In MG’s case, though, this is a non-starter.

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.

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.

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.

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?????

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.

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?

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?

Then this would be a “one-note” blog.

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.

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.

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.