Do you also believe that the only person who holds any moral culpability for an adulterous affair between a married and an unmarried person is the married person? Not that that’s analoguous, given that Bush is also a metaphorical married person in this situation. He’s metaphorically married to us, and even if our mutual wedding vows didn’t include “forsaking all others”, an affair that’s kept secret because we might disapprove of the situation is still immoral.
Boy, I really flogged that metaphor to pieces, didn’t I?
jayjay: I’m a guy, so I don’t think Bush’s policies would allow him to be married to me. As for your actual question, I think **manny **answered it well in his frist post to this thread.
No, her credibility issue is between her and her readers. But they’re small fry and don’t really matter. The government that works for us matters.
You’re not looking at both sides, anyway - Williams and Gallagher took the money, sure, but where did it come from? Right, Bush Administration agencies spending taxpayer money. Yours and mine. If the position being advocated can stand on its own, it’s certainly aboveboard to publicize it. If it requires subterfuge to see the light of day, falsely presenting the image of it being the result of grassroots demand, it’s certainly wrong under the principle of false advertising, and the GAO for all of its failings says it’s illegal, too.
I didn’t follow the Armstrong Williams case, but in the Gallegher case I don’t see the subterfuge. She was hired for a specific purpose and that was it. You may think she felt a continuing obligation to promote the adminstration’s position in her other writings, and it might have the apperance of a conflict of interest, but there isn’t any hard evidence to support the claim of subterfuge. It seem silly to say that the government can NEVER hire someone who has written an opinion piece-- that probably rules out a huge percent of all academics who have made a name for themself. If Bush wants to set that as his policy, that his choice.
As for the GAO claiming this is illegal, where do you get that? I didn’t see that in your cite, only that issues are being raised. If this is illegal, who has been or is going to be prosecuted?
Well, you could argue that the government is being dishonest with the people in a new way and that this demonstrates a lack of respect for the idea of a free press and its place in democracy. But overall I think you’re right. As a journalist I’m disgusted by Williams and Gallagher and they should be ashamed of themselves. I’m sure they’re not, since by doing this in the first place they proved that they don’t have, and aren’t worried about, things like integrity. But they oughta be, darnit.
I think you guys should go back and read what you wrote in this thread. Seems like you had no problem when it was Democrats mixing journalism and politics. Granted, this case is a bit different in that it involves the sitting government, but I still see it as a journalism problem rather than a governmental/poltical one.
And again, we’re talking about editorial writers, not new reporters. I don’t think anyone would sanction this sort of activity for the latter.
If so, this guy was getting bus fare, a meager $10,000. And he appears to be third or fourth rate anyways. Perhaps this is how you foster a grassroots movement. Funny that part of his expertise is “ethics.”
No, my friend, you’re still not getting it for some reason. The problem is taxpayer money, and how it’s spent. In these (still-increasing) cases, it’s being spent for political advocacy, of a kind the GAO terms “covert propaganda”.
That was not an issue with the Carville/Kerry situation, where every dollar involved was the participants’ own - and, as you yourself put it:
Be careful with those “strawman” accusations, okay?
From it being a violation of federal regs, as cited and quoted.
The Hong Kong government is even less subtle – it just demands that newspapers print its statements, unedited and uncommented upon. Not all do, though.
So that makes it ethical? Are you going to try and blame this CLEARLY ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL practice on Clinton?
Tax dollars spent to advocate anti-homosexual, conservative christian propaganda is just one of the evil acts of this corrupt administration. It’s not even the most egregious thing they’ve done. But saying ‘everyones doing it’ didn’t work with my mother, and isn’t a valid excuse for government officials in any way.
Again, can you show me exactly where in your cite it says that? I read the whole thing and the sense I get is: “we’re still trying to find out if this is illegal or not.” Can you quote the exact portion of that cite where it says that the GAO has determined that the expenditures in either the Armstrong or Gallagher incident are illegal?
From now on, whenever a commentator supports an administration program or position, I feel it is perfectly reasonable and fair to ask them: “Are you getting paid by the Administration to advocate this, and if so, how much?”
I think every commentator who supports Administration policies should recieve LOTS and LOTS of letters and emails to that effect. And I bet they will. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
One might have thought it obvious. One should not make such assummptions in GD, however. That’s my error.
I already cited GAO regs that cover this situation to the extent that any *reasonable * person would recognize apply to both cases that have come up. If you see a way to wriggle out of such a determination, you haven’t even hinted that there is one. Nor, for that matter, have any of the Usual Apologists, despite the fact that the most determined of them has flatly asserted that there’s “nothing wrong” with it.
As for your actual question, I think **manny **answered it well in his frist post to this thread.