Do MSM types (with hiring authority) read Instapundit? If so, contact me. 
—————————————————————————————–
Armstrong Williams was right. He wasn’t the only one.
According to the Washington Post (reg. req.), Maggie Gallagher, book author and conservative columnist, was paid $21,500 to promote President Bush’s “strengthening marriage” initiative.
Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?” Gallagher said yesterday. “I don’t know. You tell me.” She said she would have “been happy to tell anyone who called me” about the contract but that “frankly, it never occurred to me” to disclose it….Gallagher said her situation was “not really anything near” the recent controversy involving conservative commentator Armstrong Williams. Earlier this month Williams apologized for not disclosing a $241,000 contract with the Education Department, awarded through the Ketchum public relations firm, to promote Bush’s No Child Left Behind law through advertising on his cable TV and syndicated radio shows and other efforts.
Why not? Because she got only twenty grand? Whether it was “anything near” what Williams did or not, it still looks bad. In my eyes, it taints the rest of the writer’s work. And Gallagher, like Williams, should have known better.
I know Gallagher truly believes what she was paid to write, that marriage is better for women, children and society. I know she’s passionate about protecting and preserving the family. She co-wrote a book I never got a chance to read called The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. But still.
Check out these NRO pieces, Marriage Matters and Why We Need Marriage. What we need are conservative writers and pundits who don’t take money from the Bush administration, that’s what we need! Read this Weekly Standard article, What Marriage Is For. This is good stuff! But how long will it take for her to recover from this scandal and continue writing columns like these? Williams’s syndicate dropped him. Will Gallagher’s drop hers? Whatever. She’s fallen. Williams has fallen. Who’s next? Am I going to be the only conservative pundit left, just me and my little blog?
Don’t think for one minute that this sort of thing didn’t happen under Bill Clinton (pardon the image). The Bush administration just got caught. Embarrassing. It might be unfair, but conservatives are held to a higher standard, and I think we should be. Why? Because we have a morally superior system of values. I’ll go to my grave believing that.
Note to MSM: Hire this thus-far-scandal-free conservative writer.
Related posts and links: Armstrong Williams: The Wrong Side, An Apology That Misses The Point, Covert Propaganda, War, Journalists, Etc., Michelle Malkin, The Moderate Voice, Polipundit, Wizbang…
Update: Maggie Gallagher responds:
I’m a marriage expert. I get paid to write, edit, research and educate on marriage. If a scholar or expert gets paid to do some work for the government, should he or she disclose that if he writes a paper, essay or op-ed on the same or similar subject? If this is the ethical standard, it is an entirely new standard.I was not paid to promote marriage. I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations), which I produced. My lifelong experience in marriage research, public education and advocacy is the reason HHS hired me.
Captain Ed says this is not another Armstrong Williams case.
Update II: The blogosphere has jumped all over this revelation. In fairness to Gallagher, I contacted her and asked for an interview so she could tell us what the deal is. She said she probably won’t do interviews today. I hope she’ll be willing to talk after the media storm has dissipated.
Free4Good has a warning for bloggers. In light of unknown factors surrounding the Gallagher story, I’ve added a question mark to the post title.
Update III: Notice how dissenters in the comment section hold Bush, myself and conservatives in general to a higher standard, even invoking the name of Christ for good measure. I told you we’re held to a higher standard, one that I proudly accept.
Just don’t go overboard, dissenters.
Update IV: Hugh Hewitt:
Howard Kurtz reports on Maggie Gallagher’s contract with the Department of Health and Human Services for $21,500 in writing services. Gallagher, who is one of the most prolific and respected writers working to promote the Defense of Marriage Amendment, provides Glenn Reynolds an additional comment. Gallagher did not disclose anywhere, so she doesn’t have the Kos defense, but the idea that what she wrote on the marriage amendment etc grew out of her contract with HHS is not plausible. Disclosure of all financial arrangements bearing on an intellectual’s work product, especially money from the government, is the best protection against allegations of impropriety, and folks in Gallagher’s position who want to take money from the government for legitimate work from the government, should find a way — establish a blog? — to list those contracts. (Emphasis added)
Also see this: Bush orders government agencies not to give payola.
Res Ipsa on Gallagher.
Ouch!
But on the other hand, it sometimes takes a little bit of time for people who enter a field to learn. Blogging is new enough and ground breaking enough that obviously some Bloggers don’t fully understand all the implications of some decisions they make.
