Quote
Watchdog groups and Republicans on Capitol Hill want an investigation into hundreds of White House meetings with corporate lobbyists at D.C. coffee houses. K Street influence peddlers told The New York Times last week that they've met routinely with Team Obama officials over the past 18 months to discuss policy matters -- at Starbucks, Caribou Coffee, even on a side lawn -- with the express purpose of circumventing the public's right to know.

[townhall.com]

Obama promised transparency. He also promised there would be no lobbyist in his White House. Well he's keeping his promises by having his people meet with influence peddlers at local coffee houses thus avoiding any records of visits on the WH visitor logs. More lies and deceptions from this administration.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Michelle Malkin. There's an objective journalist. <snort>

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

In all seriousness, my friend's son worked for a (right wing Republican) lobbyist for a while and his job included many, many meals in restaurants with the lobbyist and various representatives. Not humble coffee shops, either, but nice restaurants. It was a tough job, believe it or not, which consumed a good 60 hours or more each week. Very few meetings took place during work hours nor in Congressional offices. Lobbyists are trying to woo you and feeding you is part of their arsenal.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Lobbyists are free to lobby anyone they want (the Supremes may be an exception), but the point here is Obama's campaign promise and the lack of transparency. The WH visitor's log is the people's way of knowing who is influencing the President. His ploy to circumvent the people is so typical of what I despise about this president and his minions.

I'll give you Michelle Malkin is a conservative journalist, but she got her scoop from the liberal New York Times.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

It's no surprise that President Obama has been taken over by the DC Machine. He came into office on a wave of 'different'. And turned out to be the same old, same old.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat. "
John F. Lehman, Jr. (Sec Navy under Reagan.)

[www.boston.com]

[www.motherjones.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2012 10:31AM by Ted King.

Anything that comes from Malkin should be immediately discounted as opinion. When she gets proven to be full of hot air (as usual), I will patiently wait for Swampy's retraction.

---

[www.nytimes.com]

"A dozen" lobbyists and White House officials acknowledged that they've had a cup of coffee together across the street from the White House, at a place where they are known and recognized, while wearing WH ID badges. Way to be sneaky guys!

Over a thousand lobbyists are on the White House meeting log.

Wow.. you mean we can be sold out for a double sweet latte these days ? Guess there HAVE been a lot of executive branch cutbacks

So you're saying politicians have off-the-record meetings to discuss strategy. Shocking. The republic is doomed!

Quote
john dough
Anything that comes from Malkin should be immediately discounted as opinion. When she gets proven to be full of hot air (as usual), I will patiently wait for Swampy's retraction.

If you don't want to read about it at Malkin's site, go read about it a either of Ted's links. You just don't want facts do you?

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

I think the right has hit Boy Who Cried Wolf mode as far as I am concerned.

They could be spot on and I wouldn't listen, because I've had to listen to "Transcripts Kenyan Bad Student Bill Ayers Muslim Socialist Winston Churchill Fox News Ban Birth Certificate Reverend Wright Organic Garden Communist Lanvin Sneakers Vacations" for so long that I wouldn't recognize a true story out of them if it was sent down on a stone tablet.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
swampy

Quote
john dough
Anything that comes from Malkin should be immediately discounted as opinion. When she gets proven to be full of hot air (as usual), I will patiently wait for Swampy's retraction.

If you don't want to read about it at Malkin's site, go read about it a either of Ted's links. You just don't want facts do you?

I read it; it is typical Malkin's fact free nonsense. BTW, on FOX, Makin is referred to as a "commentator", not a journalist; what does that tell you?

Why is it that when she shows up just about anywhere else than FOX and other right-wing media, she gets corrected for what she says as fact? She is nothing but a loudmouth.

---

What's that saying about people in glass houses...

I'll say it again, this country is owned by the super wealthy (individuals and businesses). Whether you want to partake or not, you have to, or nothing will get done.

I don't care wgat labeI you give her, but i'll wager she's a better journalist, author, and syndicated columnist than you, Mr. Dough.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Wow! Pointing at anyone else for her shortcomings is a lame argument. I never claimed to be a "jounalist" on any level; she DOES yet she is proven factually incorrect most of the time (but you know that, right?). A real jounalist does not run with the crowds that she does.

