Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama team defends lobbyist meetings -- and their location

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:37 PM
Original message
Obama team defends lobbyist meetings -- and their location
The Obama administration is defending itself against talk that aides meet with lobbyists beyond the White House gates in order to avoid public disclosure.

"The suggestion that we're not being transparent is laughable," White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Politico reported that White House aides have been meeting with lobbyists at a government-owned townhouse on Jackson Place, visits that do not generate the entry logs that are kept at the White House complex.

One unnamed lobbyist told Politico about the Jackson Place get-togethers: "Without question, I think that there's a lot of concern about being seen meeting with the same lobbyists or particular lobbyists over and over again."

Carney noted that the West Wing is "a very small space" and about a third of the next-door Eisenhower Executive Office Building is under renovation. He added that one of the Jackson Place townhouses actually houses a White House conference center, so "when we have large meetings, sometimes we use that space if there are no spaces here."

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/02/obama-team-defends-lobbyist-meetings-and-their-location/1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. So use entry logs there too - transparency problem solved. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. I thought I remembered Candidate Obama saying he was going to drive
the lobbyists from Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yeah, but that's when he was just a bullshit artist - now he's prez. nt
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 06:41 PM by polichick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. +100
New day, same old same old ...

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fittosurvive Donating Member (538 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Surely, you didn't believe that nonsense...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Oopps - we're not supposed to mention Broken Campaign Promises here
its UnDemocratic ya know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. perhaps he really meant provide them transportation
out of Washington to an undisclosed location that doesn't keep logs, and we all just misinterpreted what he was really saying by "drive them out of Washington".

Yeah, that's the ticket. ;)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. They're being perfectly transparent.
The lobbyists tell them what to do.

They do it.

The lobbyists contribute to their campaigns and buy them ads through Citizens United funding.

What could be more transparent than that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Right. The problem is that there seems to be no checks & balances.
Or is it too many checks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Oh, balances too.
Which they employ for weighing the magnitude of political contributions before deciding on policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-11 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. Their defense is transparently laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC