Politico admits their Republican alliance

[NJmaverick]

so much for being anything but a PR website for the GOP

...according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18128.html

[question everything]

1. But... but.. what about the liberal media? (nt)

[zbdent]

2. what?

there's a liberal media?

where?

[Poiuyt]

4. The media is as liberal as their conservative owners

[NJmaverick]

3. Probably one of the most effective political lies, in history

[Me.]

5. Is It Just Me

Or does your link an article about lobbyists?

[hughee99]

6. What did I miss?

Repukes made a claim, Politico investigated it, made a list, showed it to Obama's people, who didn't challenge it.

So someone made a claim, "journalists" followed up to see if it was true, and then gave the opposition a chance to respond. Isn't this essentially what they're supposed to do, or is the problem just that they were following up on repuke claims?

[NJmaverick]

7. You are talking 12 out of over 8000 employees

of those:


the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.




So this is neither a legit news story, nor is the headline really honest

[hughee99]

12. I think it's a valid story...

in a p29 under a wheat germ ad sort of way, but it's still a legit news story. This issue was important enough to issue an EO about right off the bat. It's fair to report about any exceptions, even if it's only 1 in a million. IMHO provided Obama a great opportunity to show another way in which he's different from *. Obama (or his people, more specifically) acknowledged the situation (they didn't hide), that this is NOT a surprise to them (they didn't play dumb), that they are taking appropriate action (waivers and situational recusals, rather than just ignoring any conflict of interests), and in general show the "openness" of his administration.

[Enrique]

8. having Republican sources means proves their alliance?

does any news organization not have republican sources? I'd guess even Counterpunch and Mother Jones would have republican sources.

[NJmaverick]

9. Having a Republican source is one thing

wouldn't working with them to produce "news" stories, be another?

[Enrique]

10. looks like a decent story

in addition to their republican sources, they quote an ethics expert that thinks it's a problem, another one who thinks it's no big deal, and also quote the White House defending itself.

“It would be more honest if they admitted they made a mistake and came up with a narrower rule,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Obviously, they can’t live with the rule, which is why they keep waving the magic wand and making exceptions. They’re saying one thing and doing another. It’s why the public is skeptical about politicians.”

But another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy.

“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,” McGehee said. “I don’t think we’re at that point yet.”

At the White House, spokesman Tommy Vietor insisted the president has been consistent.

“During the campaign, then-Sen. Obama put forth the toughest ethics and lobbying reform policy in history,” Vietor said, “and now he’s acting on it to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”

[NJmaverick]

11. Do you think 12 out of 8000 (with most having restrictions) is worthy of the title

or even the story?

[Enrique]

13. yeah the title is fine imo. What do you think of this headline?

"Obama's phony ban on lobbyists"

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/1/24/153025/783