Last week Dana was just pissing in his pants he was soooooo mad that a blogger asked the president a question, but I bet he’s got nothing to say about the paper that employs him – the Washington Post – auctioning off access like so much meat. The mainstream media in this country grows less relevant and more disliked every day, and they earn every bit of the scorn on their own.
The Washington Post can’t die off soon enough. A great paper gone to seed as nothing more than a neocon sounding board.
Dana hearts the Hiatt effect
The mainstream media in this country grows less relevant and more disliked every day, and they earn every bit of the scorn on their own.
The Michael Jackson coverage ices that cake.
Let’s see… the invitation’s wording was Interact with key Obama Administration and Congressional leaders…
Oh, those dastardly Neocons… they’re running EVERYTHING!
J.
Who said anything about Neocons, Mr. Tea? Or did you just toss that into your comment for laughs?
I heartily recommend today’s Daily Howler.
Stroll your eyes up to Jaim’s first comment, Quaker.
Here, I’ll spare you the effort:
The Washington Post can’t die off soon enough. A great paper gone to seed as nothing more than a neocon sounding board.
The Post clearly believed it could sell access to “top Obama administration and Congressional leaders.” And others thought they could, too.
Note that it was a lobbyist who blew the whistle on this scam.
J.
The Washington Post employs more Neo-Con-artist writers than the money-losing Weakly Standard.
Fascinating, “Newsy.”
Well, not really. But I’m trying to be kind.
“Utterly irrelevant and an entirely predictable attempt to change the subject away from uncomfortable truths” is more honest.
(Dang, there goes that “kinder” thing…)
Fact: The Washington Post was planning on selling access to top Obama administration and Congressional leaders, as well as writers and editors from the Post, all off the record, to lobbyists in the paper’s publisher’s home, promoted by and for the financial benefit of the Post.
This stinks to high heaven, and — amazingly — it was a lobbyist that blew the whistle on the whole scheme.
Christ, what a state we are in when we are dependent upon a lobbyist’s conscience to expose this kind of grotesque corruption.
J.
The Post clearly believed it could sell access to “top Obama administration and Congressional leaders.” And others thought they could, too.
What was going to be the subject of the first “salon,” Mr. Tea? Which congressional leaders were signed up to attend? And which companies were shelling out the big sponsorship dollars?
If you have answers to any of these, please be so good as to explain how that puts any of the parties to this game in cahoots with the Obama administration.
Thanking you in advance for your careful reasearch of the facts,
Q in a B
Fact: The Washington Post was planning on selling access to top Obama administration and Congressional leaders, as well as writers and editors from the Post, all off the record, to lobbyists in the paper’s publisher’s home, promoted by and for the financial benefit of the Post.
This stinks to high heaven, and — amazingly — it was a lobbyist that blew the whistle on the whole scheme.
Christ, what a state we are in when we are dependent upon a lobbyist’s conscience to expose this kind of grotesque corruption.
All quite true, Mr. Tea. Excuse us if we don’t welcome your sudden awakening. You see, we’ve been aware of the Post’s decline since, oh…1993, or so.
If you’d like to catch up on any of the other events of the last decade and a half, don’t hesitate to ask for assistance.
Well, Quaker, it appears Kaiser Permanente was ready to pony up 25K for the first one. You think they’re gonna that kind of dough without some guarantees of top-rate access?
And as far as the Post… foolishly, I thought they’d go belly-up before they’d sink this low. I figured that their own egos would keep them from becoming such complete and utter (to steal a term from a commenter on another blog) “presstitutes.”
Good lord, who the hell would foresee a time when the Washington Post — of Watergate fame — would even consider doing this?
J.
The right wing tilt of the Washington Post has been clear for some time.
The Washington Post was a cheerleader for the Republican’s Iraq War Lie and frequently was a cheerleader for Republican President Bush’s worst abuses of his power.
The Washington Post still has some very solid journalists that still manage to squeeze out some harsh truths and facts (”truth” and “facts” are often misidentified as “liberal”).
And it does have a few token ‘lefty’ colunnists.
But the Washington Post’s editorial pages are absolutely controlled by right wingers. And neo-con-(artist) editorialists are overwhelingly represented.
The Washington Post’s sharp downturn isn’t unexpected, though it is sad and very disappointing.
Hopefully it will recover from it’s recent stupid moves.
Good lord, who the hell would foresee a time when the Washington Post — of Watergate fame — would even consider doing this?
Um, anyone who has been paying attention for the last 15 years?
I repeat my offer, Mr. Tea. If there are any other events you’d like to catch up on, just ask.
it appears Kaiser Permanente was ready to pony up 25K for the first one. You think they’re gonna that kind of dough without some guarantees of top-rate access?