The day she presents her points in a more centrist news outlet and actually has to defend what she states to those not giving her cover is when she gets that recognition. Until then, she is a simply a loudmouth.

---

I don't know she ever described herself as a journalist per se. She does opinion pieces, not unlike O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Buchanan or Maddow.

If you expect folks like George Will or Michael Moore to deliver journalism, you don't understand the distinction that separates news from editorial.

Malkin is a pundit, not a journalist.

---

in tha 510.

Oh and to the point. I'm not sure if public reporting or congressional oversight hinders executive function since they always find a way around those proscriptions. Does it serve us better to allow the Executive to gather energy executives together at the Executive Office building in order to craft energy policy, meetings we never find the content of or if meeting outside the White House to draft public policy (if that's what was done) that we never learn the content of either. It's a distinction without a difference.

I'm not sure there is a problem here that demands a solution. If their is and the the solution is to allow a Congressional veto over day-to-day executive operations that would be disastrous.

Does the Executive then get access to closed door Congressional hearings?

Basically what we have here is more election year FUD.

Quote
$tevie
In all seriousness, my friend's son worked for a (right wing Republican) lobbyist for a while and his job included many, many meals in restaurants with the lobbyist and various representatives. Not humble coffee shops, either, but nice restaurants. It was a tough job, believe it or not, which consumed a good 60 hours or more each week. Very few meetings took place during work hours nor in Congressional offices. Lobbyists are trying to woo you and feeding you is part of their arsenal.

How long ago was this? Because most people I know on The Hill (that have been there for quite some time) grumble because perks such as this are no longer the norm and everything must be reported.

The 90s seemed to be the heyday of lobbyist perks for staffers and members.

Wow. There's a lot of denial and "that's not possible" going on here.

Had this been the administration of GW Bush, most of you would be going ballistic.

But I guess this kind of narrow-minded thinking is to be expected here.

Last year.

SO you believe that the Administration is being less than transparent, but this right wing lobbyist is incapable of being less than transparent. Huh.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2012 02:00PM by $tevie.

Quote
Mac-A-Matic
Wow. There's a lot of denial and "that's not possible" going on here.

Had this been the administration of GW Bush, most of you would be going ballistic.

But I guess this kind of narrow-minded thinking is to be expected here.

Enlighten us on "coffeegate." I don't know much about it other than what's in the links above. How did lobbying go in the Bush White House? All transparent and on the record?
Jack Abramoff anyone? John Schmitz and the Medicare drug bill? (he worked for the defense industry too)
When I think lobbyists and Bush, that's what comes to mind.
Lobbying should be on the up and up, if the meetings are outside the rules, then expose it. Those rules were not in effect durign the Bush adminstration, they arose because of abuses during his terms I believe.
If they are not being followed then I'm all for blowing the whistle on that. This came out two years ago, is there more since? If so, what?

Holy crap, I never noticed it was a two year old link. So the Republicans had plenty of time to investigate this by now. Gee, I wonder why a bunch of politicians didn't go after after this Free Coffee Off The Record scandal the minute they heard about it?

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote

Wow. There's a lot of denial and "that's not possible" going on here.

Had this been the administration of GW Bush, most of you would be going ballistic.

But I guess this kind of narrow-minded thinking is to be expected here.

There's some marvelous insight. Have you ever considered that all your repeated nuggets about how "most of you would be," coincidentally, confirm your prejudices ?

I am always baffled at people who read this forum every day and then gripe about how "everyone" is so this, that, or the other thing. There's only like a quadrillion internet forums -- go find one you can enjoy if this one is so distasteful to you.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

"Had this been the administration of GW Bush, most of you would be going ballistic."

Back during the administration of GW Bush most of us had plenty more important things to occupy our outrage.

Quote
$tevie
I am always baffled at people who read this forum every day and then gripe about how "everyone" is so this, that, or the other thing. There's only like a quadrillion internet forums -- go find one you can enjoy if this one is so distasteful to you.

Many guns in America that won't go away, go find a nation with extremely restrictive gun laws that you can enjoy since this nation is so distasteful to you.

Quote
Dennis S
"Had this been the administration of GW Bush, most of you would be going ballistic."

