News Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

[edward]

Here we go again. Another layer has been added to the Bush administrations unprecedented record of secrecy.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House complex are not subject to public disclosure.

The Bush administration didn't reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall. The White House is using it to deal with a legal problem on a separate front, a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6325579,00.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, I saw this the other day. How long can they hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

 

[Rach3]

It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!

 

[SticksandStones]

What makes them think that they have any right to hide information from the people they serve?

As far as I'm concerned, this should be an impeachable offense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists.

Why is that? Do the terrorists check the logs before attacking?

It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!

Democracy is not based on trust. Also, most journalists are not terrorists.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ivan, you've done it again.

 

[siddharth]

It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!

Indeed! Bush is clearly 'defending the safety' of the country with this measure . Secrecy and security are vital during times of crisis ! What if al-qaeda got a hold of the visitor log ? People should learn to trust the government! Those criticizing this 'brave' initiative, are unamerican bush-bashers

See? I've gone overboard, but the point is that the use of smilies can clear things up, especially for those not familiar with the style of your posts

 

[Anttech]

It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!

Honestly, I never know when u are being sarcastic or not...

Indeed! Bush is clearly 'defending the safety' of the country with this measure . Secrecy and security are vital during times of crisis ! What if al-qaeda got a hold of the visitor log ? People should learn to trust the government! Those criticizing this 'brave' initiative, are unamerican bush-bashers

See? I've gone overboard, but the point is that the use of smilies can clear things up, especially for those not familiar with the style of your posts

lol

 

[slugcountry]

... lol rach.. for the record I think your intent is blatantly obvious some of these folks are being a bit ridiculous

 

[demospec]

Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?

 

[Gokul43201]

Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?

Interesting! I hadn't heard about this. Got a reference?

 

[Gokul43201]

There's no other reference apparently.

Here's the story:

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.
...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

Disappointing!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?

Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?

Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.

Ivan, I can't tell. Are you being serious here?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The second sentence was a joke. Otherwise what I said is true: As yet I have no concerns.

 

[ibnsos]

Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.

So, it's not the act but the party? I find it very odd especially since Obama is the one that ran on transparency.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Funny that I gave my real reason but you only cited the joke.

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence. So far Obama has been accused of being everything from a black militant to a foreign terrorist, and every assertion was bogus.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt right up until we found no WMDs. I kept telling myself that surely they would never invade a country unless they have far better evidence than they have shown. No one would be that stupid!

 

[kyleb]

Note that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt right up until we found no WMDs. I kept telling myself that surely they would never invade a country unless they have far better evidence than they have shown. No one would be that stupid!

Do you not see this as a mistake to learn from? While I respect our President, I'd rather avoid having to trust politicians as much as possible.

 

[ibnsos]

Funny that I gave my real reason but you only cited the joke.

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence. So far Obama has been accused of being everything from a black militant to a foreign terrorist, and every assertion was bogus.

Unfortunatly your follow up post was posted while I was reading and replying so I didn't see your comment that it was a joke. I appologize.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No problem. I shouldn't joke around like that without providing a qualifier.

 

[Gokul43201]

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence.

I would say that each incident constitutes a betrayal of confidence. And each act of betrayal deserves condemnation.

And you can condemn an action without condemning the person in general.

 

[edward]

The intent of the Bush administrations blocking the list was to support Dick Cheney's blocking of his list. Unfortunately the original link no longer works.

We don't know what Obama's intent is. I would imagine that it is to prevent the media from starting a feeding frenzy of rumors and innuendo that would only tend to obfuscate our more urgent problems.

Obama is a busy person, much more so than reclusive Bush/Cheney.

Even so the administration has stated that the issue will be taken under consideration. Bush just said no.

This administration has also had very diverse groups visit.

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2009/05/13/obama-to-host-poetry-party-at-white-house/

http://www.rushmoredrive.com/LatestNews/Obama_to_host_Pakistani_Afghan_leaders_at_White_House.aspx?ArticleId=11456899440268625518

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090606/pl_afp/usitalyg8obamaberlusconi

The list includes among many others includes, everything from a poetry group to the leaders of mid eastern countries.

