Obama’s Transparency

If you can’t see through the lies, then let me help you.

Obama’s campaign tightens control of image and access

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit. And on Wednesday, the campaign orchestrated Michelle Obama’s appearance on the friendly set of “The View” and a flattering spread in the pages of Us Weekly.

Hmmm. A private meeting with black leaders and us typical white people shouldn’t be concerned? Imagine if McCain held a private meeting only for whites. Outrage, eh? Why not for Obama? And sneaking them out to avoid reporters? If this doesn’t smell fishy to you then get your nose checked out! And what’s wrong with Michelle? Can’t handle people on the right? Afraid? Aren’t you supposed to be helping your hubby ‘bring people together’? How do you do that by only visiting with lefty folks?

Yet while McCain’s aides have had their share of skirmishes with the press, they still enjoy a reputation for giving reporters traveling with him an unusual amount of access.

I guess he doesn’t have anything to hide.

Strategists for Obama, the country’s first black nominee, have made it clear that they believe they need to take extra steps to control his image and protect against attack. But such efforts at times appear to conflict with the candidate’s stated desire to be unusually transparent and open, and they have already occasionally put him at loggerheads with news organizations pushing for greater access to him now that he is the presumptive nominee.

Chicken.

In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday’s meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.

Lighting. Riiiiight. Hasn’t the left made a huge ruckus over Bushco and their ‘secret meetings’? But it’s all good and dandy if it’s a Democrat, right? The hypocrisy is so blaring you need to put shades on.

When Obama met with religious leaders last week, his campaign kept out photographers and reporters and refused to share a full list of participants.

What’s he hiding? What kinds of promises is he making them? What kind of dirty deals are going down? Don’t know, do ya? So much for a new style of politics and shedding those evil ways from those old Washington types. You’re being hoodwinked. Can you not see it?

Professor Douglas Kmiec, a conservative constitutional scholar at Pepperdine Law School, said Obama told him and others in attendance that he was keeping the meeting private so everyone could speak without fear of public judgment.

Or too afraid of another YouTube moment? No need for whitey to catch on to your private plans. Just smile and they’ll follow you to the voting booths! What dolts!!!

McCain has is faults, but they can’t be as bad as Obama’s!

Advertisements

4 Responses to Obama’s Transparency

  1. frznagn says:

    “Hypocrisy cuts both ways, matey.”

    Yes! I’m glad you realize it. Bush may have been secretive, but he didn’t run his campaign based on transparency like Obama has. No matter how bad Bush or the right has been, does it excuse Obama’s actions? Now that Obama’s being secretive. Shouldn’t that concern you?

    “But please, don’t tell me that you think Obama is a radical black muslim just waiting for his chance to enslave the white man and exact his revenge? I thought you were the sensible one…”

    I am sensible! But when Obama starts meeting groups secretly and after seeing his associations, it raises questions! Shouldn’t it? I’m not going to make exaggerated assumptions about Obama, but I will make what I feel are reasonable or fair assumptions. No more, no less, than any other candidate. McCain has a much greater record that he can stand on. What does Obama have? Name one successful piece of legislation that Obama has had. What’s his greatest accomplishment?

    Try to answer and not just turn the tables and say ‘What about McCain…?’ Progress can not be made just by pointing fingers. Most lefties that I run across don’t seem to want to answer a question. It’s almost like they’re afraid. It’s much better to point and distract. As you may have noticed, I do try to answer questions, unless they get to stupid and inane.

  2. frznagn says:

    “…I suggest that this is because he is being hounded and pounded by FOX et al ”

    The media is supposed to look at the pros/cons of a candidate. But if the left adores someone, then we should all stop doing our job and sing Kumbaya, right?

    “…but compared to what?”

    Be as transparent as possible. No secret meetings. Nothing hidden. Nobody blocked from the press. Easy!

    “…is to indulge in the fallacy of guilt by association, nothing more.”

    Really? Wow! All those articles I’ve read from the left talking about whom is associated with Bush being bad therefore making Bush bad was all wrong to do? I’m sure you won’t have to search far to find a laundry list of people that Bush associates with that the left feels is a ‘bad’ person. Guilt by association is only proper to do if you’re on the left then, right? I don’t recall you condemning their behavior. I’d like to see that!

    “…it is largely a ceremonial post”

    Bullshit! Being a Governor has more responsibility than being a Senator.

    “Obama has less baggage than Mccain,”

    Maybe. But the longer you’re in Washington, the more you can accumulate.

    “there are also consequences to be paid for the behavior and precedents set by your favoured representatives”

    Only you believe they are my favoured rep’s. Did I vote for Bush the second time? Yes. Was it because I liked him soooooo much? No. It was because I didn’t like his opponent far more. I’m sure you’re familiar with the ‘lesser of two evils’ concept?

  3. frznagn says:

    “‘Terrorist fist jab’ ”

    Forget the concept, just look at one (or a few) examples, eh? This is that distracting that really doesn’t help.

    “that is as transparent as it ispossble for Obama to be,”

    Nobody forced him to have closed door meetings so it is possible.

    “What or who is the standard by which you judge him?”

    If he says he is ‘transparent’ and acts in a manner that is not- closed door meetings- then transparency has been lost. Easy. Do you call closed private meetings ‘transparent’?

    “Then I look forward to seeing it.”

    Oh give me a break! Just mention anybody in the administration or whom Bushco is friendly with! Cheney, Rove, Abramoff, Rice, his pet goldfish….

    “I see that the bad behaviour of the left is legitimizing your bad behaviour. I thought you called that ‘hypocrisy’. Would’t that make you a hypocrite?”