This is one that I hope everyone learns quickly. When you move your Blog into political areas every financial arrangement needs to be disclosed up front and often.
Certainly at the federal level and every state of which I am aware there is a requirement that candidates, candidate’s committees, PACs and anyone who seeks to influence elections file disclosure forms.
What I think is happening here is that the public is transfering that expectation to Bloggers when they become political. I happen to agree that financial disclosure is a good thing.
Comment by Allan Yackey — 01.26.05 @ 7:12 am
By way of a bit of shameless self-promotion let me say this on this matter: I wrote in my blog not so long ago I have no problem with a writer being paid for his writing. I do, however, have a problem with a writer making money from his writing and not being honest with his probable audience from the first. Armstrong Williams, when it came to the articles he wrote supporting the Educational Agenda of the Bush Administration, deliberately failed to tell his readers he was being paid to write what he wrote. Now comes another conserative writer who did the same thing, who failed to disclose why she wrote what she did.
Yes, these two not only give conservative writers a black eye in the respectability and credibility departments, but all writers, when you get down to it.
Comment by James C. Hess — 01.26.05 @ 7:37 am
[…] La Shawn has the Maggie Gallagher story here. […]
Pingback by SmartChristian Blog » MAGGIE WAS ALSO ON THE TAKE — 01.26.05 @ 8:30 am
I agree with Michelle Malkin: we need to hold our side to a higher standard. We can’t lay claim to Christian values if we don’t condemn this kind of thing in the strongest terms. We don’t need this. We have the facts on our side. We have history on our side. We should not surrender the moral high ground under any circumstances.
Comment by Filly — 01.26.05 @ 8:51 am
The right will continue to smear Bill Clinton’s name for how long?
Payolagate is your scandal. Stop trying to associate this, or any other illegal/immoral acts by BushCo with Bill or his wife.
And please, it’s been 30 years, surely you guys can come up with a better excuse than the one old Trickie Dick and his defenders used: “everybody else did the same thing, his crime was getting caught.”
Comment by meade — 01.26.05 @ 8:52 am
The Maggie Gallagher “Scandal”
Michelle Malkin has an extensive post with links and commentary about the whole Maggie Gallagher thing.
The press is all over these pay for ink scandals. As Media Lies put it, “the blood is in the water.”
Gallagher responds here.
Of course …
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 01.26.05 @ 9:07 am
You can well believe two things about this; there are many many more pundits who have been paid for their services, and the vast majority of them were paid by the Clinton administration to promote Clinton administration issues. Of course, we will never hear of these incidents, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that some leftover employees from those years are the ones who are outing these payments now.
Comment by Dave — 01.26.05 @ 9:20 am
meade, I don’t hear anyone saying that the crime was “being caught”. It is true that payola is happening across the board, and saying that does not excuse ANYONE from blame. If there is any partisianship going on, I think it is on the left. You see the vast majority of right-leaning comments denouncing Williams, Gallagher, Armstrong, and Zuninga. The left, however, defends Armstrong and Zuniga while opportunistically slamming the Bush administration via Williams and Gallagher.
Comment by Greg — 01.26.05 @ 9:21 am
La Shawn Barber notes that another columnist was apparently paid to promote President Bush’s initiatives - this time the “strengthening marriageR […]
Comment by Wallo World » The Frozen Chosen - January 26, 2005 — 01.26.05 @ 10:30 am
Wow. Your conviction is quite moving. However, again you like to point out that the Clinton administration has done the same thing. Ok, first name your source on that one. Secondly, why is pointing the finger the other way the conservative’s answer to everything? Everything dems or liberals scream about your come back is Clinton did it! But at the same time you treat Clinton as if he was the world’s worst president. You have to pick. Clinton=bad or good.
We questioned Bush’s service so you bring out the Swifty Boat Guys. We question Bush’s candor so you bring out how Kerry lied. It’s just tit for tat.
This administration is outrageously hyprocritical to it’s supposed moral and christian values. I wish Christians would not be fooled by all of this. The bible warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing but we still do not take heed.
Back to my point…please stop using the opposition’s downfall(esp ones that cannot be proven) to justify your own. It’s lame. It’s tired. It’s quite immoral.
Comment by Candyce H — 01.26.05 @ 10:36 am
Thank you LaShawn for your candor and honesty. This is why I’m a regular reader.
