Yeah, Bush is a great guy - right

[Trevor Wilson]

Date: January 30 2005
By Suzanne Goldenberg
Washington


The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a third
conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing its
policies.

Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to praise the
administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare to
marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.

His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and Human
Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy firm.
The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
payments in his columns.

Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an even
more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received $21,500
from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
newspaper columns.

President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the Administration
from such payment practices, and an official from the Health Department said
the payments would cease.

But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more heavily
on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.

The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on public
relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it spent
during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the Administration's
first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323 million).

The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when USA
Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African American
columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to champion
the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
television outlets.

Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations put the
clips straight on the air.

- Guardian




This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or
mirroring is prohibited.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> Date: January 30 2005
> By Suzanne Goldenberg
> Washington
>
>
> The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
> far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a
> third
> conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing its
> policies.
>
> Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to praise
> the
> administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare to
> marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
>
> His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and Human
> Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy firm.
> The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
> additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
> payments in his columns.
>
> Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an even
> more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.
>
> The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received $21,500
> from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
> Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
> newspaper columns.
>
> President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the
> Administration
> from such payment practices, and an official from the Health Department
> said
> the payments would cease.
>
> But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
> Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more
> heavily
> on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.
>
> The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on public
> relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it spent
> during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the Administration's
> first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323 million).
>
> The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when USA
> Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African American
> columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to champion
> the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
> television outlets.
>
> Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
> involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
> Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations put
> the
> clips straight on the air.
>
> - Guardian
>
>
>
>
> This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or
> mirroring is prohibited.
>
Why would any rational person want to use anything from a piece of crap like
the Guardian.

Assuming what they say is true, I think it's no worse than the money paid by
the Clinton Administration to TV programs for putting anti-drug messages
into various shows, instead of into actual treatment or advertising.

The Guardian is to journalism as The Rock is to great acting.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Date: January 30 2005
>> By Suzanne Goldenberg
>> Washington
>>
>>
>> The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
>> far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a
>> third
>> conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing its
>> policies.
>>
>> Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to praise
>> the
>> administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare to
>> marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
>>
>> His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and Human
>> Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy firm.
>> The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
>> additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
>> payments in his columns.
>>
>> Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an even
>> more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.
>>
>> The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received $21,500
>> from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
>> Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
>> newspaper columns.
>>
>> President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the
>> Administration
>> from such payment practices, and an official from the Health Department
>> said
>> the payments would cease.
>>
>> But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
>> Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more
>> heavily
>> on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.
>>
>> The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on
>> public
>> relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it spent
>> during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the Administration's
>> first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323 million).
>>
>> The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when USA
>> Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African American
>> columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to champion
>> the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
>> television outlets.
>>
>> Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
>> involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
>> Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations put
>> the
>> clips straight on the air.
>>
>> - Guardian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying
>> or
>> mirroring is prohibited.
>>
> Why would any rational person want to use anything from a piece of crap
> like the Guardian.
>
> Assuming what they say is true, I think it's no worse than the money paid
> by the Clinton Administration to TV programs for putting anti-drug
> messages into various shows, instead of into actual treatment or
> advertising.
>
> The Guardian is to journalism as The Rock is to great acting.
>

No big deal, Trevor needs a little
sugar in his 'progressive' kool aid.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Date: January 30 2005
>> By Suzanne Goldenberg
>> Washington
>>
>>
>> The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
>> far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a
>> third
>> conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing its
>> policies.
>>
>> Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to praise
>> the
>> administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare to
>> marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
>>
>> His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and Human
>> Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy firm.
>> The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
>> additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
>> payments in his columns.
>>
>> Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an even
>> more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.
>>
>> The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received $21,500
>> from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
>> Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
>> newspaper columns.
>>
>> President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the
>> Administration
>> from such payment practices, and an official from the Health Department
>> said
>> the payments would cease.
>>
>> But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
>> Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more
>> heavily
>> on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.
>>
>> The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on
>> public
>> relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it spent
>> during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the Administration's
>> first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323 million).
>>
>> The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when USA
>> Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African American
>> columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to champion
>> the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
>> television outlets.
>>
>> Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
>> involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
>> Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations put
>> the
>> clips straight on the air.
>>
>> - Guardian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying
>> or
>> mirroring is prohibited.
>>
> Why would any rational person want to use anything from a piece of crap
> like the Guardian.

