Right Wing Talkers Have Secret Meeting with Bush

[Johnny Morgan]

Yes, money. Campaign finance laws prohibit campaigning for money or donations in government buildings.

Meeting with talk hosts who may agree with your policy positions is not campaigning under the law. Hence, no law is broken.

I understand what you're trying to do--you feel some form of mock outrage that a person you hate may have people who do agree with him. Good luck.

As I said before, Bush meeting with talk hosts who it's already assumed agree with him is a non-story.

 

[AKLes]

Money? So free airtime to 70 percent of AM Radio has no monetary value. I might agree with you if Al Gore was on Air America.

Value? Not one penny more than the front page editorializing that passes for news in most large "newspapers". Yup. Gotta stop that right-wing campaigning on AM radio talk. Very same day we stop the left-wing campaigning in print.

Watch the constitutional lawyers flock like ravens to pick the carcass of THAT one!

Just once I'll credit Algore for having the good sense to keep some distance between Air America and himself...one wonders how be came to be aware of what was to happen in advance!

 

[Johnny Morgan]

one wonders how be came to be aware of what was to happen in advance!

Karl Rove must have tipped him off, since Gore and Rove (and Bush) are all part of the wacky Sacred Owl Society of Lompoc (or something).

 

[raccoonradio]

Private meeting with the Pres. isn't a secret meeting...would you say that someone who got an audience with the Pope was having a secret meeting? Unless you define secret as "being alone with him"; I define it as
hush-hush, don't tell the public. Secret also implies something nasty is going on behind closed doors. (Under
the Clinton administraion, THAT would mean an intern under the desk...)

Laura I. mentioned her meeting with the Pres. on the air. She has also gone
mountain-biking with him, she said.

So in a couple years maybe we'll write that a Dem. president had a "Secret Meeting" with left-wing talkers, eh?

Alert Hillary: this must have been the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" she once mentioned.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>which hosts represent the White House

agree with Bush on most things (but not all) , maybe, but "represent" almost implies they are working for him actively, perhaps for conspiratorial doings.
Since he admires the Pres. as much as the libs do, it was a given Savage wouldn't be there.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>If the right wing talkers so feared here are doing nothing but spewing White House talking points

The base seems to be drifting lately, so the Pres is trying to get talk radio to "better understand" how
things are going, in the hope of rallying the vote. Should President Kerry have had such a meeting
with liberal talk hosts for the same purpose it would have been considered OK.

Maybe that's it. They HAVEN'T been spewing White House talking points...they're disagreeing with Bush
on things like immigration, etc. The libs would have you believe that conservatalk hosts are doing nothing
but promote Bush's positions...he's trying to get them on his side, to unite the base. Whether or not they
follow step is up to them.

 

[kaufcom]

Racoon, You used three consecutive posts to make you point. I will respond with one post of my own.

Secret also implies something nasty is going on behind closed doors. (Under
the Clinton administraion, THAT would mean an intern under the desk...)

At least Clinton's hummer was one on one...Bush apparently needed a five-way to get off.

Since he admires the Pres. as much as the libs do, it was a given Savage wouldn't be there.

Remember Bush is the President of all right wing wackos

Maybe that's it. They HAVEN'T been spewing White House talking points...they're disagreeing with Bush

Poor Bush, he can't even rely on talk radio hosts anymore!

 

[evnlee]

I might agree with you if Al Gore was on Air America.

Al Gore was on Eco Talk June 3rd. Was 'recycled' and played again August 11th.

they were 'composting' Kinda like this thread!

 

[dampier]

Last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president. Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved.[/b] The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past. Conservative radio hosts are breaking with the Republican leadership in ways not seen in at least a decade ... on Oct. 24, the administration will hold something of a talk-radio summit meeting, inviting dozens of hosts to set up booths on the White House grounds, where top cabinet officials are expected to sit for interviews. And Mr. Bush granted an on-camera interview to Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel. The first of three parts ran Monday night. (read more - Jim Rutenberg-NY Times)

This whole story is the best example of being "shocked, shocked to discover 'politicking' going on in here" since Casablanca. This is hardly a surprise since the RNC already provides a daily fax or e-mail of various talking points to major talk show talent which gets faithfully read out in the echo chamber, so why would we be surprised the White House is trying to coordinate right wing shill hosts to beg for even more propaganda.

