Bush Payola Scandal

[spillmind]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1401183,00.html

glad to know my tax dollars go to paying for promoting a politician's policy.

i'm sure the bush amdin will try to cover it up, spin this off, convince anyone who still listens to believe these actions were legit.

OUR country, YOUR president.

just keeping tabs on watching our country go down in flames. i'll wait to see you guys on the correct bandwagon soon enough.

honestly, people, how can you love bush so much? it's borderline ludicrous at this point!

 

[Annie]

Spilly - you are doing it again! I don't think the majority here are that in love with Bush that they don't see faults in him. Hell, you think there is a straight politician? I believe in what Bush is trying to do, I don't think everything he has done was the right move. But to say that we will be jumping on the correct bandwagon is an insult, or shall I say it is the attitude that creates the seperation in our country today!

Well said.

 

[Gem]

Spill,

I understand your anger at the idea of pundits and commentators paid by an administration (or wannabe administration) using their forums to spread ideas that they have been paid to support without letting their readers know what is going on.

You were, of course, vehemently opposing such ideas when they were considered commonplace occurrances during the Clinton years? And you were, of course, upset by the idea that CNN would allow talk show hosts to claim to be open-mindedly commenting on US politics while working for a presidential nominees campaign??? Right?

I mean, I am sure that the only reason you have not posted your outrage at these occurrances beforehand was that you wanted to make sure that you had plenty of examples of these happenings before you brought them forward...and now that you have...you will be back to offer suggestions on how BOTH sides of the political spectrum can make changes to make sure that these egregious happenings don't occur again???

 

[Avatar4321]

oh what a scandal. People are being paid to promote American policy when they would have done it anwyay. how scandalous.

 

[spillmind]

oh what a scandal. People are being paid to promote American policy when they would have done it anwyay. how scandalous.

i like your reply. it's right up with your definition of 'success' in iraq, and right up there with your reasoning as to why the iraqis have a paper trail if we don't need one! then again, a small percentage of the minorirty sounds just like my country!

i still have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a lot of people are STILL completely and totally missing the bigger picture... and THAT is what is dividing the nation today.

 

[Gem]

What?!?

 

[Gem]

Hillary, Daschle Helped Bankroll Dem Radio Hosts

While the media continue their quest to "expose" conservative pundits on the Bush administration payroll, reporters don't seem to have any qualms about the fact that the nation's top elected Democrats helped bankroll liberal commentators on Air America and North Dakota talker Ed Schultz.
Unlike the Armstrong Williams case, there's been no outrage over the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Debbie Stabenow lined up $1.8 million in funding for Democracy Radio, which underwrote Mr. Schultz's show.

According to the Washington Post, Democracy Radio is "a non-profit organization" run by Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, "with a board composed of three Clinton administration veterans."

Last year, Sen. Mary Landrieu hosted a fund-raiser for Athans' operation at her Washington, D.C., home, which served as a kind of coming-out party for Schultz and Air America host Randi Rhodes. Clinton, Daschle and 20 other Democrat senators were on hand to encourage party fat cats to open their wallets.
Rhodes described the scene to the New Republic, which reported last February:

"[Florida Sen. Bob] Graham told the crowd about the many Democrats who had replaced Republicans in elected office in South Florida since Rhodes went on the air there; Graham went so far as to proclaim that no Republican could win wherever Rhodes was heard.

"It wasn't long before the money was rolling in," the magazine said.

"I heard people yelling out dollar amounts," Rhodes remembered. "I thought it was two hundred and fifty dollars, but it wasn't. ... They were pledging two hundred and fifty thousand dollars."

Mr. Schultz decided to express his gratitude financially, contributing $2,000 apiece to Democrats Daschle and Sen. Byron Dorgan in last year's campaign.

Like Mr. Williams, Schultz insists that all that cash hasn't influenced his radio show's content, noting that before the election he criticized John Kerry as a terrible presidential candidate.

So it was just a coincidence that when his show debuted in February, Daschle, Clinton and Dorgan were his first on-air guests.

And the fact that he won't discuss his pro-life views on the air has nothing to do with fears that it would anger his Democrat backers. Schultz maintains instead it's "a lousy talk radio topic."

One big difference from the Williams case: Schultz's media friends aren't raising any ethical questions about whether his show's content has been bought and paid for.

www.newsmax.com


I'm sure that you were going to get around to mentioning this, huh Spill?