Back during the administration of GW Bush most of us had plenty more important things to occupy our outrage.

During the Bush administration most of you were outraged.

Quote
August West
There's some marvelous insight. Have you ever considered that all your repeated nuggets about how "most of you would be," coincidentally, confirm your prejudices ?

You're such a Tea Party type, August.

Quote

You're such a Tea Party type, August.

Clearly, you are filled with insight. One is amazed.

Quote
August West
Clearly, you are filled with insight. One is amazed.

As you should be.

I thought I wrote a post about this last night, but maybe I didn't hit send...

Anyway, I happened to go out to dinner last night with a friend who's been a Hill Staffer for twenty some years and we got to chatting about just this topic - actually, I brought it up because of this thread.

The Congressional rules started changing in 1996 and were not fully codified until 2003, but no lobbyist may pay for any meal or gift to a member of Congress or staffer. Gone were the big parties and lavish dinners. In the early 90s, my friend worked for a D in Texas and had continuous stories about lavish parties and events being thrown by lobbyists, it was they heyday of American politics. Then some scandal came about and Congress started getting tight on oversight.

Today, a member or staffer can go out to dinner or have a coffee with a lobbyist but it must be registered and that member or staffer must pay for their own items - they cannot accept a "gift" of any sort.

And while I'm not sure how this might apply to White House staffers, though I am presuming that the rules are very similar, it's not improper for staffers to meet lobbyists at Caribou and discuss policy, it would be a violation however, if that staffer did not pay for his own items during that meal.

Quote
Lemon Drop
Enlighten us on "coffeegate." I don't know much about it other than what's in the links above. How did lobbying go in the Bush White House? All transparent and on the record?
Jack Abramoff anyone? John Schmitz and the Medicare drug bill? (he worked for the defense industry too)
When I think lobbyists and Bush, that's what comes to mind.
Lobbying should be on the up and up, if the meetings are outside the rules, then expose it. Those rules were not in effect durign the Bush adminstration, they arose because of abuses during his terms I believe.
If they are not being followed then I'm all for blowing the whistle on that. This came out two years ago, is there more since? If so, what?

Again, if this had been GWBush's administration, people like you would be jumping up and down and demanding to know the details - just look at the vehemency of your Abramoff, Schmitz, etc mentions.

Those rules were indeed in effect during the Bush administration (they started up in 1996) and they arose because of abuses during Democrat rule (though not limited to Dem abuse).

Seems to me that there's a certain lack of vehemency regarding breaking the rules during Bush term vs. Obama term. Or a lackadaisical approach because violations were also done during the Bush era.

Quote

people like you would be jumping up and down and demanding to know the details

Set up strawman.

Quote

Seems to me that there's a certain lack of vehemency regarding breaking the rules during Bush term vs. Obama term.

Knock down strawman.

Insight, he's full of it.

Well, why didn't the Republican-majority House investigate it then? It seems it would be right up their alley to do so. Their lack of "jumping up and down" about this is a clue to me that the story isn't any bigger of a deal than it was two years ago before its freshness date ran out.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
$tevie
Well, why didn't the Republican-majority House investigate it then? It seems it would be right up their alley to do so. Their lack of "jumping up and down" about this is a clue to me that the story isn't any bigger of a deal than it was two years ago before its freshness date ran out.

Daryl Issa would investigate how many armpit hairs the President has if Repubs wanted him to, so I'm guessing they didn't investigate 2 years ago because they were too obsessed with ACORN.
The person who breathed life back into this story is Romney's campaign guy:
"Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, told reporters on a conference call this morning that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina "appears" to have broken the law, based off a series of emails Messina sent from his personal account as White House deputy chief of staff."

Read more: [www.businessinsider.com]


I'm expecting Jim Messina to get hauled before Congress between now and November. We'll find out that Big Pharma and Big Insurance helped write the health reform law. Because we didn't know that before.
Also, Jim Messina's wiki page has been hacked and is somewhat hilarious right now.
[en.wikipedia.org]

I'll say (again) all lobbying meetings should be on the up and up and rule breakers should be exposed. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. But unless we find out that Messina took cash from these lobbyists in exchange for the deals, the only thing different about these meetings is going to be that they should have been on the White House log with the thousands of others.