O'Reilly for his part performed like the poodle he is in telling people it was unAmerican to even question the president. There is a reason these politicians talk to right wing talk shows and Fox News - because they will never be asked any hard questions.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

so why would we be surprised the White House is trying to coordinate right wing shill hosts to beg for even more propaganda.

We shouldn't be. The Times is in a tizzy because they weren't invited. And the left is in a tizzy because they don't have any similar meet and greet session. But they have the same faxed talking points going out to the left wing talkers and columnists.

It's insane that this is a story.

 

[fred flintstone]

With all due respect, I think "the story" here is the White House losing the kind of support they had been getting from conservative talk radio for the past six years - not unlike some GOP members of congress parting with the administration on certain issues. This meeting is an apparent attempt to get these hosts "re-enrolled" in the administration's positions and programs. They also have taken (and been able to take) conservative talk radio's support for granted; now they are having to work for it.

Will coffee and danish in the oval office, with some applied ego-stroking, get these hosts back on-board? We shall see. El Rushbo started out more of an old-school Buchanan conservative (Buchanan challenged Bush in the 1990 race and won the NH primary), until Dubya's dad invited him to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Magically Rush became much more administration and RNC party line friendly (and remained so).

 

[Johnny Morgan]

With all due respect, I think "the story" here is the White House losing the kind of support they had been getting from conservative talk radio for the past six years - not unlike some GOP members of congress parting with the administration on certain issues. This meeting is an apparent attempt to get these hosts "re-enrolled" in the administration's positions and programs. They also have taken (and been able to take) conservative talk radio's support for granted; now they are having to work for it.

Due respect noted, and I agree with that assessment. But that's not what has/had everyone is a tizzy over this meeting (including the NYT). What had everyone abuzz--read the thread--was that the White House was going through talk radio to get its message out. Propaganda wing has been thrown about.

Bush needed to get these talk hosts back because they're conservatives (for the most part) while he's a Republican politician. One is not necessarily the other. Case in point: Lincoln Chafee. The farther Bush strays from the conservative ideology, the fewer radio hosts will back him (and magazines too, like National Review, for example, which places the conservative-libertarian ideology above any Republican party loyalty, to the extent there was/is any).

The story being the Bush plead to get the hosts back is a story, but this is really the first time it's come up. I thank you for pointing it out, however.

 

[fred flintstone]

Due respect noted, and I agree with that assessment. But that's not what has/had everyone is a tizzy over this meeting (including the NYT). What had everyone abuzz--read the thread--was that the White House was going through talk radio to get its message out. Propaganda wing has been thrown about.

Bush needed to get these talk hosts back because they're conservatives (for the most part) while he's a Republican politician. One is not necessarily the other. Case in point: Lincoln Chafee. The farther Bush strays from the conservative ideology, the fewer radio hosts will back him (and magazines too, like National Review, for example, which places the conservative-libertarian ideology above any Republican party loyalty, to the extent there was/is any).

The story being the Bush plead to get the hosts back is a story, but this is really the first time it's come up. I thank you for pointing it out, however.

I've read the tizzy posts, including those picked up while this thread was over in Off-Air. Sounds like more arguments over the condiments at Wendy's (while ignoring the burgers).

Politicians and their flacks schmooze reporters, producers and talk show hosts. Always have; always will. So do authors, actors and anybody else with something to sell. And the higher up the schmoozer is, the more of a sucker the schmoozee becomes. Watch house the reporters at press conferences go cross-eyed when Bush (or Clinton, Reagan, whoever) calls them by name (even though they know he's got a cheat sheet). The change in Rush after his night in the Lincoln bedroom was noticeable and almost pathetically slavish.

