Armstrong Williams: Others are on the take

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=2114

So he said during an interview with David Corn.

This could get real interesting, sports fans. I hope some people are digging their butts off on this story.

Of course, you can use this thread to speculate on just WHOM is on the take.

[Caution]

1. hmmm gee i wonder who...

Bob Novak? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? The entire staff at fox news? Half of clear channel?

[KansDem]

30. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Bob Novak--so far has dodged the Plame affair charges;
Rush Limbaugh--so far has stayed out of jail or hasn't had his assets seized;
Sean Hannity--managed to buy off a sexual harassment charge.

Makes me wonder who is in the shadows with the money...:shrug:

[itzamirakul]

31. Email Armstrong Williams and tell him

to release the names of others who are "on the take." His personal credibility is on the line (and frankly, he never even had any cred.)

www.armstrongwilliams.com

Feedback button at top of homepage

email: [e-mail]

(This is the email addy that was given on his site a couple of days ago. It may be gone by now, because I am sure his site was hit hard after the news broke.)

[tinrobot]

2. Bought and Paid for Media

Next time someone uses the phrase 'liberal media,' remind them it's now called the "Bought and Paid for Media"

[tk2kewl]

4. Good frame!

[Guaranteed]

44. Yup.

Hee hee I gotta remember that one.

[Darknyte7]

22. I like that... n/t

[WMliberal]

3. well duh

And remember Williams "mistake" and Bartcop's Rule #2.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. which is? n/t

[5thGenDemocrat]

14. Bartcop's Rule

To paraphrase: "If a Bushbot makes a mistake which lines their pockets, expect them to make that same mistake over and over again."
John
I suspect it applies to a lot of others as well, but there you are.

[WMliberal]

19. Bartcop's Rule #2 states:

"If somebody makes a mistake, and they profit by it, you can expect that mistake to keep happening over and over"

[cruadin]

6. This is only an indictment of the integrity of the MSM,....

it's not an excuse for his whorish behavior.

And the thing that still burns my ass about the whole thing is that it was taxpayers' money used for the payola.....God, that really pisses me off.

[atommom]

7. PLEASE, somebody leak the names!

:D

[whosinpower]

36. No names need to be leaked!!!!

Just question every single supportive talking point to the current social security debate. Whenever talking to a repug about this, ask them first of all who they heard the info from, and then question how much money the white house gave that individual to say it. This Armstrong revelation gives precident IMHO.

[Plaid Adder]

8. Thanks for using the phrase "on the take"

I was talking about this to my dad the other night. He said that Williams's defense, apparently, is partly to claim that since he was never trained as a journalist he didn't learn all the fine points of journalistic ethics so he just made a harmless innocent mistake. At that point I came as close as I have ever come to producing a usable sound bite:

"You don't need to go to journalism school to learn what 'being on the take' means."

For Christ's sake,

The Plaid Adder

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. Well...

That's what it is, is it not? Just another flavor of payola.

[Buddyblazon]

38. And I think of the following......

"Ignorance of the law is not a defense."

In other words...its the LAST defense a party uses when they have no other defense.

[grumpy old fart]

9. This is illegal, is it not?

What's our new Attorney General's take on this? Surely some jumper cables attached to Williams' groin would get the info.....

[Me.]

10. Judy Miller

The neo-con's delight and advocate for war would be one of my guesses.

[anarchy1999]

11. Armstrong calls uncle. "it ain't just me, man" .

Start to sing, you sorry piece of journalistic "pos". "I ain't your favorite son".

SING IT LOUD AND PROUD!!!!!

[BrotherBuzz]

13. Speculate? I say Mark Hyman of Sinclair Broadcasting...

is a lynchpin. Bust him open and you expose the whole underbelly of the corrupt propaganda machine.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. PLEASE name names, Armstrong!

:evilgrin:

[grumpy old fart]

16. Shouldn't the story that "there are others" be Big....even to MSM????

I mean, gov't paid for propaganda is illegal, and if Mr. Closet Williams has knowledge of such crimes, don't we have a right to know? Not talking moral right, ethical right, (which would be beyond the ken of any rethug) but LEGAL right!

[PA Democrat]

17. The WH of course, is denying this, Williams was "an isolated incident"

WASHINGTON Jan 10, 2005 — The White House said Monday that the case of the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to plug its policies was an isolated incident, not a practice widely used by the Bush administration.

With the Education Department still defending its $240,000 contract with syndicated columnist and TV personality Armstrong Williams, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was cautious in choosing his comments.

"Questions have been raised about that arrangement, it ought to be looked into, and there are ways to look into matters of that nature," McClellan said. The spokesman did not say precisely who should look into it, and stopped short of backing an inquiry by the department's inspector-general, as some lawmakers have sought. He noted that department lawyers have taken up the matter.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=400271

And pigs fly

[Guaranteed]

18. Oh HELL YES. Let's hear it, buddy.

Give us some names, maybe we'll letcha off.

Man, have liberals ever had a witchhunt of their own? I kinda like the idea. :)

[Peachhead22]

20. If there's any justice in the world...

...Williams will write a 'Blinded by the Right' (by David Brock) style tell-all book and repent. That may be the only way to salvage a career is to take some lessons from David Brock.

Sadly thought, I ain't holding my breath.

[grumpy old fart]

21. Anyone have a cite for the statute that was apparently violated?

[blm]

29. Is "public trust" or "expected White House ethics" considered citable?

.

[Guaranteed]

42. Yes, it was sections 317, 507 and 508 of the Communications

Act (according to another post here on DU).

[havocmom]

23. Do I hear the squealing of a little piggy caught in a fence?

Watch out, little piggy, the wolves might come for you. They do not like piggies who rat out their pals.

