Transparancy?

[Universe Prince]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17786.html

“Let me say it as simply as I can, ‘Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,’” Obama said during his first full day on the job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067.html

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session." [...] Lalit K. Jha of the Press Trust of India, at Obama's meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, "In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave." The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was "ushered out about 30 seconds" after arriving for Obama's meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. Emel Bayrak of Turkey's TRT-Turk went to Obama's meeting with the president of Armenia but "we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds." "When you only see the president for 15 or 20 seconds without him asking if you have any questions, it's very frustrating," said Laura Haim of France's Canal+, which persuaded the White House to include foreign outlets in the press pool. "It's very important for this president, who wants to restore the image of the United States, to have more access." [...] The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage. [...] Finally, Obama walked over to a group of reporters Monday afternoon. Would he give them an account of his meetings? "I'll let somebody else do it," he said with a smile.

Obama is a liar. I guess I have finally decided. He is not just an man blinded by his intentions to the consequences of his ideas. He is a liar. He is deliberate. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot do so any more. He knows what he is doing, and he is doing it deliberately.

[Plane]

  Nixon and Kissinger did some big things in private that might not have been possible otherwise.

  Could even Nixon have gone to China if he had to make all of the arrangements to go in plain sight?

  Could Kissenger have shuttle diplomacy'd Vietnameese and Isrelis and every other body if his every stop was known and his every proposal made open for public discussion?

    Can the people at large be the leader of the leadership on a day to day basis?

    I don't think so , the people are competant to determine the general diretions of government and are consulted enough to perform corrections of course , but the gestalt is too unweildly to invoke for all decisions and the consensus takes too long to jell for it to be refered to in the course of negotiations.

[BT]

Transparency is overrated and process is the refuge of scoundrels.

[sirs]

Yes & no

Many of this Country's functions, especially those that are of the intelligence gathering variety, are by nature & necessarily hidden from public, and more importantly, enemy consumption.  Much of our ongoing military strategy and tactics need to be made restricted

But when it comes to the Work of Government, ESPECIALLY in how tax dollars are being allocated and applied towards (which also includes what its been wasted in), need a full vetting of transparency.  and that includes military expenditure.  I'm a huge advocate of full disclusure, when it comes to campaigns.  The people need to know where their money is going to, and where it came from

Prince nailed it with these articles, in how completely untruthful Obama has been, in regards to the pledge of "the most transparent adminstration, ever".  As bad as Bush was supposed to be in his 8years, they can't come close to matching what Obama and the Dems have pushed in just over the last 1+year

Overated?  A little, perhaps.  Unimportant or of a low priority?, absolutely not.

[BT]

The excerpts Prince posted show the press whining at a perceived slight to their sense of entitlement. Fact is the press was never elected nor appointed to be the chosen ones to report their perception of news in the making.

You want transparency, watch C-Span. Read committee minutes. Meet your representative.

But please don't delegate your oversight responsibilities to self appointed know-it-alls commonly referred to as the press.

[sirs]

You want transparency, watch C-Span. Read committee minutes. Meet your representative.

I have.  I also recall, planely, a public pledge of greater transparency with this administration.  That the Healthcare debates & meetings would be carried on C-span, in fact.  What we got was largely the polar opposite, which Prince has helped to hilight

[BT]

And the President, and that means any President, controls the actions of the House and Senate, how exactly

[sirs]

When you're the party's leader, and your party is in the majority, it goes without saying.  And we saw just how much pull the President had over his party, when push came to shove, regarding Cash for Croakers.  They could have easily followed suit with the President's "pledge".  Neither the House/Senate nor Obama made any effort to follow-thru.  Merely campaign lip service, to try and portray Bush as this supposed "secret" regime

[Universe Prince]

Transparency is overrated and process is the refuge of scoundrels.

So quit whining you schmucks. Just leave the politicians alone.  If you want transparency then watch C-Span, because anything C-Span doesn't show you, you don't need to know about anyway. If the politicians say they're being transparent, just accept it. If there is anything you need to believe about what the government is doing, the politicians will tell you what that is...

(Hopefully, I don't even need to mention what I'm doing.)

[BT]

So quit whining you schmucks. Just leave the politicians alone.

Some people focus on the sausage making, others on the sausage.

When you think about it, transparency is a vague concept anyway. What does it really mean?

Is it like some regulatory oversight board comprised of who knows who, with no real power, who are just monday morning quarterbacks or rent seekers who didn't get free rent?

Or is some vague concept that in the end gives the electorate an excuse for being woefully disinterested and uninformed.

[Universe Prince]

Some people focus on the sausage making, others on the sausage.

Some manage to consider both.

When you think about it, transparency is a vague concept anyway. What does it really mean?

Is it like some regulatory oversight board comprised of who knows who, with no real power, who are just monday morning quarterbacks or rent seekers who didn't get free rent?

Or is some vague concept that in the end gives the electorate an excuse for being woefully disinterested and uninformed.

At this point, I would settle for transparency being, in the political realm, the opposite of obfuscation.

[BT]

At this point, I would settle for transparency being, in the political realm, the opposite of obfuscation.

Someone has been shopping at the clever retort store.

So in the political realm, how does thomas.gov relate to this transparency issue of yours?

[Universe Prince]

Someone has been shopping at the clever retort store.

Yes, I'm guessing you got that off the bargain bin.

So in the political realm, how does thomas.gov relate to this transparency issue of yours?

It's a single step in the right direction. Notably, even with THOMAS, there are issues with getting Congress to put some legislation online before it is voted on. And if those bills were minor things, that might not be a big deal, but the legislation that isn't making it is important things, like the health care bill.