Obama's Transparency - It's Not Clear to Me

I have finally figured it out....

I have finally figured out just what President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mean by "transparency". Mrs. Pelosi has said repeatedly that this is the most open and transparent Congress to date. How can she claim transparency when there are closed-door sessions where deals are cut with special interest groups and bribes for legislators? I'll tell you what Ms. Pelosi means. She looks right into the eyes of the media and says, "We're going to do this, and it's going to be done this way, by this time, and we won't accept any change or compromise." That's pretty clear.

Harry Reid has his own version of transparency. His transparency is that he tells people what the Senate is going to do (that's the transparent part), then in closed-door sessions he buys a vote or two that will put his plan over, and then ultimately proclaims the success he predicted. Come on, who cannot see what's really happening when senators exchange their votes for millions of dollars for their states? When Senators Nelson and Landrieu took Reid's bribes for their healthcare votes and support, it was well publicized on conservative talk shows on radio and TV, and through conservative blogs on the web. It became really transparent to Americans at that point that what was going on in Washington was "politics as usual" - or maybe on politics on steroids! The audacity of the Democrats was that they believed that they can get away with such underhanded dealings -- even out in the open -- because, after all, they had control in the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives. Who was going to stop them? Seriously, who can expect real transparency when deals are negotiated behind closed doors, especially when only those of like-minds are invited inside and those holding opposing views are banned from participation in the sessions?

Obama's lack of his promised transparency has cost him in the polls, and yet he still spouts the same old rhetoric from his campaigning days, still tossing the blame for everything on Bush, still holding closed door meetings with special interest groups and congressional leaders, and still has his czars and others with far-left political views in policy-making positions who are not confirmed by Congress or elected by voters. Is that transparency? Not in my book. When Obama campaigned on transparency, the people took him at his word... And why was that? Because that would truly be the promised change and hope for a new way for Washington to operate. Who wouldn't vote for that? Only it hasn't happened - and it won't under THIS administration, for sure!

We were forewarned by deeds rather than words. Obama certainly didn't display any transparency during the campaign.... not about his collegiate career, college applications and transcripts; not by producing his actual birth certificate, not by explaining how he traveled about the globe as an unemployed individual of non-existent means, and other things - things that could be easily produced and would end the suspicions and speculations once and for all, assuming he really wanted to be transparent!

How can Obama proclaim his administration is transparent when there are special considerations for individuals and certain groups, and when what should be public information is hidden from the public? Again, what about the campaign promise of transparency, of the CSPAN-televised negotiations on healthcare reform which never materialized? In fact, Obama has laughingly shrugged that one off as a "just one of those many campaign promises politicians make" - and as everyone knows ALL campaign promises can't be kept, right? At this point, it's pretty obvious that we will never see the kind of transparency we had hoped for from this Administration or from Congress. Rather, the type of transparency now being promoted is the transparency of some of our national secrets under the guise criminally trying enemy combatants in our federal courts - the kind of transparency that can cost us our national safety - or de-classifying important documents and publicizing interrogation techniques used on terrorists. Just who is that transparency for?

As I've pointed out previously, Democrats say there is (by their own definitions) transparency in our government. I have noticed, though, there are some differences in the "applied definition" of transparency between the Legislative and Executive branches. The Obama White House tends toward (unintended) transparency where the various members of Obama's staff inadvertently reveal things simply because the players can't keep their stories in synch - or their mouths shut. The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House do their "dirty" dealings behind closed doors, usually with a group of like-minded persons, and try to come up with a more palatable way of force-feeding their "transparency" to the voters. (Occasionally, politicians seeking the limelight will spill some beans though. I happen to be thankful that at least this kind of transparency has occurred because it has made for a wiser American public.)