Not all of them may want to see their names in print or on Fox news for security reasons, nor would it be wise.

 

[Tibarn]

The conspiracy theorist would say that he's trying to cover up his associations with Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros. All that nonsense about him being a Muslim or black extremist is just smoke and mirrors sent out by Obama himself to confuse people. In reality, Obama is the pawn of the Trilateral Commission, international bankers, and the Bilderberg group.

Here's some conclusive proof:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852818/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You can also check out the video "The Men behind Barack Obama" on Youtube.


In reality though, it's not uncommon for people going into office to realize that there's a reason things are done a certain way and change their minds about many of their campaign promises. One gets a different perspective on the desirability of transparency when one sees what secrets are being kept and why.

 

[LowlyPion]

Even so the administration has stated that the issue will be taken under consideration. Bush just said no.

I think the issue is under litigation appeal, and to open the records at this point certainly forecloses any opportunity for the Government to maintain any position but to abandon defense against the appeal.

To a certain extent it seems a matter of balance. Would we want for instance to publicly log the visit from an Ambassador at the height of an international crisis? Would divulging Kennedy meeting with the Soviet Ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis have served any purpose for the benefit of the Nation?

On the other hand, if there are meetings that might have been illegal such as influence peddling and there is some light to be shed about the timing and activity by the Executive Branch ...

When people are acting in good faith, and they don't just classify meetings as Secret or Proprietary lightly, they don't label every e-mail, and every office document as Top Secret, just to hide their embarrassment or malfeasance or untoward partisan business ... then I'd say there is a public benefit to knowing.

These days though it seems there are beau coup ways around this, like remote conferencing, or meeting off the White House campus, where no records would be kept, that it does seem that worrying about a visitor log is a little silly. Potentially embarrassing meetings or unethical activities don't have to be held at the White House, but if there is a desire to that, the log would be no real deterrence, given alternatives. But then again neither should anyone with business at the White House, whether seeing the President, or coming to give Robert Gibbs a hair cut, automatically have their privacy interrupted. There are after all 2 parties involved in a Visitor Log, the White House and the Visitor.

 

[chemisttree]

When Cheny's logs were at issue, government attorneys gave the following as a reason not to disclose:

"Disclosure of the records at issue could reveal an ever-expanding mosaic that would allow observers to chart the course of Vice Presidential contacts and deliberations in unprecedented fashion," government attorneys wrote during the legal maneuvering last fall. "Such an unwarranted intrusion into the most sensitive deliberations of the Vice Presidency cannot be countenanced."

I still agree with that reasoning... even as it applies to Obama. Some things (legal of course) should be kept private.

For example as LP has stated:

On the other hand, if there are meetings that might have been illegal such as influence peddling and there is some light to be shed about the timing and activity by the Executive Branch ...

This information should be available via subpoena during the criminal trial. In the Abramoff case, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474.html"

The White House http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001553.html" But, the question still remains, "Toward what end?" Why disclose more visitor logs regarding Abramoff's visits when Abramoff was cooperating in the ongoing investigation?

Of course many will justify vilifying the Bush administration's position on witholding the logs based on the criminal activity of Abramoff even though the logs didn't turn out to be that important. But how does one justify CREW's request to turn over logs that show http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/17/national/w100931S95.DTL" Again, "Toward what end?" Was the Freedom of Information Act enacted so that partisan groups could use the information (innuendo in this case) as political ammunition during an election?

 

[LowlyPion]

I don't think there is any question that it is an issue that cuts both ways.

Shareholders in a company don't expect to get a copy of the company visitor's log at HQ. Similarly we don't judge the taste of a pudding by how it was made in the kitchen.

Though, if a company engages in fraudulent practices, or food is made in an unsanitary way ... there should be recourse.

In many respects it seems a matter of trust. Cheney's paranoid secrecy and what we know now was his readiness to skirt the Law, as evidenced by his statements about Guantanamo and water boarding shenanigans, doesn't instill a lot of trust that what he would call Top Secret, or Privileged, was not made so because of less than savory reasons.

