Coffee house loophole

[swampy]

john dough wrote:
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?

[$tevie]

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.

[john dough]

swampy wrote:
[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.

[Pam]

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.

[swampy]

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.

[john dough]

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.

[RgrF]

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.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

Malkin is a pundit, not a journalist.

[RgrF]

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.

[Mac-A-Matic]

$tevie wrote:
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.