Gotta love Drudge: a story headlined “W.H. makes CEOs pay for lunch” becomes “OBAMA CHARGES WHITE HOUSE VISITORS FOR MEALS…”
Gotta love Drudge: a story headlined “W.H. makes CEOs pay for lunch” becomes “OBAMA CHARGES WHITE HOUSE VISITORS FOR MEALS…”
Reading the story, it is a sensational but not unfair characterization of what happened.
I’d say Drudge’s headline makes it sound like Obama routinely does this with “visitors” in general, as opposed to corporate CEOs on a specific occasion. Drudge makes it sound like the general public is being mistreated by Obama. Not that the headline is *inaccurate* — it’s just deliberately misleading, but perfectly defensible at the same time. Very clever. That’s why I say “gotta love Drudge.” I was very amused.
I guess I should say “on certain specific occasions,” since this has happened more than once. But the point, really, is the difference between “visitors” in general, and certain specific “visitors” (like corporate CEOs) where there might be a perceived conflict of interest, or perceived coziness, if Obama were paying for their meals. Indeed, it’s easy to imagine Drudge creating a scandal out of OMG OBAMA IS WASTING GOVERNMENT MONEY ON MEALS FOR CEOS!!!
But again, I don’t think the headline is outrageous or anything, just funny.
Yup… Hmm, I feel I should pontificate more on this, but really that’s all I got.
If by “gotta love” you mean “wish he were relegated to trolling internet forums as befits someone of his stature and (lack of) intelligence” then we agree.