You Tax Dollars at Work!

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Feeding the Right Wing spin machine. A few weeks ago some folks here chastised me for daring to criticize the poor public relations value of Bush waiting 3 days to even make a public statement regarding the Tsunami victims. I was told that Dubya was real man. A no-nonsense leader who didn't care about no mamby pamby public relations. Huh huh.

Report: PR spending doubled under Bush

By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has more than doubled its spending on outside contracts with public relations firms during the past four years, according to an analysis of federal procurement data by congressional Democrats.

The administration spent at least $88 million in fiscal 2004 on contracts with major public relations firms, the analysis found, compared with $37 million in 2001, Bush's first year in office. In all, the administration spent $250 million on public relations contracts during its first term, compared with $128 million spent for President Clinton between 1997 and 2000. The analysis did not examine what the Clinton administration spent during its first term.

The top-spending agency during the past four years, at $94 million, was the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The biggest federal public relations contractor in that period was Ketchum, with $97 million.

"While not all public relations spending is illegal or inappropriate, this rapid rise in public relations contracts at a time of growing budget deficits raises questions about the priorities of the administration," said the report by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee.

The administration's public relations efforts have been under scrutiny since USA TODAY reported that the Education Department, through a Ketchum contract, paid $240,000 to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams for helping to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind program.

Bush said Wednesday that he does not think taxpayer money should be used to promote administration policies in that way. "I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward," he said at a White House news conference.

Of the arrangement with Williams, Bush said: "We didn't know about this in the White House" and he noted that there is "new leadership" at the Education Department, where Secretary Rod Paige has been replaced by Margaret Spellings, a former policy aide to Bush at the White House. "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," he said.

On Wednesday, TheWashington Post reported that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, an authority on marriage and family issues, had received two federal contracts totaling $41,500 for writing brochures, a magazine article and a report and briefing government employees in support of the president's marriage initiative. That program called for redirecting welfare funds to pay for premarital counseling and abstinence education.

While doing the work for the departments of Health and Human Services and Justice in 2002 and 2003, Gallagher also wrote several columns supporting Bush's plan. One called the proposal "a no-brainer" because it could help reduce the divorce rate and cut domestic violence. In a statement, Gallagher said her work for the government had no influence on what she wrote in her columns, which reflected her long-held beliefs about marriage. "It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract," she wrote. "It will not happen again."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...iams-usat_x.htm

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's truly is unfortunate that an Administration feels the need to resort to this sort of spending because the 'free' press is so utterly and completely entrinched in their left wing agenda that little if anything that remotely comes close to unbiased , fair reporting can only be found on one t.v. network and not many other outlets.

[Auburn85 432]

I agree. They shouldn't have to spend money to promote programs.

Oh my gosh, I'm un - American. I disagreed with a conservative pres.

[Auburn85 432]

Here in Alabama, Richard Shelby ® is good at bring home the pork, but how about letting up on pork to renovate Montgomery Regional Airport. It looks ok. Those $millions could have gone to what? How about EDUCATION.

How about filling the deficit of the state budget?

Not parks, not renovating airports, my gosh

[TexasTiger 13,026]

It's truly is unfortunate that an Administration feels the need to resort to this sort of spending because the 'free' press is so utterly and completely entrinched in their left wing agenda that little if anything that remotely comes close to unbiased , fair reporting can only be found on one t.v. network and not many other outlets.

142288[/snapback]

It is truly unfortunate the so called "left wing press" forced the Bush administration to pay off right wing "journalists." Bush had no choice. What else could he do? Damn lefties. Forcing a God fearin' upright administration to act decietfully and unethically. And forcing the Right Wing Press to go along with it! Unconscionable!

This post is probably the best proof to date of your extreme koolaid addiciton.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's truly is unfortunate that an Administration feels the need to resort to this sort of spending because the 'free' press is so utterly and completely entrinched in their left wing agenda that little if anything that remotely comes close to unbiased , fair reporting can only be found on one t.v. network and not many other outlets.