Perhaps the differences between the White House and Congress "transparency successes" are because the Legislative branch happens to have had a lot more experience with "covert transparency" than the intellectuals and academics who are presently making up the Executive Branch and staff. Congress is full of professional politicians. The White House is amateurish on governing in this way, having their strength in organizing groups. However, because of the closer scrutiny by those on the right, and even independents, who have their eyes and ears open, both branches have come up short on executing their types of transparency.

For instance, remember the healthcare bill and the people who went to townhall meetings to express their opposition to HR 3200 and make their concerns known? When it came time to literally push through controversial legislation on healthcare that apparently was in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the American voters (you'll recall the uproar of the summer and fall townhall meetings!), Pelosi and Reid showed a surprising lack of understanding of the tenor of the public's sentiment and their grasp of what the bill actually contained. But they made no bones about what they were going to do .... that's their transparency! They had dismissed the fact that the voters were becoming more educated on the issues and beginning to become active in the process by using their freedom of speech to contact their legislators and following the examples of other grass roots organizations to come together. The conservative and independent voters have educated themselves on the issues as well as having gained a better understanding of "the game" of politics. While these newbies to politics began paying close attention to the activities of their legislators, they are also began to groom their own to rise up to replace those entrenched and out-of-touch members of Congress.

The legislators dismissed the American people and the subsequent polling that resulted from the discontent. However, with the strong showing in NYC 23 and with Scott Brown's senate seat win, there is a transparent national "routing out" of those who do backroom deals or who refuse to listen to their constituents. One only has to read the handmade placards at the rallies and look at the polls to see this is true. Concerned Americans are being transparent in their plans to unseat those who are not listening to the people who sent them to Washington. The people are outraged that their own legislators don't read the bills they are voting on, or even know what was in them. Yet the legislators will still push for a bill's passage while the people are aggressively telling them no! The people have had enough.

The biggest mistake made by the Democrats, which will cost them dearly in the mid-term elections is that they wouldn't consider that the emotion which was demonstrated in the townhall meetings was genuine, and that it would still rage strong or be as widespread this long. The people, who had placed their hope in the promises of transparency and openness and of a different Washington than previous administrations, were transparent when they expressed their concern all summer and fall. They had grown tired of Washington's favors and bribery, and they were expressing strong opposition to the Democrats' type of "transparency", yet they got more of the same.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the polls now reflect a sharp downturn for long-time incumbents who are up for relection in 2010. (Just as a reminder, it's not just Democrats who will find the going rough. Some Republicans should watch themselves as well.) Recently, public backlash has prompted several prominent, long-term, entrenched Democrats to"called it quits" rather than run for re-election and face certain defeat, and why? Perhaps they've seen the "handwriting on the wall". Or, as Rep. Snyder (D- AR) said, "I want to spend time more with my family". Perhaps they've come to realize that there really IS a grassroots movement -- NOT the "astroturf", as Nancy Pelosi called it -- that has taken hold and spread all across this nation and it will affect real change in our government and restore hope to American citizens.

When people have banded together in groups called "tea parties" and have an announced agenda of becoming politically savvy and involved for the purpose of routing out the politicians who don't really care about preserving the principles upon which this country was founded, but rather make a political career for themselves, I call this a type of transparency, too. Don't you?

The Scott Brown win has the Democrats scrambling to "embrace" the other side of the aisle, but they're still missing the transparency issue. They want the Republican "participation" but they don't want to hear Republican input! What they all should be doing is listening to the people! We'll see what happens over these next few months until the next election. At this point, though, what the Democrats are doing is pretty clear and transparent to me - more political games, not more transparency!

PolitiSpeak - Very Important to Know

Several months ago, when I was awakened to how really bleak the future of our country had become, I felt totally helpless to do anything about it, but knew something had to be done before it was too late. I wanted so badly to be able to make a difference, but I didn't know where to start. I started this blog simply as a way to "relieve" the pent up anger and angst that I was feeling with nearly every news report of TARP, Omnibus Package, Bank Bail out, AIG, GM and Chrysler. The more I heard, the worse I felt and I had to "let it out" in some fashion.

