .
    I’ve got to agree with superterrificdelagate.

  • stuartzechman

    sorry, that’s “superterrificdelegate”

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    I fear that no matter what this white house does it will not be enough. There is no level of transparency that they can create to satiate this appetite for bringing down a Democratic President. We point to the crazies like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, but relatively few people listen to them, and those that do didn’t vote for Obama in the first place. And they lost! So why are there view presented as from the American people as if they hold a majority view? It is members of the mainstream press like Mikey that are fanning the flames here. As long as no reputable conservative voices are willing to blow a whistle and call flag on the play, then we all know this story will end up being all about speculating whose been left off the list. The crazies will make stuff up and then CREW will feel its their duty to verify and this crap will start all over again.
    .
    There is nothing Obama can do to gain the trust of people who have been taught by the media that their is no such thing as empirical truth, that have their own instrument of propaganda, and who claim to be conservative but in fact are obviously not when they advocate to destroy the social order.
    .
    I have feared that this was going to be the eventual outcome, because Republican faced with the wilderness would rather destroy the country than watch the Democrats once again pull our butts out of the fire. Clearly our school system sucks because out history courses have failed to teach how often the GOP screws up and how often the Democrats play clean up.
    .
    Right now Obama is suffering from a problem that every Black person in this country is familiar with and that is having to prove themselves daily that they belong. When the president is forced to prove that he’s not harmful to children and this country has clearly reached a new all time low. Too bad I’m not independently wealthy, otherwise I would root for the Republicans to win back the country, because it won’t take more than a few months of their inept and discredited leadership to to damage this country beyond repair. Frankly, the fact that the media promotes treating this president like he’s about to snatch their purse, tells me they deserve whatever they get.

  • rustyreturns

    NEWSFLASH!!

    Obama’s new “Open Policy of Transparency” has truly come to pass. Yippee!!

    Oh yea, the White House TOTAL control over which names are released.

    WOW TIME.com This is a great big news story! I am sure all Americans will now sleep well at night knowing that the White House WILL indeed release all of the names of everyone visiting the place to speak with Obama.

    I also have 10 acres of PRIME swampland for sale in Florida’s Everglades should some gullible liberal lackey like to move there!

    How about it Karen? You want to move to Florida, right? Michael Scherer? Same deal buddy!!!

    Or is this exactly what it is, a major FLUFF piece that is held until such a moment to make things on this site “Fair and Balanced”. When the liberal loons on here squawk, moan and groan loud enough because Glenn Beck got a few positive things said about him, the very next blog post is also a positive one for the Democrats.

    You people are all a big joke!

  • homerhk

    Dee, I agree with every single word you say, especially the last para.

    More disturbing to me, though, is that nothing Obama will do will satisfy his supposed supporters, as witnesses by the cynical “well the WH will still choose some meetings not to release” comments I see in this thread.

    Frankly, the idea of dissecting every move this President makes and investigating it under the microscope of ideological purity is much much more damaging to him than the wankery of right wing.

    I look forward to complaints in many comments to come that “so-and-so” was at the WH and therefore Obama is naturally a corporate shill and doesn’t care about the little people.

  • textee

    “The ethics group, Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington, ….”

    “The ethics group”? ROTFLMAO!

    It’s a leftist political advocacy group of two or three people and a fax machine, which is used to fax its press releases to its hundreds (thousands?) of useful idiots in the Washington press corps who dutifully reprint said press releases and then call said press releases “news”.

  • square1

    How to deal with a Gannon Conundrum? When someone enters the WH on official business and stays over on a “strictly personal visit”?

  • freeinpa

    Dee in Columbia

    “I hope that we aren’t so disillusioned by the abuse of power by one president that we don’t seek to neuter them all.”

    I assume you were referring to Clinton

    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/president-under-fire-records-computer-log-white-house-visitors-becomes-focus.html

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19971209&slug=2577127

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960610&slug=2333877

  • momentomaury

    Shorter freeper:
    .
    “But, Mom! He did it too!”

  • Paul-no not that one

    Thanks MS.
    .
    Dee no need to read nefarious meaning by any question about the administration.
    .
    There is quite a bit of room between “no rights at all” and “extreme confidentiality”.
    .
    Could the last administration have claimed that private citizens “consulting” about Energy Policy be construed as confidential? To protect those private citizens from harassment, say.
    .
    Maybe this will be a good thing maybe not, I’ll wait and see.

  • freeinpa

    momentomaury

    Or he learned from the best.

    Obama carried on the policy. Yet all posts blast Bush silent on Clinton and Obama.

    Repeat I must stop lying to myself!

  • square1

    At least the Bush era records will be disclosed. I initial reaction was that this was going to be another example of the Dems unilaterally disarming.

    I’m not going to have a coronary over the WH deciding on the exceptions. Oversight is pretty much impossible. But I would expect such exceptions to be relatively few and far between.

    Exceptions would be made in cases of national security

    You mean like when the President has to do some waterboarding in the Rose Garden or personally debrief an Al Qaeda mole? It is hard to imagine too many situations where someone’s mere presence in the WH would constitute a state secret. Although I would not rule it out entirely.

    extreme confidentiality — such as a visit by a future Supreme Court nominee

    Presumably (hopefully?) this would merely require an extension of the delay in disclosure and not a permanent refusal to disclose.

    strictly personal visits to the first family

    If we are talking about visits to Sasha and Malia, fine. If the “strictly personal” tag is extended to visits by UBS’ Robert Wolf, I don’t think so.

  • square1

    I am sure all Americans will now sleep well at night knowing that the White House WILL indeed release all of the names of everyone visiting the place to speak with Obama.

    Considering the GOP was in a collective coma for the past 8 years regarding WH and OVP disclosure, I’m not too worried about them laying awake at night.

  • James, Los Angeles

    I think the Obama Admin needs to stop crawling on their belly in abject fear and apology to the press and the Republicans. On thing I can say about the bushies, as much as I loathed them, they didn’t crawl around apologizing every day over the idiotic crap like this. Screw CREW and ACLU. Let them spend their resources finding out who is visiting the WH. You think that stopped the bushies? You think every one of their nominees would crawl around apologizing for trivial, nonsense like this Van person is doing? You think they would have quaked in fear if people complained about a speech to school kids about staying in school?

    F*ck these high-paid mediocrities like Scherer and his WHPC drama queens. Put them on a rope like the bushies did and quit the goldamned apologizing.

    Je. sus. Christ. Get a frikkin’ SPINE, Obama. You are WEAK.

  • nflfoghorn

    Je.sus.Christ

    an all-powerful URL, no doubt.

  • freeinpa

    Now maybe we can find out who helped Obama design this outstanding economic policy. Here are the some results of that handiwork today:

    http://mvgazette.com/article.php?22846

    What did Biden say about saving 750,000 jobs?

  • constantweader

    I hate to be a cynic, but this looks to me like a pre-emptive strike to try to assuage us lefties with SOMETHING before the President drops every meaningful provision of health insurance reform legislation.

    I don’t think the President fully understands that his entire base of support is riding on his pressing for serious provider reform. If he pulls a Barack Milquetoast Obama on health reform, the oppo to his exploding Afghan war, for instance, will escalate a lot faster than the war. His only chance to tamp down criticism and abandonment by his base on every issue on which he has disappointed us (gay civil rights, torture probes) is to ram healthcare reform through the Congress. Really. Ironically, if Obama drops the ball on this, we’re going to see a replay of 1980, when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the nomination; playing the role of Kennedy will be none other than the lady who dropped the ball on healthcare reform the first time around.

    The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

  • pierogielunaire

    Oh for the days when you could have a moniker like superterrificdelegate and it would actually all show up by your comment. And sorry for putting you in the thousands, Gunny. 2123 indeed.

blog comments powered by Disqus