Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS (Michelle Malkin tells of a THIRD Columnist paid by the Administration)
Michelle Malkin's Blog ^ | January 27, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 01/27/2005 8:08:32 PM PST by Stoat

THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS

 

By Michelle Malkin   ·   January 27, 2005 10:03 PM

 

Salon, not exactly my favorite publication, is now reporting that there's a third conservative columnist who took money from the Bush administration without disclosing it. From Eric Boehlert:
And three makes a trend.

One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.

Responding to the latest revelation, Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at HHS, announced Thursday that HHS would institute a new policy that forbids the agency from hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media. "I needed to draw this bright line," Horn tells Salon. "The policy is being implemented and we're moving forward."

Horn's move came on the heels of Wednesday's report in the Washington Post that HHS had paid syndicated columnist and marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher $21,000 to write brochures and essays and to brief government employees on the president's marriage initiative. Gallagher later wrote in her column that she would have revealed the $21,000 payment to readers had she recalled receiving it.

The Gallagher revelation came just three weeks after USA Today reported that the Education Department, through a contract with the Ketchum public relations firm, paid $240,000 to Armstrong Williams, a conservative African-American print, radio and television pundit, to help promote Bush's No Child Left Behind program to minority audiences.

To date, the Bush administration has paid public relation firms $250 million to help push proposals, according to a report Thursday in USA Today. That's double what the Clinton administration spent on P.R. from 1997 to 2000. Shortly after Williams' contract came to light, the Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform wrote a letter to President Bush demanding that he "immediately provide to us all past and ongoing efforts to engage in covert propaganda, whether through contracts with commentators, the distribution of video news releases, or other means." As of Thursday, a staffer on the committee told Salon, there had been no response.

Horn says McManus, who could not be reached for comment, was paid approximately $10,000 for his work as a subcontractor to the Lewin Group, a health care consultancy hired by HHS to implement the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative, which encourages communities to combat divorce through education and counseling. McManus provided training during two-day conferences in Chattanooga, Tenn., and also made presentations at HHS-sponsored conferences. His syndicated column has appeared in such papers as the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News and the Charlotte Observer...

 

Triple-crikey. I wonder if McManus will say he "forgot" about the $10,000 payment, too. That line seems to be working pretty well now among some of my fellow conservatives. I'll have more to say about all this in the morning, but for now, let me just say that if I accepted $10,000 or $20,000 or $40,000 in taxpayer funds for my writing, I wouldn't forget it in one year or 5 years or 10 years. And I'd make damn sure I disclosed it in relevant columns, books, or media appearances, even if it invited condescension from the "don't be such a holier-than-thou-goody-two-shoes-must-you-disclose-everything?" crowd.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: malkin; mcmanus; michaelmcmanus; michellemalkin; moneywhores; paidshills
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: alnick
I allowed for Williams as the one exception. I dont think its proper to lump in the other two. Two different situations getting conflated together.
41 posted on 01/27/2005 11:06:19 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alnick

Sorry, just reread you make a great point. It is an even smaller molehill than I thought.


42 posted on 01/27/2005 11:07:46 PM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Guess they won't be consulting MM for her expertise on immigration. She'd turn it down anyway right?


43 posted on 01/28/2005 1:07:59 AM PST by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspiratr1

Makes little difference whether government funds PR or private funds are used for PR was the point.
Conservative Political initiative needs good PR to counter the free negative PR the journalist left provides through a variety of mediums.

I couldn't care less if Republicans hired some PR people. What are Lobbyiests? They are not only paid by private interests, but many times hired by public governmental agencys to promote an agenda. Public money is spent all the time for agenda oriented PR.


44 posted on 01/28/2005 1:04:16 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

LOL

makes me wonder who's outing these folks and why.


45 posted on 01/28/2005 1:07:05 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Horn's move came on the heels of Wednesday's report in the Washington Post that HHS had paid syndicated columnist and marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher $21,000 to write brochures and essays and to brief government employees on the president's marriage initiative.

Oh how terrible. Maggie Gallagher writing brochures and essays for HHS.

Was she paid to write stuff in her column? I doubt it. Armstrong wasn't paid to talk about the education thing on his program. Yet he was portrayed by the MSM and even Michelle Malkin that he was.

That in my book is propaganda.

46 posted on 01/28/2005 1:10:41 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fooman
Me Michelle squaks on this one. Sure they took sub-contracting jobs to write materials for fed brocures etc. But there was no money for promotion-except maybe in Armstrong's case.

Armstrong was paid to do commercials and nothing more.

"Squaks", indeed.

47 posted on 01/28/2005 1:12:41 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Was she paid to write stuff in her column? I doubt it. Armstrong wasn't paid to talk about the education thing on his program

All true of course.  I would only suggest that:

 !. Hiring anybody to promote the marriage initiatives was unnecessary because the plan is great on it's own and doesn't need help, especially via tax money.

2.  If they're going to insist on hiring someone to promote the program in any way, hiring somebody who isn't already a columnist would have been a better choice, as they should have known that this would be picked up by the Left/MSM/Dems and twisted into being far worse than it is.  There are all sorts of PR firms out there who would have loved to do the work and this 'appearance of impropriety' wouldn't have existed.  Not a 'major scandal' in my book, just shortsighted and perhaps someone didn't consider the voracious nature of the media attack machine.