OK, squeal all you want, Mr. Williams. Let us hear some names. But you don't get off just because the 'other kids were doing it too'.

Hey, do pretend journalists on the take claim the $$ on their income tax returns? Is there a special line for listing bribe money and illegal payoffs? Could we find a way to toss some Hate Radio jocks in the slammer for tax evasion if they failed to declare any payoffs n their tax returns?

Oh, I forgot, the IRS has to spend a disproportionate amount of man hours combing through the returns of poor people who claim an earn income credit. Not enough resources to look at the returns of well paid junta pals. Silly me.

[ThoughtCriminal]

24. Time to use the FOIA and find the rest

There are lots of "Journalists" that seem strangely fond of some of Jr's pet projects. Maybe USA Today and others should take a deeper look at the phenomena.

[grumpy old fart]

25. If there is a law being violated, a qui tam action might be in order...

attempt to recover the illegal payments, and expose rethugs at the same time!

[tibbiit]

26. I believe the others who took actual cash

Will be found in the second tier of punditry like williams (david limbaugh, janet parsalls(extra puke inducing).
If I had any power, I would look at policies the "Crown" wanted to push to certain groups and the lower eschelon pundits who pushed.
And as for the other blatent Pundits who are on the take... they are simply being paid not in money but in tradeoffs. They are everywhere and include the obvious and the non-obvious alike (Rush Limbauh obvious/Chris Mathews non-obvious)These people all get access.

I would check the David Limbahs and the blogs like the Instapundit for getting the actual cash. Imho
tib

Yeah and what about RW Blogs and Payola?

[MadHound]

27. Well duh Armstrong, tell us something we don't know.

After all, it isn't like we didn't already know this. The CIA was telling the American public how easy it was to buy off journalists, and bragging about how many they had bought off, thirty years ago. Nothing has changed except the price tag and frequency in the intervening time frame.

[grumpy old fart]

28. Since they were stupid enough to pay Williams directly.....

there may be more instances where we will be able to do more than "know", and actually document the practices....will be more fuel for the fire come impeachment time...

[SoCalDem]

33. That's why the repubes started so many "foundations" and other

innocuous-sounding "think-tanks". The people they "hired" are cookie-cutter people...nicely presented, soft-spoken (usually), they speak in complete sentences, and they are brainwashed through and through.They are well versed in "focus group-tested phrases and topics". They know their stuff and they are always ready to speak over and interrupt their opponents, so they cannot get out a complete thought..

The dangerous part is that in between all that "thinking and foundationing", they are "available" to all media sources as commentators and "hosts". These are the people we see on TV all the time.

C-span's broadcast facilities share the same building as FOX-DC, and most of the "foundations and think tanks" are but a hop & skip from them.

[stanwyck]

32. This is pervasive

and will take time and determination to uncover. We know the Swiftboat Liars for Bush were paid, in private funds. Ferretting out how many others have been paid, whether by fat cat oil men or with our tax dollars, requires a dogged, relentless media.
And we don't have that. It's up to us.

[SoCalDem]

34. It would be interesting to find out where the swiftie liars' kids are

attending college these days, and how many of them have "moved on up" to fancier houses..

These guys were a bunch of "old soldiers" who were probably ripe for the picking.

I could write a book about them without ever meeting them.

50-60 somethings with wives who "nag" them to take out the trash, get the oil changed, pick up their clothes.. Kids who are always asking for money,, they are at the end of their "careers" and have little to look forward to, but more of the same...


then,,,,,

som guy in DC calls them and offers them the oldster version of a "ROAD TRIP" with the old war-buddies... Fancy hotels, speaking engagements.. a book deal.. a movie...expense accounts...meet the president...etc etc etc..

all they have to do...

lie about a rich guy most of them never even met.

[stanwyck]

35. you're correct. These are career liars

a couple of them are the same liars who attacked John McCain when he ran against Bush for the nomination. McCain was labeled a traitor who betrayed his troops. Unbelievable.
The only consolation we have is their karma.
Not enough karma cleanser in the world to make these guys clean.

[coreystone]

37. "like" is the key word!!.....

"McClellan said he knew of no other contract in the administration like the one Williams had."

In essence, we may have paid others to publicize for other administration agenda's, with different amounts of payments, etc.

Does "LIKE" mean "exactly the same", "similar", or, "up for interpretation"??

What is the "bureaucratic-political" definition of "like"??

[Neecy]

39. okay, here's a wild guess....

Lessee...Chris Matthews just bought an expensive house on Martha's Vineyard, or the Cape, or similar tony place. I didn't know that a cheesy show on MSNBC allowed for multiple swanky residences, although he has admittedly written some poorly-selling books that might put a few extra dollars in his pocket.

Has he raked this jerk across the coals for a week straight, as he did to Dan Rather? Or does he look nervous and bloated?

I'd like to see all of these 'pundits' forced to make public their tax returns, just to confirm that they're not on the take.

[onecitizen]

40. My theory is this:

This has embarrassed lots of people. Most importantly, the pundits. They will ALL be under the microscope now. We (the public) wanna know more about where our tax dollars are going. And the pundits will be doing back-flips trying to convince us all "hey man! Not me!" It will motivate our "do-nothing" journalists to realize this skepticism could ooze onto them. That realization will have them doing some investigative journalism to bring to light the guilty ones. Yes, I think a change is a comin'. If for no other reason, than to clear themselves of propagandizing for profit.

[David Zephyr]

41. B-O-B N-O-V-A-K

Oh yeah.

[Guaranteed]

43. Oh yeah.

:)

[onecitizen]

45. Oh yeah......

for sure for YEARS! I've heard other pundits question how he made ALL his money. Seems he has more than he should have for what he does. Greasy palms.