 

[spillmind]

i don't expect anyone to catch on just like that after believing one way for so long.

it's rather simple. we cannot function without the rest of the world. we depend on many nations to invest in our economy, and for trade.

our appointed leader is not popular around this planet we share with other human beings- consistently- and for good reasons. this article i posted is only a metaphor for the agenda and the methodology as to why this is the case.

i'm getting sick of soap box routine, and it isn't being received in a constructive way anyway, so just keep in mind that when the ish hits the fan big time, that you didn't have red warning flags along the way.

 

[spillmind]

Hillary, Daschle Helped Bankroll Dem Radio Hosts




www.newsmax.com


I'm sure that you were going to get around to mentioning this, huh Spill?

no offense, newsmax? i might as well link airamerica to counter that partisan nonsense.

please link the article, not the site. thanks

 

[spillmind]

w00t! MINUS 15 points!!!

i'll bet i lead all those not banned!

 

[spillmind]

what is your take on why the country is so bitterly divided as we post?

 

[dilloduck]

w00t! MINUS 15 points!!!

i'll bet i lead all those not banned!

sorry---your not even the best worst

 

[spillmind]

bah

 

[Hobbit]

Holy crap. When are you preachy liberals ever going to figure out that support of Bush is not a product of ignorance? I heard about this story weeks ago. Did I approve? No. If an idea is good, it'll sell itself without help. Now, does this mean that I completely pull my support from everything Bush has ever done? Of course not. If every president had all support pulled after a small mistake, nobody would ever get re-elected. It's just wierd looking at these articles because they're written with such...anticitpation, as if after reading this one thing, we're all going to just collapse and say, "Oh my, I never knew how much of a scumbag Bush was. He really is ruining this country. I should have voted for Kerry. I'm so sorry Democrats."

 

[Merlin1047]

honestly, people, how can you love bush so much? it's borderline ludicrous at this point!

Given a choice between supporting Pres. Bush and having to agree with a bunch of rabid leftist nutbars, I'll take GW any time.

 

[no1tovote4]

no offense, newsmax? i might as well link airamerica to counter that partisan nonsense.

please link the article, not the site. thanks

I agree that it is offensive to have an Administration paying pundits with tax dollars to get them to promote stuff that they already would have promoted. However I don't agree that the problem lies only in this Administration. As has been posted before Clinton was the beginning of this and it seems to be continuing from what the Republicans have learned from him. Republicans haven't a monopoly on funding this type of propaganda, they are just the ones the mainstream media focuses on when they are caught.

However I don't plan on jumping on any bandwagon any time soon even if I think this is wrong. It is wrong for both sides and shows that the Dems and Republicans are both willing to cross lines in order to get their stuff passed and promoted.

No politician is perfect, even the Democrat ones Mr. Yellow-Dog self-admitted Democrat bandwagon rider!

This is one thing that crosses the line and should be stopped, agreed, but it doesn't change my mind as to what policies I would rather promote or more believe in even if I don't like some of what has become regularly accepted in DC these days.

Of course being a Conservative Libertarian there is nobody to vote for these days that follow policies that I would like to promote, therefore I vote as to those that are closest. In this case I voted for "Not-Kerry" and will stand behind that vote.

 

[manu1959]

and yet another sad little man that only has neg 11 now and life is just miserable and if only everyone would listen to you :wank:

 

[MtnBiker]

Let's pull the plug on federal funding for Public Radio, then I might listen to someone complaining about this issue.

 

[Annie]

Let's pull the plug on federal funding for Public Radio, then I might listen to someone complaining about this issue.

Excellent point MB! NPR is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

 

[Gem]

Spill,

Busting on NewsMax rather than addressing the topic, I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not.

Any one with a brain, or the interest in the topic of pundits pushing policy when they've been paid by the party that you supposedly had, would have been able to read the article, and check into Democracy Radio, the organization that supports Mr. Schultz.

Democracy Radio has already commented on the fact that the financial donations from prominent members of the Democratic Party was true...but they do not feel it is the same as Armstong Williams actions...and I agree with them. I still feel that there is a large double standard here...but I do see the difference.

You obviously have no desire for a real discussion of the facts...a quick investigation into the article I posted would have shown that it was a) accurate and b) had already been addressed by the attacked party.

You've just proven yourself to be a joke, unwilling to discuss an issue you started with someone who might have more information about it than you, or might have information regarding the left-wing side of this matter. Not worth the time I've already spent looking at both sides of this topic.