 

[Al68]

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-

How long can can the Obama administration hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

 

[LowlyPion]

How long can can the Obama administration hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

What abuses of power?

Or are you just trolling?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, we have a troll. Either retract the statement or show evidence for the subpoenas.

Each deliberate posting of false information will get you 1/3 of the way to being banned.

 

[Al68]

What abuses of power?

Blocking visitors' lists. The same thing Ivan referred to as an abuse of power.

Private joke.

 

[Al68]

Yes, we have a troll. Either retract the statement or show evidence for the subpoenas.

Each deliberate posting of false information will get you 1/3 of the way to being banned.

Yes, I deliberately assumed false premises. The obvious point was that false premises are rampant on this forum, and ridiculously so. I assumed anyone reading would get the point and know my claim was false.

 

[chemisttree]

Yeah, I saw this the other day. How long can they hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

How long can can the Obama administration hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

Yes, we have a troll. Either retract the statement or show evidence for the subpoenas.

Each deliberate posting of false information will get you 1/3 of the way to being banned.

 

[Al68]

Yep, I'm a plagiarist and a troll.

 

[signerror]

Oh my, that was positively brilliant! Epic troll!

Poor Ivan, I'll mail you some cortisone for that BURN.

 

[Gokul43201]

It may be a funny juxtaposition, but it is also completely meaningless.

The Bush administration had indeed abused power repeatedly and had been under investigation for several of these abuses/alleged abuses (any non-empty subset of: Justice Department firings, a million or so missing emails, a million or so emails sent through alternate sources like private or RNC addresses, CIA leaks, Abramoff and the GSA, Warrantless wiretaps, Cheney's meeting with the Energy Task Force, Internal Department throwing cocaine parties with Energy sector execs, ...). And at least some of these were common knowledge at the time the first copy of the statement about abuse and subpoenas was made in this thread.

Has the Obama Administration come under investigation for any abuses that would require access to the visitor logs? There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

 

[Al68]

There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

The so-called abuse I was referring was:

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-

and plagiarizing once again: Here's the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

It's the same so-called abuse as in the post Ivan responded to. And that you responded to:

I would say that each incident constitutes a betrayal of confidence. And each act of betrayal deserves condemnation.

So as soon as you post more evidence of the "incident" you were referring to, I'll just plagiarize it.

 

[drankin]

It's ok if Obamo doesn't allow the list but not the former administration. And many of his supporters defend this action. Contrary to the "transparency" we are expecting. Come on people. This is obvious hypocricy.

 

[LowlyPion]

It's the same so-called abuse as in the post Ivan responded to.

Actually it's not the same abuse. Your understanding of the issue looks deficient. You are confusing Cheney's hiding his activities, that may apparently well have been an abuse and malfeasance of office, a matter to be determined by the courts, behind the claim of a privilege for the logs that is not per se the prerogative of the Executive Branch to entertain in order to shield abuse of office.

The abuse at issue then is not the public access to Visitor Logs. What abuse is that? But rather the abuse that was at the heart of what Cheney was seeking to hide, a matter that the court was investigating.

To suggest now then that Obama is engaging in some abuse of power, that he is seeking to hide by not immediately releasing the Visitor Logs, is at best disingenuous. There is no claim that I am aware of that suggests that Obama has engaged in any abuse at all. And certainly none that any Visitor's Log might enlighten. Retaining the Visitor Logs is not itself an abuse as you may want to project. So if your intent is to seek refuge in a parrot defense, what you have parroted is something that simply does not apply in the way that it was initially directed. Clumsy like Letterman is my take on your claim.

 

[Gokul43201]

The so-called abuse I was referring was:

[blah]

It's the same so-called abuse as in the post Ivan responded to.

But is it the same abuse that Ivan originally referred to in his first post in the thread (the one you plagiarized)? I interpreted that post as referring to all the other abuses which were under investigation (such as the ones I listed in my previous post) that Bush was trying to shield from scrutiny by holding back the visitor logs. I could have got that wrong.