Comment by marcus — 01.26.05 @ 10:38 am
HOLDING OUR OWN SIDE TO A HIGHER STANDARD
You all know how I feel about the Bush administration’s media “pay-to-pander” scandal. (Go here and here and here for a refresher.) In two words: absolutely disgusted. When I first blogged about the Armstrong Williams payoff, I wrote this: Any…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 01.26.05 @ 10:56 am
I seriously doubt Jesus would accuse someone of doing something unethical without proof.
Accusing Bill Clinton of paying off journalists without proof damages your credibility.
Comment by Roxanne — 01.26.05 @ 10:57 am
“I’ve reported on the Clinton White House granting the networks some $22 million in ad time they owed it in exchange for inserting government-approved (and even government scripted), anti-drug plots in TV shows. More than one source worried that if the government got away with that, there’d be scant reason to limit its social engineering to drugs. Someday, some administration gripped by a perceived responsibility to instruct people how to live might soon train its sights on reproductive rights, or so these First Amendment advocates thought. Fearing that anti-abortion themes might conceivably start cropping up in sitcoms and dramas, no one worried they’d be flaunted in the ads themselves.
Well, the Clinton Federal Communications Commission eventually ruled the government couldn’t pay for messages embedded in TV shows without alerting viewers to that fact. Such notice robbing those messages of much of both their ability to influence viewers and their appeal to government social marketers, the Bush administration commendably scrapped that part of its anti-drug campaign”.
Comment by Tom — 01.26.05 @ 11:14 am
The Clinton administration was indeed behind payola attempts to get the media to push their ONDCP policy.
you can read more about it here-
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=805
Comment by Scooter — 01.26.05 @ 11:22 am
Sorry, Michelle and La Shawn -
Hold back some of the rhetoric.
And hats off to Gallagner to stop and think before she “apologizes” etc.
There IS some crdibility to Gallagher’s stement - that she gets paid to write aoout marriage - and she probably covered some of her expenses with that money.
And how could any sane person NOT promote marriage - I doubt she was influenced by the money one bit. She has been writing about marriage long before Bush came along.
Full discolosure would have protected her best interests, but I doubt it would have altered her writing one bit.
And if Gallagher is paid to do a piece for the Government in a specific publication, if the publication says “From HHS” and has Gallagner’s name on it - what more disclosure is needed?
And so what if she later writes an article on a similar topic for National Review? Should she then disclose in National Review that she once was paid to write for HHS?
And herein lies the problem. If she was paid a specific amount for a specific product, there should be disclosure FOR THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT - not necessary for “everything else”.
I believe bloggers are falling into the same trap as the mainstream media when they don’t do their homework before writing.
Take 3 deep breaths and WAIT
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.26.05 @ 11:43 am
Maggie Gallagher
Well here we go again. Via Michelle Malkin and Drudge we find a Howard Kurtz piece on payments made to conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher. In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush’s push for a $300 milli…
Trackback by Secure Liberty — 01.26.05 @ 11:51 am
I dunno, but maybe it’s because I’ve never bought into the journalism=exalted calling meme — it’s just another job that some have the gift for doing.
As I understand it, Gallagher was paid for writing services under a standard GSA contract. I fail to see what the ruckus is about. Backdoor payments to promote an agenda may be one thing. Her work was above board and in compliance with existing laws.
But I just don’t see, nor really care, if a writer is paid to produce written materials under a public contract that just so happens to be in alignment with their core beliefs. I think this is the case with Gallagher. While on the surface, my thinking applies to Williams as well, altho if laws were broken, then we need to deal with that particular issue.
I do understand, as Captain Ed postulates the other attendant issues, such as “selling” air-time to the Dept of Ed and other assorted activities pertaining to PR masquerading as unbiased objectivity. Nevertheless…
I would have more problems with say a pro-baby killer being paid to write pro-life materials for a governmental agency.
Again, I’m thinking where is the “immorality” in all this? Yes, it would be nice if it was disclosed, but so what if it wasn’t?
I think this whole objective creed is overblown and irrational — an artificial construct. Put another way, bearing false witness is a sin and immoral, and altho smoking in a restricted area may be illegal misdemeanor or felony as the case may be, the act of smoking itself is certainly not immoral.
In most other countries, there are no “un-biased” journalism. Newspapers differentiate by their political affliation, and again another may well chose to find their niche by critically reporting both or all sides of the issue(s).
I guess what I’m saying is that all writers have an agenda, and pretending to be unbiased is not only realistic but delusional. True, those who pretend to be neutral need to be exposed when in fact they aren’t.
