Posted on 01/13/2005 1:18:52 PM PST by Destro
Please put me on the list! thx
No Child Allowed to be Ahead should be included on the billboard at the DOE site. In the interest of political equal time slots and fairness this should be done immediately.
You think Rush can't be taken seriously because he hawks that mattress? You think the Sunday morning talk shows can't be trusted because IBM chooses to spend money there? How about two months ago when Kerry was filling the air waves?
This is starting to sound like a hatchet job.
So this advertisment pops up on his program. Should the viewer assume it is free? Does the viewer think those Army of One ads are free?
while he was ALSO writing positive opinion columns about the program.
Did the money change his view?
You're right, and I agree with you also that he should return the money. But on the question of principles, the PR firm didn't buy his opinion, he would have advocated for it anyways. btw I was just taking issue with the article.
I thought the money was from the Department of Education, not the White House.
Come on, man. This was a direct quid-pro-quo. You don't have to defend him just because he's supporting Bush, especially since NCLB is one of the worst things Bush has done.
"But on the question of principles, the PR firm didn't buy his opinion, he would have advocated for it anyways."
If he would have advocated for it anyway -- that is, with equal quantity and quality of advocacy -- then why would the Dept of Ed have paid him at all?
Maybe so he'd talk about it more often. Who knows.
Doggone right I have to defend him. At least someone has to. Now, my defense is based on the assumption that what he said in his apology is true: that he is the CEO and manages the syndication and advertising for his television show. Taking that ad is not much different from what Rush does. Actually, it would even be more honest. I really suspect that Rush wouldn't be using that mattress if the maker wasn't an advertiser.
Come on, man. This was a direct quid-pro-quo.
Check out the Weekly Standard. Just about every edition has an ad from the Hoover Institution -- a conservative think tank. I guarantee you that if the Standard's editorial view didn't mesh with that of the Institution's, the Instituion wouldn't be advertising.
Now, if Williams changed his viewpoint to match that of the Dept. of Ed. he's a whore like David Brock and should be run out of conservativism. But I'm confident Williams believe what he wrote.
You want to argue that the Dept. of Ed. shouldn't be advertising, I'll go along with that. That's not Williams fault, however.
This smells like a ploy to destroy a conservative. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
I suspect it was a subsidy. Again, not something the govt. should be doing although they do it plenty for leftist causes.
someone knowledgeable should look up the clinton administration's record to see if there were precedents.
If not that would make our side look even worse.
"that ad is not much different from what Rush does."
One difference -- one big difference -- is that the conflit of interest wasn't transparent in Williams's case.
"I guarantee you that if the Standard's editorial view didn't mesh with that of the Institution's, the Instituion wouldn't be advertising."
That's because the Institution wouldn't get much bang for its buck by advertising in The Nation. Its message would fall on deaf ears. Again, moreover, the ideological slant of both the Institution and the Standard are clear, as is the fact that the Institution is advertising there. Williams revealed no conflict of interest.
"I'm confident Williams believe what he wrote."
Maybe so -- we don't know. But assuming that's true, so what? Maybe he believed it, but that doesn't mean he would have written and talked about it. We live in a target-rich environment. There are a lot of things to be mad or happy about and only a limited amount of space and time in which to express ourselves. To choose to discuss one issue over another is itself a subjective decision that has consequences.
" 'If he would have advocated for it anyway -- that is, with equal quantity and quality of advocacy -- then why would the Dept of Ed have paid him at all?'
"I suspect it was a subsidy. Again, not something the govt. should be doing although they do it plenty for leftist causes."
You suspect it was a subsidy? It was an ad-buy. Except in this case the audience didn't know that they were reading/watching an ad. In any event, you're already tacitly conceding my point that the Dept of Ed never would have paid this money if they didn't expect Williams to do something DIFFERENT than what he otherwise would have done. You are therefore essentially trivializing your other argument, which was that Williams believed in NCLB anyway.
Every time I see a comment like yours, I'm reminded of the 16 year old mentally retarded student I taught who was pregnant with her 2nd child.
Do you think she ought to homeschool her children?
Do you think she'd ever make enough money to send them to a private school if there were no public schools?
Like it or not, public school is the only chance some children have to make a decent life for themselves.
Please cite the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be involved with public schooling.
No I didn't. I'd be shocked if he didn't support NCLB.
I don't suppose it has occured to you that there were public schools before the federal government, or even the state governments, got involved?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.