$25K is chump change for Kaiser, but let that pass. You’re halfway home. Now just who from the Obama administration was signed up, hmm? I can tell you that one legislator, a blue-dog Democrat who helped torpedo the Clinton health initiative was ready to chow down with a big health insurer.
Perhaps you’d have better luck coming up with another of your catchy monikers, Mr. Tea. You know, like “Typhoid Barry”? That one is still selling well, isn’t it?
“presstitutes.”
See: Right winger Jeff Gannon, a literal gay male prostitute, admitted to the Republican President Bush White House Press Room to ask questions, including directly feeding Republican Bush some of the biggest suck up questions imaginable.
http://google.com/search?q=Jeff+Gannon+Bush+question
OK, I just tried to reconcile “Newsy’s” bloviating — the Post being a right-wing rag — with the facts (a foreign concept to him/her/it) that the Post was getting in bed with top Democrats for money, and I think I just sprained my irony muscle.
Nobody can put the “moron” in “oxymoron” like you, “Newsy.”
And your attempt to bury the facts of this scandal in your standard blizzard of paranoid bullshit is rather impressive.
J.
Shorter “Newsy:”
“Hey, look over there! Something even shinier!”
J.
— with the facts (a foreign concept to him/her/it) that the Post was getting in bed with top Democrats for money,
Inventing your own “facts” again, Mr. Tea? The Post’s Ms. Weymouth was attempting to sell her paper’s integrity to corporations, not to Democrats.
You’re only able to slander Democrats with this because someone in Ms. Weyouth’s marketing department imagined she had the mojo to get others involved. So far, there’s no evidence it is so.
“Jay Tea”, “the Post was getting in bed with” lobbyists.
Period.
It was stupid.
But this wasn’t like convicted criminal Republican Jack Abramoff getting special access to the Republican President Bush White House to sell access to his cronies.
Nor was it like the aforementioned gay male prostitute Jeff “Gannon” Guckert getting to feed Republican President Bush suck up softball questions at Republican Bush’s White House Press Room.
Those things actually happened.
What you are talking about is conjecture.
It would be like me asking people to pay me money to get access to you.
How effective would that be?-)
LOL.
But I could show them that we are in regular contact and even show them that sweet love note you sent me talking about what you saw as our, uhm, special relationship.
It’s silly of course, but so is suggesting that what the corporate arm of the Washington Post claimed to be able to do would be what it actually could do.
By the way, do you think it’s unethical for bloggers (say, like yourself) to be receiving undisclosed corporate money to troll lefty websites?
You are making an assertion of belief about the Post.
Well, my belief is that you and several of the other right wing trolls that post here get paid by undisclosed corporations.
Shorter Newsy: “Hey, even more shiny stuff! Look over there, and there, and there!”
Aw, “Newsy,” you figured it out. I am paid by a huge, multinational corporation.
But not for blogging. In fact, my terms of employment specifically forbid me from blogging at work — I can be fired for it. No, I do all kinds of apolitical grunt work for my paycheck from them.
This I do for fun.
As far as the Post goes, I’m making an inference. The Post’s plans had progressed to the point of sending out flyers and rounding up clients to events at their publisher’s home. It’s possible that they’d do all that without confirming the presence of the “bait” — the high-ranking Congressional and Obama administration figures — but very, very unlikely.
After all, the Obama administration is replete with lobbyists and tax cheats; what’s one more ethics violation among friends?
The alternative — that the Post would send out the invitations and reserve the publisher’s home — without confirming the top draws’ presence is simply too incredible to accept.
J.
As far as the Post goes, I’m making an inference.
Also called, “making stuff up.” Good to know.
After all, the Obama administration is replete with lobbyists and tax cheats
Replete? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Last count I heard, Quaker, it was over two dozen, combined — led by a Treasury Secretary who cheated on his taxes, and then blamed the software. Also, during his campaign, Obama promised ZERO lobbyists.
But like all Obama promises, those had expiration dates. The only challenge is in guessing when they run out.
J.
Last count I heard, Quaker, it was over two dozen, combined
Out of what number of White House appointees, Mr. Tea? Now let’s recall where those goal posts started out, shall we?
Replete:
1: fully or abundantly provided or filled
2 a: abundantly fed b: fat, stout
3: complete
My gratitude to Mssrs. Merriam and Webster. The word does not mean what you seem to think. Or else you’re making things up once again.
I have no idea why half of that post is in link text with no link. No link is intended.
In short, Mr. Tea is using made up evidence to back up his made up claim. Don’t you ever tire of being corrected, Mr. Tea?
Alternately, Mr./Ms. Quaker shows that once again they are remarkably hung up on pedantry. The slightest hint of less than 100% accuracy suddenly becomes the fixation point, and the fact that Obama broke several of his promises by appointing to high office a number of officials who demonstrated a remarkable tendency to ignore the tax laws the rest of us have to obey (and, in Geithner’s case, will be enforcing).