But if one is clear on where they stand, methinks it would be patently obvious that they would/should get paid to promote their views any which way. IOW, get them on hypocrisy, but if they’re consistent, so what? That goes for either side.
Comment by Andy — 01.26.05 @ 11:58 am
I second Andy’s post.
Comment by Tom — 01.26.05 @ 12:02 pm
Hey La Shawn I noticed Hugh Hewitt added your link under his God Squad! Congrats my friend!
Comment by Stacy L. Harp — 01.26.05 @ 12:11 pm
I have no doubt that the Clinton administration had paid shills in the press. Having said that, it is no excuse for the Bush administration to have engaged in like behavior.
If anything, Gallagher has been used by the administration just like they used us social conservative voters to get enough votes to push him over the top. Notice how Bush is now backing off the Federal Marriage Amendment? I find the turnaround to be quite troubling.
The president continues to disappoint me on a near daily basis, unfortunately. La Shawn, it sounds like he has been disappointing you as well.
Comment by Tom B. — 01.26.05 @ 12:35 pm
He disappoints me every day, Tom, but I knew going in that he wasn’t conservative enough to bring about the necessary changes. In my opinion, he’s too concerned about headlines. Sadly, I’m beginning to doubt his Iraq war policy, too.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.26.05 @ 12:38 pm
Did Clinton have paid bloggers? Maybe not, since there were so few bloggers (and none that would be called so today, in the form they were in) back then. But we do know his admin paid for insertion of press packets disguised as reporting.
Still, La Shawn is pointing to that as a way to excuse this administration, (or that’s not how I read it) the point is that people should put it in perspective. Blogs new. Pay for media play, old.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.26.05 @ 1:16 pm
More On Conservative Columnists On The Government Payroll
Last night I wrote about my take on the recent revelation that Maggie Gallagher was paid by the government, as Armstrong Williams was, just not as much. LaShawn Barber has lots more on the subject and you should read her entire post, because I am only…
Trackback by PoliPundit.com — 01.26.05 @ 1:53 pm
Just because someone else has committed the crime doesn’t excuse Maggie Gallagher from what she did. On the other hand we have to put this in context. The punishment has to fit the crime. We don’t give the death penalty for parking violations. We should not condemn all conservative pundits and journalists because of the acts of a few.
The fact that Clinton and Bush administrations are guilty shows a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. I have surfed the web looking at several blog sites, liberal and conservative, and have found few if any disclosure statements. There needs to be a push for this. Maybe it could start right here with La Shawn and Michelle.
Comment by Filly — 01.26.05 @ 2:25 pm
When taxpayer dollars are used to promote an ideological position from one partisan political party, then it is just like the Williams case.
Gallagher says she does consulting and freelance work for other government officials, but I fail to see where this case is acceptable.
If Clinton had paid Ted Rall or Maureen Dowd to promote abortions or gay marriage, everyone on the right would have screamed.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.26.05 @ 2:27 pm
You’re absolutely right, Mike.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.26.05 @ 2:29 pm
La Shawn,
I love the flow of your updated site. Very nicely designed.
As for Gallagher, I’ve been reading her for so long. I wonder if the HHS actually reads the things she writes. They wouldn’t have had to pay her anything since she’s basically the same one-trick pony every week.
I understand she’s for “traditional” marriage, but can’t she switch it up from week to week? I swear, there was a time when I read her column for four weeks in a row and all four were about how gays are bad.
Had the HHS known that she heavily promoted these issues already, they could’ve saved us $21,500.
And I’m waiting for some liberals to be dragged out of this same closet. I know there are some out there that were paid during the Clinton administration.
I’d like to see them all roasted on a fire.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.26.05 @ 2:41 pm
Well now you’re going too far, Mike. “One-note” Maggie Gallagher feels strongly about traditional marriage, and believe it or not, I feel more strongly than she does. Staying on the issue of marriage is very important in the face of homosexuals’ attempts to change the very definition of it. I may end up dedicating this entire blog to the subject.
Then this would be a “one-note” blog.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.26.05 @ 2:58 pm
“When taxpayer dollars are used to promote an ideological position from one partisan political party, then it is just like the Williams case.”
What you’re failing to realize is that such use of government $$ is standard practice and in accordance with the laws of this land. GSA stands for Government Services Administration, yes another government bureaucracy, but the point in principle is this: everything pertaining to writers for hire is regulated by congressional oversight. Don’t like it? Change the laws. Hint, it ain’t gonna happen for the simple reason that writers-for-hire contracts serve the interests of any administration, left or right.