48 posted on 01/28/2005 1:22:01 PM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
Do you advocate that the government use tax money to influence public opinion about it's initiatives?

I know they do, I'm asking if you think it's proper.

49 posted on 01/28/2005 1:33:41 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

If they are giving us truthful and proper information I am all in favor of it. Now if it is less than truthful, or misleading, or malicious that is something I would not support.

The left is famous for brandishing misleading information and counter measures must be taken seriously. If it means buying ad space or air time to present information in a non threatening environment I have no problems. WE have to be able to compare policy and the agenda.
The left has multiple mediums to present their lies and mistatment of the facts. There has to be at least one outlet that will not be edited by soundbites with additional commentary that may distort the context of an event. A news conference by the President does not necessarly mean a reporter will present the full context.
A one page ad by the President in a newspaper is putting the issues front and center. Hiring publicists to create content is professional and necessary.


50 posted on 01/28/2005 7:38:06 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
If they are giving us truthful and proper information I am all in favor of it. Now if it is less than truthful, or misleading, or malicious that is something I would not support.

LOL, Good luck. When it comes to government, the "truth" is what they want it to be. You won't be appointed to be the arbiter.

You have basically said that Hillary and Bill should be taking my tax money and using it to spread the "truth" when they are in power. Himmler was in charge of that in the 30s and 40s in Germany.

It's preposterous.

51 posted on 01/28/2005 8:19:56 PM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

What should be pointed out is just how FDR bought off every one and anyone he could to hype up his messages to the American people including and especially Hollywoood and Disney.

Or how the best and brightest minds were hired to create literature and art as part of the alphabet agencies.

Talk about your double standards.

52 posted on 01/28/2005 8:41:28 PM PST by usmcobra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

FDR needed to rally the troops and the citizens behind a bloody war effort that would make modern day liberals crap their pants. Teddy Kennedys quagmire and failed war in Iraq rant would have been considered treason in 1944. Times were really serious and good PR was necessary to uplift the publics confidence despite the huge casulties.

Utilizing favorite charactors was and still is a good way of holding peoples attention. The cartoon snippet you show was a dance to patriotic music. A rally cry. People wanted to be comforted that we were on the attack and not retreating.
Gasoline was rationed and tires were almost nonexistant to purchase. The all out war effort of WW2 caused ALL Americans to make sacrifices of every day items we take for granted. Times were hard. FDR had the right idea that kept everyone on the home front focused on positive impressions rather than broadcast naysayers.

Not to diminish the sacrifices ,the bloodshed of American troops in Iraq is miniscule compared to the bloodshed of Americans in Okinawa, or the Phillipines or Iwo Jima, OR D Day. Modern day liberals are all over the spectrum criticizing our President when ONE soldier dies. They are all over the spectrum when the President wants to fix social security. They are all over the spectrum when we talk about Supreme Court appointments blah blah blah.

I don't see any double standards here or back in the days of FDR. When the going gets tough the tough get going.
Whatever it takes. Git R Done. I don't care how the messinger comes, just so the messinger arrives with facts and on time.


53 posted on 01/28/2005 9:02:18 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44

The double standard appears when you compare today with the Days of FDR and how the executive branch paid hundreds if not thousands of people to do what so far only three have done for Bush and his executive branch.

I won't even go into how certain members of congress(D) payroll talking heads of their own with gifts and stuff.


54 posted on 01/28/2005 9:08:02 PM PST by usmcobra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Oh right, like liberals don't hire pundits to do media relations. How much has Corporal Cue-Ball (James Carvillan) gotten over the years hmmmmmnnnnn?????????
55 posted on 01/28/2005 9:08:52 PM PST by Danae (Democrats - it's a travishamockery! Burgerflickle!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
...They are all over the spectrum when the President wants to fix social security. They are all over the spectrum when we talk about Supreme Court appointments blah blah blah...

Bloody well said man!
56 posted on 01/28/2005 9:11:57 PM PST by Danae (Democrats - it's a travishamockery! Burgerflickle!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Danae

You're right of course, and I don't consider this a huge deal as you'll notice from my other posts.


57 posted on 01/28/2005 9:14:35 PM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

You know what this is going to be right? This will turn into the "major second term scandal" that everyone keeps talking about.


58 posted on 01/28/2005 9:15:59 PM PST by mowkeka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Something tells me that this whole deal was a setup to marginalize conservative commentators.

Or else the opening for them to try to marginalize them. Armstrong Williams as much as told them to go out and file 1000's of FOIAs to see who was getting what for what. But it does seem fishy to me also.

59 posted on 01/28/2005 9:18:39 PM PST by eyespysomething (I'm speechless here, but don't worry, it won't last long. Ask my husband.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9

When you want something done do you pay some "hack" to do or do you do it yourself? Do you grow and process your own food or do you pay some "hack"? Did you make all the parts and assemble the car you drive or pay some "hack"? Did you build your house, cut the timbers make the concrete, make the nails ..ect or did some "hack"?... Paying someone to build something whether a house or an idea is not wrong its how things get done.


60 posted on 01/28/2005 10:06:55 PM PST by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson