| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Education Dept. paid commentator to promote; No Child Left Behind Law | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 8 2005, 11:24 PM (544 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 10 2005, 03:00 PM Post #31 |
|
Admiral
|
Show me where I put words in your mouth. Actually, I deliberately made it quite clear where my additional word was inserted and my rephrasing was. And I didn't ask you to rephrase it, I said I would... You can feel free to agree, disagree, or abstain from commenting on my rephrasing as you see fit. Since you resorted to petty squabbling instead (as usual I might add), it appears to me that you had no real answer. Either that or you simply prefer trolling. But don't bother clarifying; we both know what the truth is. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 10 2005, 06:01 PM Post #32 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Since I don't have adequate time to follow this whole thread, let me just jump in the middle. What Armstrong did was wrong. What the Bush administration did was profoundly stupid. Armstrong - as a columnist - sold his integrity cheaply. This will cost him far more than a quarter million dollars in the long run. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, paid far too much. I can understand a media campaign costing that much - even in just a small target area. Paying one man that much - someone who pretty much supported you anyway - is just money wasted and should be investigated. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Jan 10 2005, 06:03 PM Post #33 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
^^^^ Thank you ma'am. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 10 2005, 07:02 PM Post #34 |
|
Admiral
|
It hasn't been denied, has it? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Jan 10 2005, 11:36 PM Post #35 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
You don't understand my comments, because you probably don't understand what's going on. Armstrong Williams, a principle in the PR firm Graham Williams Group, was paid by Ketchum ... another PR firm hired by the Dept. of Education ... to advertise the merits of the No Child Left Behind Act. There is nothing inherently wrong in this business relationship. Where any wrong comes in is that when Armstrong Williams spoke as an advocate of the NCLB Act on television and radio programs, Williams didn't disclose he and his company were under contract with Ketchum. As for the supposed 'Publicity and Propaganda Act' which many Bush Bashers claim his administration violated, there are no real clear rules on this. What can be found is in the GAO publication PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW: Appropriation Act Restrictions: Chapter 4. C. 11. c. On page 4-197...
On page 4-201...
What the Bush Bashers are focusing on specifically is what is called covert propaganda. On page 4-201...
Now the problem in weeding through this issue is that Armstrong Williams did run advertisements touting the NCLB Act, where the ad made clear that the ad was paid for by the DoE, but being a natural supporter of the NCLB Act, Mr. Williams would also speak in favor of the Act in the capacity of a commentator. Ketchum never hide the fact that it was paid by the DoE, and in adverts produced by the Graham Williams Group, the fact it was paid for by the DoE was also clear, so ultimately I think the real issue here is disclosure by Armstrong Williams a a pundit; should he have announced he was under contract with Ketchum who was under contract with the DoE everytime he spoke as a pundit in favor of NCLB? That's hard to say. And as for the Bush Bashers, all they want is to spin this as an issue where the administration has done wrong, but the fact as the facts are known right now, shows that the administration never once dictated to Ketchum or to the Graham Williams Group that the contract must be kept secret. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Jan 11 2005, 05:59 PM Post #36 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Dwayne: The whole deal was poorly thought out and executed. Juan Williams who is a friend of Armstrong Williams (Armstrong is the godfather of Juan's children) siad he never heard of the disclosure even though they work together on a radio show. Regardless of the number of PR firms involved, the government retains certain rights and responsibilities and is THE responsible party in the contract since they initiated the campaign. I voted for Bush, I don't blame Bush. I do believe that an investigation is proper to determine if we need better disclosure laws when someone is hired as a government spokesperson. The SEC has strict disclosure rules, when an analyst or broker talks up a stock thay must dosclose if they own it. Maybe such disclosure is needed for pundits on the payroll. Spin it any way you want it but I find it funny that your bombast.... People against aspect of the war are favoring the terrorists People who think that this needs investigation are "Bush Basshers"... Is somehow above my bombast. Too close to see it ,Dwayne? ANOVA The 1812 Overture...now thats bombast. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Jan 11 2005, 08:30 PM Post #37 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
First off, I heard Juan Williams claim and I really don't care what he had to say, I stick with what Armstrong Williams has had to say...
Now, are you calling Armstrong Williams a liar? Next, if I contract someone to build a house and the contractor uses illegal practices without my knowledge, it is the contractor responsible for breaking the law and not me. The same logic applies here; for you to even suggest what was done was illegal, you'll have to prove that the DoE knowingly allowed the Graham Williams Group to air those commercials without attribution. And that is something no one has done. And last, you apparently have no clue what the word bombast means, but you scream bombast from the arguments you choose, to the words you use, and to the closing sentences you always provide. You're style is pretentious and overbearing ... in a word, bombastic. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 12 2005, 10:57 AM Post #38 |
|
Admiral
|
We may need a bombastic thread soon.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Jan 12 2005, 04:40 PM Post #39 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
No just calling you a @#%$**!!!! The apearance of impropiety could have been avoided with some forthought. The disclosure should have been more transparent (especially given that a good friend and cohost had no idea). The use of the money is questionable. I read the cut and paste the first time. I'm gald you stick with people you don't know becuase of thier political affiliation. An investigation would determine, as I stated earlier, if
I was able to come to this determination without calling anyone a "Bush Basher" or "liar" or of accusing the opposition of not understanding the situation. Very patronizing of you, by the way. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Jan 12 2005, 08:37 PM Post #40 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Definately touched a nerve. Do you have a history of falsely implying people are liars or do you get touchy when someone calls you out.
Nothing appears or even verges on being improper. There is no law that states or suggests that Armstrong Williams must remind everyone his PR company performed work for another PR company everytime he spoke out in favor of the law in question. And I feel it doesn't even come close to violating the "covert propaganda" restrictions either, because Armstrong Williams was speaking out in favor for the NCLB Act long before Graham Williams Group earned the contract to produce commercials and commentary that touted NCLB for Ketchum. Additionally, Juan Williams not knowing about the contract, means nothing. There's probably lots of contracts the Graham Williams Group has earned that Juan Williams knows nothing about.
You comment is non-sensical. Advertising campaigns are not done for free, and with production costs and all, are actually quite expensive. I can just see it now, "Yes Mr. Williams, we at Ketchum would like to hire the Graham Williams Group to produce some commercials and write some commentary for NCLB, but because you personally believe in it, we must pay you below market value."
Then read it again, because you really didn't absorb it the first time. Mr. Williams clearly states that the commercials his company created state that the ads were paid for by the DoE.
:lol:
Oh yes, just what we need, a multi-million dollar investigation, because someone made about $250 K in manner you don't like.
Actually, I never called anyone 'Bush Basher' nor did I call anyone 'liar'. What I did say about Bush Bashers could be summed up in this sentence, "as for the Bush Bashers, all they want is to spin this as an issue where the administration has done wrong". As well, the closest I've ever come to saying anyone didn't understand something was this comment to Minuet, "You don't understand my comments, because you probably [emphasis added] don't understand what's going on." One thing for certain, it really seems you took my bombastic comment to heart, because your sentences are far more simplistic than usual and you've gone without your trademark catch phrases. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 13 2005, 01:32 PM Post #41 |
|
Admiral
|
Dwayne, Hi. I think you may have misunderstood Anova. He's quite intelligent, and a very interesting person with whom to discuss issues. I think you'll find that the sum of both of your posts will be greater than either one individually. Here's hoping that that occurs.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 14 2005, 07:53 AM Post #42 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
It turns out that the Dean campaign paid two blogs to say nice things about Howard. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB...Ffree%5Ffeature I wonder if anything will come of this? Probably not... even though Armstrong Williams is NOT a journalist. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Jan 26 2005, 09:46 AM Post #43 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract (need to register to view)
All policies in regards to contracting out to the private sector to promote government programs needs to be reviewed pronto IMO. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jan 26 2005, 10:00 AM Post #44 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Thank you for posting the link. It's somewhat frustrating having to register for some of these.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Jan 26 2005, 10:02 AM Post #45 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
^You're welcome. Having to register for the news is a pain in the butt. I have only registered for a few major newspapers. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:46 AM Jul 11