Not saying that La Sahwn has to, or would do it, but if she wanted to, she could contract out her services to write whatever any government agency wants written or produced to supplement her income.
I guess what seems to be the sore point is the issue of disclosure. Be that as it may, that is ultimately the writer’s decision to make.
And the market is more than capable of deciding the merits of one’s writing, disclosure or no disclosure. For instance, I will continue to read Williams because what he says makes sense and is in alignment with my values.
I don’t care if he does it for free or gets paid $1B for his opinions. If I like it, I’ll read it, just as much as other may hang on to Kos’s every brain fart.
In our rush to condemn the failure to disclose, beware of getting legislators involved for we will surely rue the unitended consequences. Just look at Sorbanes-Oxley, 527, or any other recent laws passed to “solve” corruption — net result, mo’ money for the lawyers and greater burdens on the producers, with consumers picking up the final tab.
How many writers will continue to write if they have to spend more time ensuring compliance than it takes to write an article? And don’t think bloggers will be passed over, as they will surely be in the bull’s eye.
If we continue to make a big deal out of this, aside from where laws are specifically broken, calling for Congress to act will indeed produce a “Truth-in Blogging” act.
Disclosure: I’m hearing voices in my head channeling a VLWC to pass such an act to shut down conservative bloggers in 08 — no political blogging 90 days out from an election.
Where’s my tinfoil hat?
Comment by Andy — 01.26.05 @ 3:12 pm
La Shawn,
Have you read the Washington Post interview with Bush in which the president seems to be backpedaling on the FMA? I don’t think the FMA is the greatest way of protecting marriage, but a lot of people DO, and that’s one of the main reasons that they voted for Bush in November. Now they find out he’s going soft on this?
He talked about protecting traditional marriage a LOT during the campaign and very little about reforming social society. Now social security is front and center as if it is the biggest crisis facing the country and protecting marriage seems to have fallen by the wayside.
What’s up with THAT?
Comment by Tom B. — 01.26.05 @ 3:13 pm
La Shawn,
I would hope you wouldn’t use your excellent blogging skills to advance simply one argument. You’ve got so much more to say in so many other areas. I don’t mean to pander, but I feel you’d be doing yourself a disservice to simply render opinions on only one issue.
Now I think I’m “getting” the Gallagher issue. She was paid in 2002. Maybe this is why a CLEAR majority of her columns in the past two years have been so oriented on the same topic. I still read her occasionally, but I got tired of her same old, same old columns.
I don’t mind her advancement of an opinion; I just wish to hear more from both sides of the political spectrum. If Ted Rall beat the same drum every week on how many people have died in Iraq, I’d have abandoned him months ago. I think it’s healthy to switch it up as opposed to being so heavy on a single issue.
Even still, La Shawn, if you did go to a “single-issue” format, I’d probably stick around. You’ve simply grown on me too much. I can’t see myself ditching you from my “Required Reading” folder anytime in the future!
PS…check out my blog…link above. It’s in its infancy stage, however, I have a computer whiz guiding me through the hard stuff.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.26.05 @ 3:20 pm
If Armstrong isn’t the only one, he should drop the dime or say he will drop the dime by X date and let the rest out themselves.
Comment by DarkStar — 01.26.05 @ 8:06 pm
I happen to like Maggie Gallagher. I happen to like Maggie Gallagher’s columns. I agree with her opinions on marriage.
Again, somebody please explain to me why am I supposed to be so upset? What, exactly, am I supposed to be so outraged at?
Whether Maggie Gallagher makes two cents, or two million dollars, won’t change the fact that I agree with her stand on marriage and family.
Whether Maggie Gallagher makes her money from GWB, or from the Man on the Moon, won’t change the fact that I think she is a brilliant writer.
The Government does things with our tax dollars that aren’t exactly kosher.
This is a shocking revelation?????
Comment by glamchild — 01.26.05 @ 9:39 pm
I like Maggie Gallagher, too. If you don’t think she’s done anything wrong and has nothing to apologize for, why did she apologize? Perhaps you should cut and paste your comment into an e-mail and send it to her. Ask her what she’s sorry about.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.26.05 @ 10:06 pm
She apologized for the uproar. She’s sorry that everyone is so upset. That’s why she apologized, not because she did anything wrong.
I’d apologize too, if it’ll turn down the volume and stop all the shouting.
LaShawn, you said this: “We need Conservative Columnists who don’t take money from the Government for their opinions”——or something to that effect
Aren’t you blaming the victim(s)?