Since I started this blog a couple months ago, I have been continually educating myself through research for my blogs and through other avenues. I watched town hall meetings on television. I went to a local tea party rally. And even more intimidating to me, an apolitical person, I became a member of a new activist group who holds the same values and political views that I have, and whose members feel the same emotions.

I had not been aware that so many others had the same feelings that I was experiencing, not just in my town, but all across the country. So now we all know that there is momentum in this conservative movement to regain the country and protect it for our children and future generations. But we could be in danger of losing that momentum. We have to learn that in order to get our point across, as a group or an individual, we must use words and phrases that the liberals, particularly those in government will hear. They use their own terminology and spit out their politi-speak without ever engaging their brains.

"It's not what you say; it's what they hear." - Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research.

Nothing drove home the importance of using words and phrases that will be heard more clearly than when after enduring several grueling townhall meetings, Arlen Specter said on ABC's This Week, “I think we have to bear in mind, that although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they are not really representative of America in my opinion. We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings make the scene that influences what we do on health policy.”

Bless his ignorant heart! I decided that I needed to learn about how to really be heard. So, this article will give you a few of the words and phrases that you should substitute in your way of speaking so that you will be able to get and to hold the attention of those who literally are holding your future in their hands. These phrases are what are recommended by an expert wordsmith, Dr. Frank Luntz, in his books on this topic - Words that Work, and What America Really Wants... Really. I recommend that you get and read these books for more information on how to communicate effectively with politicians and your liberals friends and family. (Thank you, Dr. Luntz, for educating me to be a more effective communicator!)

These are terms that no longer are taken seriously by politicians. They see your lips move, but because you're using passe words, they don't hear you. So, by updating your terminology, you can be taken more seriously when speaking to politicians and liberals. As an example of what Dr. Luntz says about updated terminology, here examples that were pulled from his Words that Work:

• A used car is now pre-owned vehicle.
• A secretary is now an administrative assistant.
• A stewardess is now a flight attendant.
• Garbage removal is now sanitation services.
• Gay marriage is now same-sex marriage.

Choose words that inspire action:

• Instead of process, use progress.
• Instead of strategy use step-by-step approach.

Common phrases that make a difference include the following:

• Automobile manufacturers rather than automobile companies.
• Fuel efficiency rather than fuel savings.

If you go to town halls or tea parties or to some other organized protest, arrive especially early and sit in the front. If you have the opportunity to speak or to ask a question, use terms like "as a mom" or "as a dad", or "I regularly exercise my right to vote", that gives validity to your position - and let children speak if they can.

Simplicity is the most powerful way to communicate. In fact, the more simple the better. You will want to make your own signs. Pre-printed ones are not taken seriously - even Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer mentioned that one (but ignored the ACORN and SEIU ones!). Keep your message positive - and not negative - because this keeps the left from having anything to use against the movement. You should use some of these phrases on your signs:

• "Why?" - and if asked about your sign. Get them to explain their position.
• "Accountability - Why not?"
• "I have a right to be heard."
• "How much will it cost?" Stop wasting my money.
• "Who will $ for it?"
• "Before you sign it - READ IT."
• "Don't make promises you can't keep."
• "The IRS, the Post Office, Katrina... now healthcare?

So, now you are getting an idea that the old way of speaking needs to be updated because these new words and phrases are the words the politicians and their liberal supporters are using. If you continue using the old terms, you lose your credibility with them - as Mr. Specter suggested in his comment about the town halls!

"Remember the Alamo!"

What other phrase can rally the hearts and spirits of people much as it did well over a century and a half ago. No one doubts what the battle at the Alamo has come to symbolize. The battle cry, "Remember the Alamo", and that is just what it was, conjures up emotions in the hearts and minds of people all around the world because it represents a valliant struggle against impossible odds - indeed, where men were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

As concerned people come together in groups around the country whether at townhalls or at Tea Parties, that same spirit and call to rally against seemingly impossible odds is very much alive today. Americans, primarily Conservatives, but which include moderate Democrats and Independents as well, are finding a new rallying phrase which is strikingly similar to "Remember the Alamo!" To the chagrin of liberals, a new battle cry which began several months ago is growing louder and stronger.

