E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Republicans are seizing on a New York Times piece noting how White House aides and Washington lobbyists are conducting business at Starbucks and other coffee establishments.
Per the Times:
But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors' log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the "most transparent presidential administration in history."
The off-site meetings, lobbyists say, reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration's public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries' "battalions" of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration's continuing, private dealings with them.
National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain emails: "With all of the president's 'promises of 'change' and the Democrat-led Congress' constant bashing of special interests on the campaign trail, it is clear that in just eighteen months, the politics of "hope" have been replaced with the politics of hypocrisy and cynicism.'"
Leave a Comment:
Al Gore Sex Abuse Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence, Say Portland Police
Officials Release Graphic Report of Alleged Victim's Complaint Of 'Unwanted Sexual Touching' By Former VP
If you read the whole police report, they (the woman and her legal counsel) declined police help to pursue a civil action.
If this person had done this against Gingrich or Boehner, or any number of right wongers you would be saying shes only in it for the money, which she probably is. The case goes back a few years and only now is she saying it was Gore. The room in the hotel she went to was registered to a guy named Stone .
If it was any number of right wingers, it would have been a 'he' that was in the news.
I agree Frank....
all women are in it for the money.
No, I dont think all women or even all persons are in for the money. I don't know all the particulars of the case and I may have to eat my words later, but, when it has been this long and it is a lawyer that is talking to the police and not the victim, I will go with the law of averages and say she is in it for the money.
Guilt by association for poor Al: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I guess Al's cashing in on his fame and trying his level best to catch up to Bill C.
Ok, then let me clarify,
I agree Frank...
You think most women do it for the money.
You may be a democrat, but hey at least you hate women.
Nice try airhead. Where did I say I think most women do it for the money. Thats the trouble with you guys. You are so used to lies, you don't even recognize even a little bit of honesty.
If you wanted Honesty then I would have said it is Honestly none of my business, or yours either.
Oh yeah and honestly it was just a lame attempt to try to slap a Republican, which is the only reason you posted it. That and you think all women do it for the money.
Slapping a Republican? You can't win an argument with someone who has a guilty conscious. I can't find in any of my comments where I identifed either the woman or her lawyer as a Republican. Do you know for fact the political leanings of the woman or her lawyer? And like I say, you Republicans are so used to lieing and exaggerating, you can't recognize even a resemblance of truth.
Ok folks it is Friday afternoon... Thanks to the great staff that spports this site. Another job well done. Now for a little humor on "Last Words"
Last May my wife and I went to our daughters promotion to Lt JG in San Diego. That night my wife and I took Sarah (my daughter) and a few of her navy buddies to dinner. Somehow during the course of the evening we got on the topic of marriage. One of the young officers ask me how long we have been married and I responded (40 Yrs this August). He asked what was our secret, I told him it was very simple. I always get the "last word", after a pause that seemed like a life time he ask what do you say. My reply "Yes Dear".
Everybody have a great weekend, be safe and I will be back Monday. Probally to the dismay of some.
LOL! Congrats on the 40 years! :0)
US Navy, good story and very true!! Congratulations, you were married the same year I was, in November. You are so fortunate to have your spouse, enjoy every minute of your time together.
Jill F., Tulsa, OK wrote:
The only point you have is the one on the top of your head. "Transparency" is a matter of degree, and the only way to determine whether President Obama has improved transparency over the secretive and devious Cheney/Bush Administation is to compare the two. Only an idiot would demand absolute transparency. What do you want cameras in every room of the White House running at all times so that the Obamas are living like the poor guy in the Truman Show?
Liar. Obama never said any such thing, because that would be not only impossible but also unconstitutional.
And how is it that the very same wingnuts who accuse President Obama of being a Maoist attack him for being on speaking terms with corporate lobbyists and maybe sometimes being "influenced" by them to do things that would promote their business interests?
You're 'smokin' today Houston! That one had to hurt! LMAO
Voted!
Houston, you only prove what everyone else already knows.....you are one of the blind Obama worshippers. First of all, I said that Obama promised to reduce the INFLUENCE of corporate lobbyists on federal legislation. While it may be infringe upon free speech to ban lobbyists, there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that requires Obama and/or policy-makers to be INFLUENCED by lobbyists.
"The president contrasted the Supreme Court's stance with that taken by his administration, saying that his White House has "closed the revolving door" between government and special-interest lobbying and has barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. And, for the first time, Obama said his administration is publicly disclosing the names of those who visit the White House each day, a list that includes lobbyists." - from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704562504575020642657591552.html
It is really easy to disclose the names of those who visit the White House each day when he's having them meet at coffee shops. You're the idiot who has somehow construed what I am saying into a call for "absolute transparency." I never asked for videotaped recordings of meeting in the White House. I'm just asking the President to live up to his own promises and earn the pats on the back that he seems to enjoy giving to himself.