142288[/snapback]

It is truly unfortunate the so called "left wing press" forced the Bush administration to pay off right wing "journalists." Bush had no choice. What else could he do? Damn lefties. Forcing a God fearin' upright administration to act decietfully and unethically. And forcing the Right Wing Press to go along with it! Unconscionable!

This post is probably the best proof to date of your extreme koolaid addiciton.

142540[/snapback]

You see only what you wish were true. What you call 'kool-aid addiction' is not more than the simple fact. No one can deny that the press in this country has a left wing agenda. That is well established. That the Bush Administration had to take a inovative, if not entirely wise course of action because of the Left wing bias should be commended. The bigger issue isn't that a couple of journalist got paid, but that some felt they had to in order to get their word out.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

It's truly is unfortunate that an Administration feels the need to resort to this sort of spending because the 'free' press is so utterly and completely entrinched in their left wing agenda that little if anything that remotely comes close to unbiased , fair reporting can only be found on one t.v. network and not many other outlets.

142288[/snapback]

It is truly unfortunate the so called "left wing press" forced the Bush administration to pay off right wing "journalists." Bush had no choice. What else could he do? Damn lefties. Forcing a God fearin' upright administration to act decietfully and unethically. And forcing the Right Wing Press to go along with it! Unconscionable!

This post is probably the best proof to date of your extreme koolaid addiciton.

142540[/snapback]

You see only what you wish were true. What you call 'kool-aid addiction' is not more than the simple fact. No one can deny that the press in this country has a left wing agenda. That is well established. That the Bush Administration had to take a inovative, if not entirely wise course of action because of the Left wing bias should be commended. The bigger issue isn't that a couple of journalist got paid, but that some felt they had to in order to get their word out.

142548[/snapback]

You drink it by the gallon. And you're a situational ethicist, too.

[Auburn85 432]

Actually, I prefer Hawaiian Punch. It has 100% vitamin c

[AURaptor 1,126]

TexasTiger - If your sole response is 'kool-aid drinker!' ,then I know I've won.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

TexasTiger - If your sole response is 'kool-aid drinker!' ,then I know I've won.

142582[/snapback]

Tell yourself what you need to hear, : "I won! I won! Boy, now I'm really thirsty!"

Since you failed to address the charge of being situational ethicist, I assume your conceding that point. For you the equation is simple. Republican does it : good. Democrat does the same thing: bad.

[TrueBlue72 0]

It is a shame that it had to come to this, but the dollars that were spent by the Bush administration pale in comparison to the millions that are paid to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw and their crews to "report and analyze" the news so that we poor uneducated folks can see it with their all knowing liberal slant. If you want to see the real crime, just watch the evening news on any one of the alphabet soup networks.

Raptor is dead on with his comments.

And speaking of a "spin machine", you only have to look back one administration to find the mother of all administration spin machines. Before the Clintonistas, the term didn't exist in the average American's vocabulary! But since they were demoncrats, it was ok, right, TT???? If a dem does it, that's fine, if a Rep does it, shame on them.

A little too much vodka in your democratic Kool Aid this week, TT????

[AURaptor 1,126]

How am I being a 'situational ethicist' ?? This from the folks who barely bat an eye when Dan Rather presents faked Gov't documents for his attack piece on the President shortly before the election and then gets indignantly defiant at any suggestion there be an investigation.

I never said I was whole heartedly behind the idea of paying columnist to push the President's agenda, and I have no problems w/ anyone who questiions such a tactic. But in comparison between the two, I find it laughable that so much would be made over one, and so little made of the other. Your claim that I'm a situational ethicist rings as hollow as claiming that I drink the kool-aid by the gallon, so I didn't feel the need to respond. You can call me every name in the book if you want, but because I choose to not reply to each and every one, doesn't mean that am guilty of each by default. Please, be more adult than that...don't sound like a bammer.

[Auburn85 432]

TexasTiger - If your sole response is 'kool-aid drinker!' ,then I know I've won.

142582[/snapback]

Tell yourself what you need to hear, : "I won! I won! Boy, now I'm really thirsty!"

Since you failed to address the charge of being situational ethicist, I assume your conceding that point. For you the equation is simple. Republican does it : good. Democrat does the same thing: bad.

142593[/snapback]

Why does he have to stoop to your level on defending himself of being what you CLAIM him to be?