    Nope. I complain because the left does it and there is no problem. When the right does it back, then they complain that it ain’t fair. That is what I call hypocrisy. Check this quote out: “You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” Joseph Conrad Check out Wiki if you don’t know him. I’m sure you’ll agree on his wisdom.

    “Not in Texas.”

    How would an Aussie know this? And why would the second largest state have no responsibility? It makes no sense. I think your politics or emotions trump your logic.

    “Exactly! Bingo! Are you catching on?”

    Haven’t you been paying attention? I have complained about the dinosaurs and corruption in politics. Some can spend many years in it and still do a good job, others will only enrich themselves. Kick the bad ones out and keep the good ones!

    “Well, they’re your favoured reps then. ”

    Nope. You cannot say the lesser of two evils is ‘favoured’. Not in the sense that I like them. Only in the sense that they are better than another option. If you can’t understand that then there isn’t much hope for you. The way you state ‘favoured’ makes it sound like I’m happy about it.

    “Do you really think you should be voting for people you don’t like, and that this is what the founding fathers had in mind?”

    No, we should vote for who we like but what are we supposed to do when there is no one you like? The only choice is voting for the better of the two. I doubt that is what they had in mind, but they didn’t have airplanes and automobiles in mind either but we have them too.

    “John Kerry was ‘evil’? Why? I mean, GWB, sure, but Kerry? Why the animosity?”

    The list is toooo long. I might get around to posting it but since it’s water under the bridge… what good would it do?

  4. frznagn says:

    “It is not scrutiny. It is racist abuse.”

    In that example, yes. But what about the others? Ignoring all the other potentially valid points because you find one that was wrong to do doesn’t help much. Micro and macro views are both needed.

    “Everybody has closed door meetings. What don’t you understand about this? ”

    He’s not transparent. He says he would be. A lie. I understand completely.

    “Again, by what standard?”

    I’ve already told you my standard. Anything hidden or done behind closed doors is not transparent. A standard is a standard. I’m not comparing candidates because Obama is not. When Obama says he will be transparent, then there is no comparison. Now, if he said he will be MORE transparent than so-and-so, then you have a point.

    “Rezko, Wright and Ayers are not going to be in Obama’s cabinet”

    Can you guarantee that or prove it? NOPE!

    “he vast majority of ethical, moral and legal scandals are by Republicans, but you only ever hear about a few. ”

    I disagree. Our very liberal paper up here did a study and 64% of the crooks were Dems.

    “What exactly do you mean by this?”

    Like I said: I’m sure you’ll agree on his wisdom. (reread the quote)

    “I merely said that the Governor of Texas has less power than in other states.”

    Ok, ‘power’ being the key word. The power of each state is subjective and would depend on what the topic is. Alaska is pretty weak on influence, but our strategic location for the military is vital.

    “Therefore, Obama = good, McCain = bad. ”

    I disagree. McCain has crossed the aisle more times to work with Democrats than (guessing here) any Republican. Many consider him more of a Dem than a Rep. Is it his working with the opposite party what caused him to be bad?

    “You favoured them with your vote. You must therefore take some responsibility for your action.”

    Again, you misuse the term ‘favoured’. If I was captured as a POW and they gave me a choice between electrocution and waterboarding and I pick electrocution, it doesn’t mean I favour it. I don’t favour either. I favour Ice Cream with whipped cream but they didn’t give me that choice. Making the second worse choice is not favouring.

    “You could vote for a third party”

    I did that once. The guy got 20% of the popular vote. And not one single electorial vote. Can you say ‘you just wasted your vote’? Lets get realistic, ok?

    “but what you can’t do is say you bear no responsibility for the policies of a man you knowingly and voluntarily voted for”

    Show me where I’ve said that.

    “If he misled you in anyway, if you feel he lied about anything, fine, say so, and work towards undoing the damage your vote however inadvertent, did.”

    He’s a lame duck. Nothing will get done against him. Congress hasn’t been able to do anything. They have more power than I.

    “yet the 2nd Amendment appears to be stuck in the 18th c.”

    Aren’t most of them? We’ve made some changes, and undone at least one bad change. What’s your point? Changing for changes’ sake isn’t the best reason.

    “Are your reasons valid?”

    Ooooh, a can of worms has been opened. What is ‘valid’? That depends. If I say he’s too tall is that valid? I may distrust tall people. You may think it’s silly. Then ‘valid’, like ‘beauty’, is in the eye of the beholder. I can see it already. I post my reasons, you shoot them down because you believe differently. My ‘valid’ reasons are that- MINE! Not yours, not hers, or that guy over there- they’re MINE!

    Typically, it’ll be because (get ready to be shocked and awed) the person has said or done something I don’t like. Not what is said about him.

    I’ll give you one example. He spoke of bringing jobs back to the US. Too many jobs were being sent overseas. (and I am the protectionist one????) Did he really believe that? Did he really care? Can it be proved??? I can’t ‘prove it’, but when his wife’s company has a lot of overseas workers (can’t recall the %) and they don’t see a problem with that, then what do you call it? Hypocrisy! Yes ladies and gents, too many workers overseas, we need to bring them back! But don’t look at us as being part of the problem. Noooooo!

    If he believed that, then they would’ve moved the workers back to this country, but (s)he didn’t! Go ahead and use the excuse, “It’s his wife’s company and not his.” But it doesn’t wash. She should have set the example and moved them back here. That would’ve shown sincerity. If you thought moving workers overseas was bad, then why do it? Put your money where your mouth is. Walk the walk or move along.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: