slapnose.com

It's almost like you and Corn are saying that no one could come by their conservative ideals honestly.

Didn't Armstrong support School Voucher programs and other education reforms before his PR firm took the government contract?

I'm most certainly not saying that, Fritz. What I'm saying is that Armstrong volunteered that "there are others" and considering his stature in the conservative punditocracy, it's reasonable to assume that this is true. It's hard to imagine that this is an isolated incident - why would they do something like this only once, and why with only him? Since he refuses to say who else may be on the take, as good skeptics we should assume that everyone stumping for the administration may be on the payroll.

As for what Armstrong may have supported in the past, it's irrelevant. I'm sure his conservative ideals - so-called - do predate this deal, but he has lost all credibility, forever. His actions are unethical in the extreme, but honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about Williams. The focus belongs on THE WHITE HOUSE, who have used public funds to purchase covert propaganda.

Williams is an unethical, greedy, money-grubbing shill. That's not a particularly new animal. What should have EVERYONE up in arms is the actions of our government at the highest levels in this matter. If this doesn't make your blood run cold, you frankly loose all credibility too.

A little thought experiment for you and other conservatives who's instinct may be to defend this treachery: How would you react if it were discovered that John Kerry's office had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to have Dan Rather report on "The Memo"?

It's simply indefensible. In a more enlightened time, this would be a Watergate-level scandal. The fact that it's not, and that the public's attention has been more or less successfully focused on Williams and not the administration, augers not well for all of us.

"So, I guess as long as he's not willing to give up any names, we can just assume that every conservative commentator in the country is on the payroll. It would explain a lot, really..."

What would it explan, really? What does Armstrong's situation explain about Conservatives, really?

In the Kerry/Rather situation: I would say that there are probably better ways of spending your money. Or, that's the best shill you could get, John? Good thing we have a free press in this country. That means there are plenty of differing voices out there that can do a little fact checking.

In any case, Rather was shilling for free. Do we respect those who give it away more than those who sell it?

"It would explain a lot, really..." was meant to imply that the ideals that conservative commentators espouse are so ridiculous that them being paid for the service would make sense. It was a kind of joke, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's true.

Your second response not so neatly evades the issue. And while the "free press" (it's apparently pretty expensive, actually) may be able to catch grievous errors like the Rather thing, when a commentator is being paid to just promote an idea or a point of view, it's hard for anyone to determine. It's a much more subtle, and more dangerous, problem.

To your last point - yes, shilling for money is MUCH worse than shilling for free. Shilling for free isn't shilling, it's just having an opinion. What Rather and CBS did was a terrible mistake, a massive lapse in judgment, but no one has ever credibly suggested that it was calculated. They believed what they were reporting was the truth (due to their shameful lack of diligence), they were not attempting to deceive anyone. Williams and any other pundits who are being paid by the administration are purposely muddying the public discourse. They were/are deliberately hiding their associations with one another because they know damn well that it's not only illegal but just plain wrong.

Again, I find it interesting that you don't seem to be able to bring yourself to condemn it.

Hell, someday I'd like to be paid to have opinions.

Also, there is enough money out there that if you are good at having and expressing opinions you can find someone to pay you to do it. Dig: there are plenty of people who work for various opinion journals (National Review, Weekly Standard, The Nation, The New Republic) who are paid very well to have opinions. Indeed, in those cases, they are paid to have very specific opinions. What flys at The Nation will not get any play at National Review. I wouldn't be suprised if on occasion a writer's subtle read on a particular issue gets pushed aside to front the party line.

By the way, what's illegal about what Williams did? As opposed to unethical, etc...

This is pathetic, Fritz.

You can't possibly be comparing the paycheck a columnist receives from his employer to a massive payment from the government to promote a specific policy. It's ridiculous to have to point this out, but people who write for a magazine are paid to give their opinions, but everyone knows that, there's no hidden agenda, it's their job. It's completely different for them to accept payments to promote the specific agenda of the payor (NOT their employer). If a columnist for any of the magazines you mentioned had written several pieces extolling the virtues of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, and then it became known that they had been paid directly for that support by Pfizer, they would be immediately fired. It's called journalistic ethics, and our "free press", as you call it, depends on it.

As for the law Williams broke, how about this one:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/sponsid.html

But once again, you neglect to cast your gaze anywhere near the White House, where it belongs. Williams is not the point. Haven't I said this before? You don't care that your government has used your money to buy propaganda? This doesn't seem like a problem to you? Are you insane?

Sure, I'm worried that the government is buying propaganda. I'm (mostly) Libertarian, so I worry whenever the government does anything. However, what I wanted you to see was that it was a broader issue at stake than Liberal vs. Conservative. I wanted you to look away from the particular, and your use of this as a slam against Conservatives generally, and to the general issue of justice and the law. Do you think during a Liberal administration we should take Liberal commentators less seriously because of the possibility of abuse by government agencies?

What a load of crap. And amazingly condescending crap at that. I like how you try to take credit for my looking at issues of justice and law. How arrogant. Read the thread, dude. I've been talking about that all along. What have you been talking about?

I never framed this as liberal vs. conservative, except perhaps with a little exaggeration at the end of this post. I've been talking about the rule of law, ethics, and just basic common sense. You've been avoiding the issue and throwing around non sequiturs.

And no, I don't think we should take liberal commentators less seriously during a liberal administration (man, been a while since we've had one of those), UNLESS, of course, there is evidence that the administration has been buying influence. Then, yes, by all means we should be suspicious.

This administration isn't conservative. it's criminal. I disagree with conservatives on many, many issues, but I despise having my country run by criminals.

Slapnose Merchandise! At last!