**Is what the Guardian printed, incorrect? Which part/s?

>
> Assuming what they say is true, I think it's no worse than the money paid
> by the Clinton Administration to TV programs for putting anti-drug
> messages into various shows, instead of into actual treatment or
> advertising.

**You're kidding, right? It is MUCH worse. It is corruption.

>
> The Guardian is to journalism as The Rock is to great acting.

**That maybe the case. Can you point out the errors and direct me to the
truth?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Date: January 30 2005
>>> By Suzanne Goldenberg
>>> Washington
>>>
>>>
>>> The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
>>> far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a
>>> third
>>> conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing its
>>> policies.
>>>
>>> Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to praise
>>> the
>>> administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare
>>> to
>>> marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
>>>
>>> His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and Human
>>> Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy
>>> firm.
>>> The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
>>> additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
>>> payments in his columns.
>>>
>>> Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an even
>>> more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.
>>>
>>> The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received
>>> $21,500
>>> from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
>>> Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
>>> newspaper columns.
>>>
>>> President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the
>>> Administration
>>> from such payment practices, and an official from the Health Department
>>> said
>>> the payments would cease.
>>>
>>> But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
>>> Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more
>>> heavily
>>> on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.
>>>
>>> The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on
>>> public
>>> relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it
>>> spent
>>> during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the Administration's
>>> first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323 million).
>>>
>>> The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when USA
>>> Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African American
>>> columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to
>>> champion
>>> the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
>>> television outlets.
>>>
>>> Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
>>> involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
>>> Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations put
>>> the
>>> clips straight on the air.
>>>
>>> - Guardian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying
>>> or
>>> mirroring is prohibited.
>>>
>> Why would any rational person want to use anything from a piece of crap
>> like the Guardian.
>
> **Is what the Guardian printed, incorrect? Which part/s?
>
>>
>> Assuming what they say is true, I think it's no worse than the money paid
>> by the Clinton Administration to TV programs for putting anti-drug
>> messages into various shows, instead of into actual treatment or
>> advertising.
>
> **You're kidding, right? It is MUCH worse. It is corruption.
>
>>
>> The Guardian is to journalism as The Rock is to great acting.
>
> **That maybe the case. Can you point out the errors and direct me to the
> truth?
>
>
Stop relying on news sources outside the U.S. for news about the U.S.

There are plenty of newspapers and electronic media that are left leaning
here, and if the story has any truth to it, they will happily report it.

The Guardian and the BBC are simply not to be trusted.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Date: January 30 2005
>>>> By Suzanne Goldenberg
>>>> Washington
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
>>>> far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a
>>>> third
>>>> conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing
>>>> its
>>>> policies.
>>>>
>>>> Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to
>>>> praise the
>>>> administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare
>>>> to
>>>> marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
>>>>
>>>> His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and
>>>> Human
>>>> Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy
>>>> firm.
>>>> The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
>>>> additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
>>>> payments in his columns.
>>>>
>>>> Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an
>>>> even
>>>> more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.
>>>>
>>>> The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received
>>>> $21,500
>>>> from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
>>>> Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
>>>> newspaper columns.
>>>>
>>>> President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the
>>>> Administration
>>>> from such payment practices, and an official from the Health Department
>>>> said
>>>> the payments would cease.
>>>>
>>>> But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
>>>> Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more
>>>> heavily
>>>> on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.
>>>>
>>>> The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on
>>>> public
>>>> relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it
>>>> spent
>>>> during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the
>>>> Administration's
>>>> first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323
>>>> million).
>>>>
>>>> The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when
>>>> USA
>>>> Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African American
>>>> columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to
>>>> champion
>>>> the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
>>>> television outlets.
>>>>
>>>> Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
>>>> involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
>>>> Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations
>>>> put the
>>>> clips straight on the air.
>>>>
>>>> - Guardian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying
>>>> or
>>>> mirroring is prohibited.
>>>>
>>> Why would any rational person want to use anything from a piece of crap
>>> like the Guardian.
>>
>> **Is what the Guardian printed, incorrect? Which part/s?
>>
>>>
>>> Assuming what they say is true, I think it's no worse than the money
>>> paid by the Clinton Administration to TV programs for putting anti-drug
>>> messages into various shows, instead of into actual treatment or
>>> advertising.
>>
>> **You're kidding, right? It is MUCH worse. It is corruption.
>>
>>>
>>> The Guardian is to journalism as The Rock is to great acting.
>>
>> **That maybe the case. Can you point out the errors and direct me to the
>> truth?
>>
>>
> Stop relying on news sources outside the U.S. for news about the U.S.
>
> There are plenty of newspapers and electronic media that are left leaning
> here, and if the story has any truth to it, they will happily report it.
>
> The Guardian and the BBC are simply not to be trusted.