Add in Obama’s promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House, which was quickly overturned in a flurry of clarifying rules, guidelines, and waivers to allow those who he had railed against…
I believe the greatest sin on the left is “hypocrisy.” Does that apply to Obama, too?
Sorry, silly question.
Tell me, Quaker… do you ever get tired of playing the gotcha game and weaseling out of arguments by resorting to the dictionary, instead of having to address the specific points? Or do you get your rocks off on finding the slightest flaw and dismissing an entire argument over a single word, when you know in your heart that the point behind that single questionable word is irrefutable?
Sorry, even sillier question.
J.
Tell me, Quaker… do you ever get tired of playing the gotcha game and weaseling out of arguments by resorting to the dictionary,
Never. Not when there are conservative scolds resorting to hypertechnical parsing of each and every word to set the gotcha game in motion. Don’t start the game if you don’t wish to play, Mr. Tea.
When Mr. Obama, speaking in South Carolina, said lobbyists would “not find a job” in his White House, he was speaking about who funds Presidential campaigns and how those funders expect to make policy after the election. You can look it up.
Yes, Mr. Obama did indeed hire some “lobbyists” when he staffed his White House. He hired lobbyists like Eric Holder who was registered as a lobbyist in connection with his work for Global Crossings. He hired lobbyists like William Corr, a lobbyist for the powerful anti-kids-smoking cartel. He hired lobbyists like agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack who was once registered to lobby for the National Education Association.
Yes, Mr. Tea, he hired some people who were registerd as lobbyists. However, he has not hired them to set policy for the industries in which they were advocates. You attempted to turn these hirings into a betrayal of a promise by reading his “no lobbyists” pledge in the most rigid and unyielding terms–a “gotcha game” by definition.
What’s even worse, you attempt to wield this imagined betrayal as evidence that Mr. Obama’s administration is “replete” with lobbyists–an assertion which is baldly false. And that assertion is offered in evidence that members of the Obama administration thad agreed to act as bag men and women for the floundering business enterprise of a family of Washington patricians.
In short, Mr. Tea, you’re piling one imaginary tale on top of another. To what end, I have no clue. But the short answer to your question (if such a thing is yet possible) is no, I never tire of correcting your misrepresentations.
Here’s the quote in question, Mr. Tea:
Have at it.
Why, then, Quaker, did Obama start issuing waivers to his brand-new rule literally the day after it was issued?
January 21 — Executive Order issued.
January 22 — waiver granted to William Lynn, former Raytheon lobbyist appointed to the Defense Department.
Waivers were also issued to Richard Verma (State Department), Jocelyn Frye (Office of the First Lady), and Cecelia Munoz (Special Assistant to the President), among others.
As in so many cases, the trick with Obama is to realize that his promises mean exactly what he wants them to mean, for as long as he wants them to last.
And nothing to say about the tax cheats? Rumor has it that was part of the reason Judd Gregg had to withdraw as Commerce Secretary — dumb bastard, he’d paid all his taxes. Obviously that made him unfit to serve.
J.
I see Mr. Tea is spending his independence day patriotically picking any possible nit he can find at his duly elected president.
Each to his own. Me, I’m off to the fireworks!
Goodness sakes, Mr. Tea. You’ve moved the goalposts so far I’m not even sure we’re still in the same time zone where we started.
We started out talking about your “inference” that the Obama administration had agreed to act as de facto fundraisers for Lally Weymouth’s little enterprise based on nothing more than a marketing executive’s bungled flyer.
Then we moved to an Obama campaign pledge.
Now, suddenly, we’ve arrived at an executive order issued the day after Mr. Obama’s inauguration.
Be patient. I’m doing my very best to keep up.
Why did Mr. Obama grant waivers? The executive order to which you refer allows the Director of the OMB to grant such waivers under the broad rubric of “public interest” defined as follows:
Now I’ll even spot you William Lynn. As a top exec at defense contractor Raytheon, Mr. Lynn had lobbied the Pentagon on his employer’s behalf well within the 2 year limit. I won’t even trouble you to go look for the reason for the waiver. We’ll just tally up one point toward “replete with lobbyists.”
On the rest, I call shenannigans. Mr. Obama’s executive order quite clearly spells out the “Revolving Door” restrictions for lobbyists entering government:
Please be so good as to explain how these provision limit the eligibility of any of the others you mentioned.
So where are we now, Mr. Tea? As best as I can figure, your argument is:
Mr. Obama issued an executive order setting limits on lobbyists entering government, but
He allowed some (expressly permitted) waivers to the order, and that means
He backed down on a campaign promise that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” and that means
The White House is actually brimming with lobbyists, and therefore
The Washington Post offer to set up dinner dates with administration officials in exchange for corporate cash must be true!!
