Comments on: WaPo cancels paid White House-Congress-lobbyist hook up

By: Hal Horvath

Hal Horvath — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:18:43 +0000

Our legislature is compromised, since we consider lobbying normal.

Corrupt is accurate.

What would non-corruption look like?

People lobbying Congress would be individually pressing their own issues, without being paid to do so by any other parties. 2nd, no forms of any kind of quid-pro-quo (vactions, resorts, dinners) with members of Congress or officials of gov. -- this would result in trial, some convictions, mandatory jail time, loss of office.

By: Edward Harrison

Edward Harrison — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:09:53 +0000

You probably already saw the Dan Froomkin stuff:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/19/washpost/index1.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-wapos-best-blogger-is-fired.html

Obviously, the Post is truly the Village Voice.

By: MaxH707

MaxH707 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:48:49 +0000

I can just hear Sen. Ensign now saying, "I'll have a gin and tonic with my high colonic."

By: VG Chicago

VG Chicago — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:29:37 +0000

Yeah, Washington politics as usual…. with a Chicago twist…

Vinny G.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:11:51 +0000

The WaPo is making a play to be the Village Voice, i.e. the go to rag for DC Villagers and Beltway insiders. You can see this in the WaPo's years long fellation of the Bush Administration and in its recent revamp of Newsweek. This latest adventure in pimping and facilitating crony government and crony capitalism crashed only because it was made public prematurely by another "news" organization, the Politico, probably because it hadn't thought of it first.

By: "DoctoRx"

"DoctoRx" — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:04:29 +0000

Also: re Dr. Harrison's last response: IMO the government has implausible deniability.

"Plausible deniability" was Nixon administration terminology for the cover-up.

By: "DoctoRx"

"DoctoRx" — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:02:14 +0000

Yet another example of why George Washington was reluctant to leave his farm to become President

By: Edward Harrison

Edward Harrison — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:54:02 +0000

Dan,

We're on the same page. Obviously that's why I posted the story, isn't it? It's not like I have a bugaboo about the Washington Post.

But, of course, the government has plausible deniability on their side in hat there is no smoking gun - no one accepted.

On the other hand, the Post comes up looking pretty tawdry.

As for my take here, the last line sums it up: "Oh, and by the way, if you think that U.S. health care reform proposals are not heavily influenced by lobbyists, you might want to read the full account below."

This is not the only way lobbyists are getting their case across.

By: Dan Duncan

Dan Duncan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:29:02 +0000

Edward...are you kidding me? At that press conference, Gibbs was either glib or ridiculously vague. Do you really accept those "answers" as being a legitimate response from the White House?

WaPo was going to charge 250k for the get-together. How do you think such a transaction goes down?

"Hey, Dick Lobbyist. We're having a shin-dig over at our publisher's crib next week. It's not exactly a BYOB affair, but do bring 250k--in cash. There'll be Finger-Food Hors d'œuvre and 2 oz. glasses of house merlot. Obama officials are expected...as are lots of chicks! It's gonna rock. Oh yeah...and don't forget to RSVP!"

Of course Obama officials knew about this. Patrick Neid is correct: Obama's involvement is the bigger story.

We know WaPo's excuse: It sells a product is no longer suitable for wrapping dead fish. It's a last act of desperation before being purchased by the National Enquirer.

What's Obamas'?

By: eeeeeekonjohn

eeeeeekonjohn — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:57:13 +0000

One only wonders whether how many of these occurred in the past without the scrutiny.