**I'll ask the question once more:

Can you point out the errors and direct me to the truth?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Date: January 30 2005
>>>>> By Suzanne Goldenberg
>>>>> Washington
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bush Administration has been confronted with fresh evidence of a
>>>>> far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion after a
>>>>> third
>>>>> conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing
>>>>> its
>>>>> policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael McManus, a newspaper columnist, was paid up to $10,000 to
>>>>> praise the
>>>>> administration's marriage initiative, which diverts funds from welfare
>>>>> to
>>>>> marital counselling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> His fees were approved by a branch of the Department of Health and
>>>>> Human
>>>>> Services, and were funnelled through the Lewin Group, a consultancy
>>>>> firm.
>>>>> The commentator's right-wing Marriage Savers Foundation received an
>>>>> additional $49,000 in government grants. McManus did not disclose the
>>>>> payments in his columns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither did Maggie Gallagher, another conservative columnist and an
>>>>> even
>>>>> more prominent supporter of the marriage plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gallagher received
>>>>> $21,500
>>>>> from the Department of Health and Human Services, and $20,000 from the
>>>>> Justice Department for championing the initiative in her syndicated
>>>>> newspaper columns.
>>>>>
>>>>> President George Bush tried earlier this week to distance the
>>>>> Administration
>>>>> from such payment practices, and an official from the Health
>>>>> Department said
>>>>> the payments would cease.
>>>>>
>>>>> But a report issued on Thursday by Democratic members of the House of
>>>>> Representatives suggested the Bush Administration may rely far more
>>>>> heavily
>>>>> on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Administration spent more than $US88 million ($A113 million) on
>>>>> public
>>>>> relations contracts last year - more than double the $37 million it
>>>>> spent
>>>>> during Mr Bush's first year in office. That brought the
>>>>> Administration's
>>>>> first-term spending on public relations to $250 million ($A323
>>>>> million).
>>>>>
>>>>> The first sign of a political payola scandal emerged this month when
>>>>> USA
>>>>> Today reported that Armstrong Williams, a conservative African
>>>>> American
>>>>> columnist, had been paid $240,000 by the Education Department to
>>>>> champion
>>>>> the Administration's controversial policies in his print, radio and
>>>>> television outlets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Williams was paid through Ketchum PR, the public relations firm also
>>>>> involved in producing fake "news pieces" last year that touted the
>>>>> Administration's prescription drug bill. Some US television stations
>>>>> put the
>>>>> clips straight on the air.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Guardian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use,
>>>>> copying or
>>>>> mirroring is prohibited.
>>>>>
>>>> Why would any rational person want to use anything from a piece of crap
>>>> like the Guardian.
>>>
>>> **Is what the Guardian printed, incorrect? Which part/s?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming what they say is true, I think it's no worse than the money
>>>> paid by the Clinton Administration to TV programs for putting anti-drug
>>>> messages into various shows, instead of into actual treatment or
>>>> advertising.
>>>
>>> **You're kidding, right? It is MUCH worse. It is corruption.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Guardian is to journalism as The Rock is to great acting.
>>>
>>> **That maybe the case. Can you point out the errors and direct me to the
>>> truth?
>>>
>>>
>> Stop relying on news sources outside the U.S. for news about the U.S.
>>
>> There are plenty of newspapers and electronic media that are left leaning
>> here, and if the story has any truth to it, they will happily report it.
>>
>> The Guardian and the BBC are simply not to be trusted.
>
> **I'll ask the question once more:
>
> Can you point out the errors and direct me to the truth?
>
>
>
And I'll tell you again, I've not heard a word of it here. That tells me
it's probably a non-story. Either made up or not illegal.

If it were illegal it would be all over the news here.

My guess is that it's something done by both sides.

Considering the problems in the world, this one is hardly worth mentioning.