Is that what you’re saying?
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “Aw, “Newsy,” you figured it out. I am paid by a huge, multinational corporation.”
Is that why you don’t have any patriotism for our American Nation?
You know, some Americans work for huge, multinational corporations and still have loyalty to our nation, so that’s really not an excuse for your disloyalty, “Jay Tea”.
“Jay Tea”, why don’t you take a day off and just suffer in silence today, you can silently shake your fist at all of the fireworks celebrating how early American Liberals defeated a right wing King.
Typical “Newsy.” Sees what he/she/it wants to, and ignores anything else that contradicts his/her/its vision of reality.
Let’s look at my full quote again, huh?
Aw, “Newsy,” you figured it out. I am paid by a huge, multinational corporation.
But not for blogging. In fact, my terms of employment specifically forbid me from blogging at work — I can be fired for it. No, I do all kinds of apolitical grunt work for my paycheck from them.
This I do for fun.
At my day job, I’m a very, very small wheel in a very, very big machine that is listed in the Fortune 500. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with blogging or politics or whatsoever, and in fact they’d probably fire my ass if I brought that into the workplace — it’s specifically spelled out as company policy.
But that doesn’t matter to “Newsy.”
What puzzles me, though, is whether “Newsy” is just that stupid, or just that dishonest.
What the hell. Could be both.
J.
Quaker, what do you call a rule that is set aside 24 hours after it’s put in place? That’s created with a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and is exploited repeatedly?
I’d call it “meaningless.” And I’d call the person who made the promise, then chose to make that promise meaningless, a “liar.”
And you STILL don’t want to address the whole tax thing, I see.
I recall Joe Biden stating that it was everyone’s patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. That must make cabinet meetings a bit awkward… until everyone remembers that Biden is a chronic bullshitter who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about most of the time, and a good laugh is had by all.
J.
Remember when Republican President Bush’s White House pretended not to remember Republican lobbyist and now convicted felon Jack Abramoff?
Yeah, good times…
And then it was discovered that Republican convict Jack Abramoff had 485 contacts with Republican President Bush’s White House.
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “I’m a very, very small wheel”
This is news?
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “I recall Joe Biden stating that it was everyone’s patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. “
As opposed to the right wing’s belief that our American Nation should go into debt to foreigners to pay for the wars that Republicans lie US into and even then the right wing isn’t willing to invest in the planning for their stupid wars, the right wing isn’t willing to invest in American troops body armor or armored vehicles, right wingers aren’t even willing to invest in adequate medical facilities for returning injured American troops….
Why do you and other right wingers hate our American troops, “Jay Tea”?
Oh, that’s right, even during a time of multiple wars Republicans want tax cuts.
Treasonous.
Quaker, what do you call a rule that is set aside 24 hours after it’s put in place? That’s created with a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and is exploited repeatedly?
Which is it, Mr. Tea? Was the rule set aside or did it have a loophole? You can’t have it both ways.
And you STILL don’t want to address the whole tax thing, I see.
Another time, Mr. Tea. You’ve led us down more rabbit holes than I can count already. You still…er, STILL don’t want to address your own specious logic that seems to argue that the Washington Post marketing department runs our government.
So far, Mr. Tea has presented one (1) waiver of Mr. Obama’s campaign promise and executive order, that allowed a top defense company executive to go to work at the Pentagon.
Anything else, Mr. Tea?
Thanks for your patient corrections, “Q in a B”
And thanks, “Newsy,” for showing once again your fundamental dishonesty.
Quaker, I brought up two points at once — the lobbyist ban and the tax cheats. You can’t stop focusing, laserlike, on the slightest of details in your enthusiasm to avoid the whole issue — that the Obama administration is taking the lead of the Democratic congress to being far more secretive and dishonest than you are willing to admit, and more secretive and dishonest than their predecessors.
How pathetic…
J.
and more secretive and dishonest than their predecessors
sure, as long as by “more secretive and dishonest” you mean “way more competent and honest”.
I think I’m getting the hang of wingnut dialect.
Well, Wilbur, they’re certainly more competent at fooling those who voted for them…
I’ve lost count. How many Bush policies Obama ran against has he reaffirmed now? Detention, wiretaps, Guantanamo, spending…
J.
Far more than I’d like, Jay, but it’s still early days, and lord, how anyone could contemplate the alternative and not be at least a little happy about having B.O. in the White house lives in a different mental universe from me (and at least 60 percent of the American populace).
As far as comparisons between BO and SP go, BO may not be God but I think he would at least be able to name a newspaper he looked at occasionally given two or three chances to do so.
You can’t stop focusing, laserlike, on the slightest of details
Wait. Now you’re complaining because I’m staying on topic? The topic of this thread is the decline of a once-great newspaper. Forgive me if I don’t leap at each and every one of your diversions.