I think we need a Government, and a Bush Administration, that doesn’t put Conservative Columnists in the awkward position of having to refuse money that’s tossed at them.
It’s nobody’s business what Maggie Gallagher’s contract says. I don’t think she needs to post her 1040s online.
Maggie Gallagher’s opinions and beliefs have been lifelong. Nobody “bought” or paid for her strong and solid convictions that she’s had all her life.
The Government may have bought some great writing and articles, by a superb writer……but that’s the Government’s problem, and they’re the ones who need to apologize.
Comment by glamchild — 01.27.05 @ 11:09 am
I agree with Frank and Andy.
What gets me is the sense of fairness due to the obvious implications that these people are “lying” in their writings to say something that the government wanted them to say.
I can’t see where Maggie did anything wrong. She was paid to do research and then write about what she found in a field that she occupies.
By the way. Because of this standard that La Shawn says exists - “Disclosure of all financial arrangements bearing on an intellectual’s work product, especially money from the government, is the best protection against allegations of impropriety” I will from now on begin EACH POST with the following disclaimer to protect myself from people who like to allege and trash and accuse (my pet peeve):
I, Baklava (poster name), provide computer consulting services for the state of CA and promise you that the contract for services in no way is making me lie as liberals do every day in thier quest to destroy capitalism, freedom and America as we know it. I am telling you facts and truth in this post despite the fact that I have a contract with the state of CA government.
Now for the rest of my post that isn’t tainted but I will always have to post that disclaimer now for fear of being accused of something that ISN’T TRUE (my big pet peeve):
If conservatives are never to be paid by the government for services rendered without disclosing then the standard should apply across the board to all citizens and not just liberals.
One of my big issues is fairness. I more or less like to tackle the meat of the issue, square on and not apply double-standards to resolutions or solutions or judge people unfairly.
I think some people’s utopian idea about whether or not the government or the Republican party ought to be able to pay writers or commentators or people to do research or computer work or whatever is very romantic.
Even I as a used to be a liberal and converted to libertarianism (in 1991) and then centrism/conservatism as realism set in over the next couple years have to admit that I would love it if the government was just providing:
1) Essential services only
2) Providing for our defense
3) What else could there be?
I would love it if the government were 20% the size it is today and only did the above 2 things so that people locally could group together and provide for (at the state or county level) anything else like education, etc.) It is so so romantic. I would sleep well. I wouldn’t ever be interested in politics anymore. I’d see no reason to debate people. The world and country would be good.
But the FIRST AMMENDMENT doesn’t stop because someone had to pay money to get the message out or do research (including the government). It is not the liberals right to lie and the conservatives prerequisite to have their hands tied behind their backs. It just isn’t. I can fully understand people’s romantic idea that the government should never pay for services rendered (writers, commentators or other consultants) but the fact is it is true.
Let’s get over the romantic/utopian/hump and look at these things objectively. The more we as conservatives want to pile on to someone like Maggie the more we allow liberals to take advantage of us when nothing done was wrong.
Just because you BELIEVE something should be wrong and want to look at things like UTOPIA doesn’t mean it is TRUE. Belief isn’t Facts. Please do your research everybody.
And until people start to realize the DOUBLE-STANDARD they are applying to people out there and non-existant rules they are applying then I will post my disclaimer every post to protect myself from people who like to make accusations, assert false things and apply double-standards.
Comment by Baklava — 01.27.05 @ 1:27 pm
So what about the “Postcards from Buster”? That PBS cartoon that probably wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for partial funding from the Dept of Education. Yet the show’s producers seem to have no qualms about using that funding to write & promote the notion that it’s normal for a child to have two lesbian moms.
Methinks, the Dept of Ed is an equal opportunity employer, they will give money to people of all stripes in order to produce all types of propaganda, throw it all into the public arena and call it “marching in lockstep to better edumaction”.
After all, it’s all subjective, a little sumthin for everybody.
Thanks goodness Ms Spellings is prepared to pull funding on that noise.
Comment by Andy — 01.27.05 @ 6:59 pm
We do hold ourselves to higher standards (see: how we reacted to Lott’s boozy endorsement of Strom Thurmond, the Packwood thing, Gingrich, etc.), as we should, inasmuch as we’re the ones who even acknowledge that standards exist.
In MG’s case, though, this is a non-starter.
Comment by Mr. Buzzcut — 01.27.05 @ 7:12 pm