Bush doesn't defend himself everytime someone calls him BRAINDEAD. John Kerry didn't defend himself everytime when someone questioned him. Especially delaying on the 527 ads.

So just because he doesn't answer your rediculous comment of being a "situational ethicists" he is one or he's making himself to look like one? Give me a friggin break.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I never said I was whole heartedly behind the idea of paying columnist to push the President's agenda, and I have no problems w/ anyone who questiions such a tactic. But in comparison between the two, I find it laughable that so much would be made over one, and so little made of the other. Your claim that I'm a situational ethicist rings as hollow as claiming that I drink the kool-aid by the gallon, so I didn't feel the need to respond. You can call me every name in the book if you want, but because I choose to not reply to each and every one, doesn't mean that am guilty of each by default.  Please, be more adult than that...don't sound like a bammer.

142609[/snapback]

You repeat the same inane comments and claim to have "won" because I don't repeat the points you failed to grasp the first time? When using reason doesn't persuade someone, what else can you say? Wanna think you "won"? Please, be more adult than that...

How am I being a 'situational ethicist' ?? This from the folks who barely bat an eye when Dan Rather presents faked Gov't documents for his attack piece on the President shortly before the election and then gets indignantly defiant at any suggestion there be an investigation. 

You got a link to any comment I made that was "indignantly defiant at any suggestion there be an investigation?"

Look all you want, but if you want to save time, here's what I said about that matter:

It was a horrible mistake in judgement to consider Burkett an "unimpeachable source."

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10921&b=1&st=0&p=103096&

I think the investigation was a good idea. Ending Rather's time as anchor is a good idea. Firing the segment's producer is a good idea. Using taxpayer dollars to pay off "independent journalists" to promote an agenda is propaganda on par with Pravda under communism. Bad idea. Horrible idea. Plain and simple. No excuses, except from totally over the top Koolaid drinkers incapable of finding fault with the administration. Read Teddy Rooselvelts quote in my sig line. Still true today.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

It is a shame that it had to come to this, but the dollars that were spent by the Bush administration pale in comparison to the millions that are paid to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw and their crews to "report and analyze" the news so that we poor uneducated folks can see it with their all knowing liberal slant.  If you want to see the real crime, just watch the evening news on any one of the alphabet soup networks. 

Raptor is dead on with his comments. 

And speaking of a "spin machine", you only have to look back one administration to find the mother of all administration spin machines.  Before the Clintonistas, the term didn't exist in the average American's vocabulary!  But since they were demoncrats, it was ok, right, TT????    If a dem does it, that's fine, if a Rep does it, shame on them. 

A little too much vodka in your democratic Kool Aid this week, TT????

142601[/snapback]

Bush had to use my tax dollars to pay off conservative journalist to spin his agenda? Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, Fox has the highest ratings in cable "news", and conservative publications and columnists outnumber liberal ones, and Bush had no choice? He couldn't get any honest to goodness "love" from Armstrong Williams and company? Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? Rush Limbaugh? Safire? Coulter? Malkin? Goldberg? Barnes? and on and on?

If you have evidence Clinton paid off "journalists" with tax dollars I will condemn that, too. In a heartbeat. No hesitation. No qualification. And not one ounce of whining about him being motivated by some raw deal and unfair treatment.

Carville spoke openly of spin. Bush folks pretend they're not spinning. Cable news and media focus on process increased in 1990s. But you can't just simply say this is wrong without somehow tying it back to Clinton? What do you do when your kid blames the kid down the block for everything, even after he's moved on?

[Auburn85 432]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt

You bring this up time and time again about how you are CRITICIZED about questioning the president.

I've criticized Bush, AURaptor has also.

You keep coming back to this same argument, like you are being put into the pit of dispair or called unpatriotic for dissing Bush.

And that we would take up for the president when he has out right LIED to the public.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Go away, litttle girl,... go away, little girl....

[Auburn85 432]

$9 billion has gone unaccounted for in the $87 billion. This was according to an audit.

Should we give $80 billion more?

This issue will come up quckly in the House and Senate.

Heck, probably in the STATE OF THE UNION