Quote
Dennis S
"Had this been the administration of GW Bush, most of you would be going ballistic."

Back during the administration of GW Bush most of us had plenty more important things to occupy our outrage.

You shared most of those here, too.

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'll say (again) all lobbying meetings should be on the up and up and rule breakers should be exposed. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. But unless we find out that Messina took cash from these lobbyists in exchange for the deals, the only thing different about these meetings is going to be that they should have been on the White House log with the thousands of others.

That's right! Because we all know that lobbyist checks should be passed out on the floor of the House of Representatives and not in coffee shops.

[www.zimbio.com]

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
$tevie

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'll say (again) all lobbying meetings should be on the up and up and rule breakers should be exposed. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. But unless we find out that Messina took cash from these lobbyists in exchange for the deals, the only thing different about these meetings is going to be that they should have been on the White House log with the thousands of others.

That's right! Because we all know that lobbyist checks should be passed out on the floor of the House of Representatives and not in coffee shops.

[www.zimbio.com]

Forgot about that goodie.

These are some pretty pricey lattes right here:
[www.opensecrets.org]

[abcnews.go.com]

Issa is all over it. Back in '08 he defended the Bush White House for doing exactly the same thing, so we'll see if he applies the same logic here.

I guess Issa gets his ideas from the interwebs.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
August West

As is typical - you've contributed nothing.

Very Tea Party of you.

That more than 700 lobbyists and lobbying firms have contributed to the Romney campaign and none (zero) have contributed to the Obama campaign might be alarming, if you didn't know that neither Obama nor the DNC will accept contributions from lobbyists.

The money that was once more or less evenly divided has to go somewhere so for now it's all going to Romney.

Fine; accuse others of having nothing. Since you are up in arms, answer this:

What will Romney do as president to help the middle class?

Honestly, I see nothing in his platform that will help anyone but the very wealthy (and I do not get that many people who are NOT rich are supporting his ideas which historically have worked aginst their interests).

I know what Obama will do, and that is why I, as a middle class business owner, will be voting for him in November.

What say you?

---

Quote

As is typical - you've contributed nothing.

Busted for you BS argument, unsurprisingly, you revert to the kindergartener's favorite retort,

"I'm rubber and you're glue"

Better go play with your guns, your adequacy won't feel so threatened.

Quote
August West
Busted for you BS argument, unsurprisingly, you revert to the kindergartener's favorite retort,

"I'm rubber and you're glue"

Better go play with your guns, your adequacy won't feel so threatened.

My "BS argument"?

You mean the Congressional rules that require members and staff of Congress to report all activity with lobbyists and to not accept "gifts" in any form?

Just like the typical Tea Party-er, when faced with the reality of fact, try to obfuscate.

Quote

You mean the Congressional rules that require members and staff of Congress to report all activity with lobbyists and to not accept "gifts" in any form?

Willful blindness? Not a far stretch in the context of your postings.

Quote

people like you would be jumping up and down and demanding to know the details

That completely BS argument. The one I specifically quoted, and which you pretend not to see. The one in which you project your fantasies about other posters' behavior, as seems to be your only style. The one in which you lump everyone who might not agree with you in one simple and convenient group, which you then chastise with a bogus argument you have concocted. The one you so obviously avoid in your reply.

Quote
August West

Quote

You mean the Congressional rules that require members and staff of Congress to report all activity with lobbyists and to not accept "gifts" in any form?

Willful blindness? Not a far stretch in the context of your postings.

Quote

people like you would be jumping up and down and demanding to know the details

That completely BS argument. The one I specifically quoted, and which you pretend not to see. The one in which you project your fantasies about other posters' behavior, as seems to be your only style. The one in which you lump everyone who might not agree with you in one simple and convenient group, which you then chastise with a bogus argument you have concocted. The one you so obviously avoid in your reply.

The only style that I see in you is Tea Party-ism. And that kind of stupidity doesn't deserve more than I've given you.

Spurious attacks on me only highlight your own intellectual shortcomings. Your inability to form a cogent argument or to stay on point without resorting to mischaracterization and distortion of others' positions speaks for itself.