 

[kaufcom]

The Times is in a tizzy because they weren't invited. And the left is in a tizzy because they don't have any similar meet and greet session. But they have the same faxed talking points going out to the left wing talkers and columnists.
It's insane that this is a story.

No it is a story. Not only because Bush has screwed up so badly that he needs to patch things up with right wing talk show hosts. (I guess he's down to Laura and Barny for his support.) but that he didn't have the common sense to invite at least one liberal talker to attempt to show fairness.

 

[radiofriend1]

The Times is in a tizzy because they weren't invited. And the left is in a tizzy because they don't have any similar meet and greet session. But they have the same faxed talking points going out to the left wing talkers and columnists.
It's insane that this is a story.

No it is a story. Not only because Bush has screwed up so badly that he needs to patch things up with right wing talk show hosts. (I guess he's down to Laura and Barny for his support.) but that he didn't have the common sense to invite at least one liberal talker to attempt to show fairness.

who was the liberal they invited?

 

[fred flintstone]

No it is a story. Not only because Bush has screwed up so badly that he needs to patch things up with right wing talk show hosts. (I guess he's down to Laura and Barny for his support.) but that he didn't have the common sense to invite at least one liberal talker to attempt to show fairness.

who was the liberal they invited?
[/quote]

Nobody. Baroosk said Bush did NOT "have the common sense to invite a liberal at least one liberal talker to attempt to show fairness."

I don't see that fairness is an issue. These are not working journalists and the event was not a press conference. It was a political pep talk. And in all likelihood, any liberal host who did get invited and did attend would be criticized for taking part in something like this - especially if he were the most likely suspect among liberal hosts, Alan Colmes.

 

[radiofriend1]

I don't see that fairness is an issue. These are not working journalists and the event was not a press conference. It was a political pep talk. And in all likelihood, any liberal host who did get invited and did attend would be criticized for taking part in something like this - especially if he were the most likely suspect among liberal hosts, Alan Colmes.

don't u find it the least bit hypocritical to throw the **LIBERAL MEDIA** under the bus at every turn, to blame the **MSM** for many of america's ills--- then, in the next breath, bring all the conservative media members in to choreograph and orchestrate your party's message?

 

[fred flintstone]

don't u find it the least bit hypocritical to throw the **LIBERAL MEDIA** under the bus at every turn, to blame the **MSM** for many of america's ills--- then, in the next breath, bring all the conservative media members in to choreograph and orchestrate your party's message?

Of course it's hypocritical. This is politics. All politicians - whichever team they play for - are master practitioners of hypocrisy. :

Politicians have been courting, leaking to and planting with friendly reporters, columnists and publishers since the game of politics and media began. Courting talk show hosts is only a new wrinkle and shows the extent to which line between news and talk programming has blurred. If liberal-talk radio had been around in their day, Clinton, Kennedy and Roosevelt would have done the same (and did do the same with media personages of the time).

Politicians also do not keep promises once elected and lie before and after being elected.

Definition of an honest politician: One who stays bought.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If this meeting was such a secret, how did Fred Flintstone find out about it?

 

[TheFonz]

Politicians and their flacks schmooze reporters, producers and talk show hosts. Always have; always will. So do authors, actors and anybody else with something to sell. And the higher up the schmoozer is, the more of a sucker the schmoozee becomes. Watch house the reporters at press conferences go cross-eyed when Bush (or Clinton, Reagan, whoever) calls them by name (even though they know he's got a cheat sheet). The change in Rush after his night in the Lincoln bedroom was noticeable and almost pathetically slavish.

Shouldn't we blame a dumbed-down voting public for some of this? Rather than watch a "boring" debate between candidates or read "dull" candidate comparisons in the newspaper, voters choose to get their information from entertainers. And yes, radio and TV "news" people are entertainers.