As time marches on, and the Obama Administration pushes this country further and further into Socialism, imposes governmental takeovers of every sector of the economy, and place limitations on basic American freedoms and Constitutional rights, it's no longer "Remember the Alamo" which is a retrospective battle cry. Rather, there is a new battle cry which is forward-looking. It has become "Remember, 2010 and 2012!"

Obama and Congress Preaching to the Choir on ObamaCare

Apparently, our President has a habit of not listening to the citizens of the U.S. In fact, he would rather "preach to the choir". And this practice applies equally to both parties in Congress as it does to the President. Here are some examples of what I mean.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walks up to a podium to speak (other than her press conferences), she has some of her entourage/puppet-congressmen standing behind her, as well as staff members to the side and left-leaning media in front of her. So, no matter what she says, she has a pro-message audience to preach her propaganda to.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does the same thing with his cronies, staff, and media, as does John Boehner and most, if not all, of the others in Washington. It's a modus operandi in Washington to surround yourself with "yes" people and even to plant some in the audience for Q&A so you can get at least a few questions to answer to promote your agenda. Obama did the same thing during the campaign, and since he's still campaigning (because that's all he really knows how do to), he's is continuing that practice as of today when, as an example, he invited 150 doctors to the White House to discuss healthcare reform. Well, it was reported that these doctors were handpicked, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these physicians are mostly likely pro-Obamacare. Otherwise, if history teaches us anything, their voices would be ignored.

He did the same thing with some nurses' association representatives not long ago. Well, most healthcare providers, those who are practicing, do not support the ObamaCare plan. And as we learned last week, NY medical caregivers, primarily doctors and nurses are opposed to the mandatory inoculation - just as their peers in other states do as well. So, logically, we can assume that AMA (which represents only a small minority of doctors, and most of whom do not practice medicine) and ANA (American Nurses Association)  do not represent these medical professions as a whole. In fact, polls show the opposite - just ask your doctor and nurse.

So, if this meeting Obama has planned today with the doctors is for "show and tell", it's obviously another ruse. If he brought them to the White House truly not knowing where they stood on the issue and is really seeking to listen to their input, then count this as one of the campaign promises he made that he's really adhering to - and that is to listen to serious debate. Even so, I wonder what he constitutes as "serious" debate. The American people have been trying to debate his issues for months now and he's done his best to not hear what they're saying.

The problem with the issue of preaching healthcare to the choir is that if the preacher turns to preach to the choir, it's obvious that he has his back turned to the congregation. Look for Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, as well as others, to continue to preach to the choir over the next couple of weeks.... but the choir isn't the congregation. They've stopped listening to a message where cost numbers don't add up, where answers about maintaining quality of care are not direct - much less honest, and discussion on issues that would give incremental reform without trashing everything that works are evaded. There is no open and honest debate from The One who is preaching to the choir!

Astroturf Movement? I Would Hope So.

Yeah. Astroturf is a term I can embrace as one of those who would be counted among those townhallers who are shouting their discontent with the proposed healthcare reform as outlined in HR 3200 and the runaway spending by the Obama Administration. And here's why.

What happens to grass roots? They produce blades of grass. Someone comes along and cuts them back over and over. They get bruised and weakened when trampled on. They die back during the winter. Astroturf, on the other hand, lasts and lasts and lasts. It doesn't get cut back. It doesn't get bruised when trampled on. It stays strong and effective all year long, year after year.

So, yeah. I'm an astroturfer... and I hope that all those who have attended the townhall meetings to voice their opinions will also embrace the descriptor of astroturf and let that be a reminder to the liberals that we are here to stay!

Go "green" - be an astroturfer!