And that you responded to:So as soon as you post more evidence of the "incident" you were referring to, I'll just plagiarize it.

Well, that's not the "abuse" quote you used in your plagiarism so it's irrelevant to the discussion. And being cute doesn't help your argument either.

I consider both Bush's and Obama's refusal to release visitor logs as illegal and unethical but that opinion has nothing to do with what Ivan was talking about in his first post (perhaps he could clarify).

 

[Gokul43201]

Contrary to the "transparency" we are expecting.

Speaking of the transparency that you are now expecting but never demanded of the previous administration (did someone mention 'hypocrisy'?), here's a report card:

Today, the Brennan Center for Justice releases a new report card evaluating President Obama's record of transparency in national security matters during his first 100 days in office.

"There's a clear pattern here," says Elizabeth Goitein, Director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Project. "In most areas, the President has honored his pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration. But that commitment seems far weaker in cases where accountability is sought for government misconduct."

"President Obama's record of transparency is overall a tremendous improvement over President Bush's record," Goitein adds. "In the areas of open government and access to presidential records, he has put excellent policies in place; what's needed now is faithful implementation, particularly when it comes to national security issues. He has also made important strides in reducing the executive branch's reliance on secret law.

"But in cases where people seek accountability for government misconduct—whether through the courts, Congress, or an independent commission—the administration doesn't show the same instinct for openness. This is troublesome, because facing up to the mistakes of the past and learning from those mistakes is a critical part of moving forward and restoring the rule of law."

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/on_transparency_obama_succeeds_and_disappoints_in_first_100_days/

 

[mheslep]

It may be a funny juxtaposition, but it is also completely meaningless.

The Bush administration had indeed abused power repeatedly and had been under investigation for several of these abuses/alleged abuses (any non-empty subset of: Justice Department firings, a million or so missing emails, a million or so emails sent through alternate sources like private or RNC addresses, CIA leaks, Abramoff and the GSA, Warrantless wiretaps, Cheney's meeting with the Energy Task Force, Internal Department throwing cocaine parties with Energy sector execs, ...). And at least some of these were common knowledge at the time the first copy of the statement about abuse and subpoenas was made in this thread.

Has the Obama Administration come under investigation for any abuses that would require access to the visitor logs? There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

What are you talking about given the topic of comparisons in 'abuses of power'? You may not like that Chevy met w/ energy execs, but how is that remotely an abuse of power? Regards the other points, as far as I can tell Obama has maintained almost the exact same policy with warrantless wire taps. Did you believe differently when you made the above post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032403501.html
As of yesterday there was the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin because he was after the now (D)Mayor of Sacremento for earlier misuse of federal funds, given 1 hour to clear out in blatant violation of the new IG law which requires a 30 day notification congress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Firing-AmeriCorps-IG-an-act-of-political-courage-48538447.html

 

[mheslep]

Speaking of the transparency that you are now expecting but never demanded of the previous administration (did someone mention 'hypocrisy'?), here's a report card:



http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/on_transparency_obama_succeeds_and_disappoints_in_first_100_days/

A big part of that report card grades how well the current administration is doing in releasing information about actions of the previous administration. That, the lack of comment on the administration's most significant action so far - the stimulus, and the fact that it's a hundred days, makes this a silly accounting.

 

[Gokul43201]

What are you talking about given the topic of comparisons in 'abuses of power'? You may not like that Chevy met w/ energy execs, but how is that remotely an abuse of power? Regards the other points, as far as I can tell Obama has maintained almost the exact same policy with warrantless wire taps. Did you believe differently when you made the above post?

You can take out a few more from that list and still have enough remaining on the plate to feed a village starving of abuse! ;)

That Obama hasn't changed Bush's wiretapping policy is moot - Congress has already legalized it. About the Cheney meeting with Energy Execs, I thought there was some kind of Federal or Congressional investigation into that, but I didn't take the time to check so am willing to throw that out of the list.

As of yesterday there was the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin because he was after the now (D)Mayor of Sacremento for earlier misuse of federal funds, given 1 hour to clear out in blatant violation of the new IG law which requires a 30 day notification congress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Firing-AmeriCorps-IG-an-act-of-political-courage-48538447.html

Yet to read this story, but if it is only as of yesterday, then it doesn't have any effect on the post Ivan made.

 

[Gokul43201]

A big part of that report card grades how well the current administration is doing in releasing information about actions of the previous administration. That, the lack of comment on the administration's most significant action so far - the stimulus, and the fact that it's a hundred days, makes this a silly accounting.

Feel free to ignore those parts of it that are related to the previous administration. There's still a lot of meat there after that. And that was the only report I found on transparency in the new administration (other than one by written or commissioned by Feingold, which I haven't looked at). If you have something more recent, please post, but hey, we're hardly even at two hundred days so far (so I don't see that that would hugely reduce the silliness factor). And out of curiosity: do you believe there was greater transparency with the previous administration?

 

[drankin]

Feel free to ignore those parts of it that are related to the previous administration. There's still a lot of meat there after that. And that was the only report I found on transparency in the new administration (other than one by written or commissioned by Feingold, which I haven't looked at). If you have something more recent, please post, but hey, we're hardly even at two hundred days so far. And out of curiosity: do you believe there was greater transparency with the previous administration?

I think the point is that Obama promised to more transparency. The previous administration did not promise this. Whether they had more or less transparency is not the issue. The issue is that the visitor log is NOW unavailable.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think the point is that Obama promised to more transparency. The previous administration did not promise this. Whether they had more or less transparency is not the issue. The issue is that the visitor log is NOW unavailable.

Actually the visitor log is still unavailable, I think is the operative view. The position simply hasn't yet changed from the previous administration's position on the issue, which unfortunately became a public discussion, because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log. A dramatically different position than the current administration merely continuing to assert a privilege. Cheney could have avoided the whole thing by making those records voluntarily available. But that would have been very un-Cheney like.

 

[mheslep]

...And out of curiosity: do you believe there was greater transparency with the previous administration?

Two points. First, until more time passes and a few more embarrassing incidents occur as they do to all human endeavors and we see how the administration handles them, then we can't really say yet, or at least I would not. So far we have the stimulus hanging out there with the VP stating he expected malfeasance - I want to see reporting on that. Second, Bush made mistakes, but there's also much trumped up outrage, the lack of true conviction on which is illustrated by the ho hum when Obama takes the same actions, not nearly the same, but in same cases exactly the same. This nonsense is a case in point:

Actually the visitor log is still unavailable, I think is the operative view. The position simply hasn't yet changed from the previous administration's position on the issue, which unfortunately became a public discussion, because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log. A dramatically different position than the current administration merely continuing to assert a privilege.

Please

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the point is that Obama promised to more transparency. The previous administration did not promise this.

(emphasis mine) In that case, the only question to address is whether or not Obama is keeping his promise by delivering more transparency than the previous administration.

Whether they had more or less transparency is not the issue.

You've just contradicted yourself.

 

[Gokul43201]

Two points. First, until more time passes and a few more embarrassing incidents occur as they do to all human endeavors and we see how the administration handles them, then we can't really say yet, or at least I would not.

Fair enough. And I mostly agree. I think it is similarly meaningless to compare deficit growth under (a few months of) Obama vs. deficit growth under (several years of) Bush. So rather than comparing entire bodies of work (since there isn't yet a "body" to speak of), we ought to really only stick to individual cases.

So far we have the stimulus hanging out there with the VP stating he expected malfeasance - I want to see reporting on that.

Not aware of this story.

Second, Bush made mistakes, but there's also much trumped up outrage, the lack of true conviction on which is illustrated by the ho hum when Obama takes the same actions, not nearly the same, but in same cases exactly the same.

I'd say there's a bunch hypocrisy on the other side as well, blasting Obama for actions that Bush was lauded or at least excused for. I think this just a fundamental aspect of garden variety partisanship, and often it may not even be a conscious thing.