Critics on the left are constantly complaining that right-leaning radio talkers are getting their daily programming straight from the talking points of the Republican Party. This is one of the main reasons why they're so eager to implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' and either silence talk radio or force an artificial balance on broadcast content so that their message gets equal time. Their argument is that every word that Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly utters is essentially a free political commercial for the GOP, their policies and their candidates.
How much more troubled they must be by this week's developments in talk radio, as the President extended invitations to the top talk radio personalities to come to the White House for a personal conference in the Oval Office to get the administration's views on the War on Terror, Iraq and related issues, direct from the horse's mouth. This can't look like anything but loyal media drones coming in to receive their orders from the queen bee.
Ten of the top talk radio hosts came to the White House Wednesday morning to meet with President Bush for an hour, during which time they had the opportunity to ask any questions they liked on the stated topic, and get his best answers. The only catch was that no recording and no direct quotes would be allowed, but they could paraphrase and describe and give their interpretations of the President's comments freely.
Only a little bit of what went on in the meeting has been revealed thus far, because most of the hosts involved were off the air today so they could attend the meeting. Only a couple of west coast based hosts had shows late enough to discuss it, but it should drive discussion on talk radio tomorrow. From what I've been able to piece together the participants included Michael Medved, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz, Lars Larson, Bill Bennett and Dennis Prager (the ones with links have either audio or articles about the meeting). These weren't necessarily Bush's most loyal allies in the media. Boortz and Larson have both been loudly critical of both administration policies and performance. The one thing they all have in common is that they are generally convinced that the War on Terror is one we have to fight and that Islamic fundamentalism is a very real threat.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - John Bambenek
Come on, Dave. You know these guys aren't all drones. Bush has been in private meetings with several reporters before. Just because he says something and lets people ask questions doesn't meant there is indoctrination going on.
If all they got is some talk radio guys in a room asking the President questions, they've got nothing. Journalists, even far-left foaming at the mouth liberals, would jump at this chance. It doesn't mean they're all the sudden drinking the Kool-aid.
2 - Christopher Rose
"Conservaitve Talkers in the Presidential Echo Chamber" ? Uncharacteristic typo by Mr Nalle compounded by the editor, our over-excited colleague Mr Bambenek, who is making lots of little mistakes today. Could you two take a deep breath? Or get a room? LOL!
Fixed by politically non-aligned and ever vigilant floating editor!
3 - Michael J. West
A positive message on Iraq from one of the most respected think tanks on the left is a huge win for Bush
Well....in general terms, yes. That is, the notion of a positive message on Iraq from the Brookings Institution is a big win for Bush. The actual message itself is a rather minor victory, at least in the sense that it essentially says, "things are getting better in Iraq, no thanks to President Bush."
4 - Sam Jack
Uh, "Two outspoken leftwing critics of the war"? That's simply false. Maybe they're left wing, but they've never been war critics. Glenn Greenwald does what apparently no one else bothered to do and looked up all their writings about Iraq on LexisNexis. A sample:
"The war could be over within a month."
"Vice President Dick Cheney had a nice rebuttal to the retired officers when he understandably, and humorously, took a moment to gloat shortly after Baghdad fell."
5 - Dave Nalle
Michael, if things go better in Iraq, it looks good for Bush no matter what the immediate reasons are.
Sam Jack, Greenwald grossly misrepresents the two writers record on the Iraq War. The fact that at the start of the war they - like just about everyone else - hoped it would be a success, doesn't negate the fact that they've been critical of the war most of the time since then. Take a look at the body of O'Hanlon's past articles with particular attention to 2005 to see some pretty strong criticism of the administration and endorsement for a full withdrawal.
These guys can really only be categorized as critical of Bush policy. Apparently the problem is that they're not full-on surrender monkeys who put "Bush is HItler" in every third sentence in their articles. They're extremely well qualified mideast analysts who have literally been looking everywhere for solutions to the problem of Iraq and haven't until very recently seen much hope in the Bush approach. What more do you want?
Dave
6 - gonzo marx
"no recordings or direct quotes"
that shows you right there what kind of meeting it was...it all was on the up and up, there would be a press conference, eh?
anytime you get something that's "not on the record", little alarm bells should go off
could just be me
Excelsior?
7 - Nancy
I believe the quote is, "distrust anyone who wraps themselves in religion, patriotism, or fearmongering."
Another indicator what kind of scum they are: Karl Rove. Nuff said.
8 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, it wasn't off the record. They were allowed to repeat anything they were told. No secrets, no deception. Bush just didn't want to be quoted out of context or to be vulnerable to having a misstatement repeated. Since when did an informal discussion become a conspiracy?
Dave
9 - gonzo marx
no recordings, no direct quotes
meaning no complete record of context, no complete record of the entire meeting from start to finish, and no direct quotes to be held accountable for
a hypothetical..."ok folks, here's how we are going to work together to get our agenda out there in a wall of noise...
{insert talking points}
make sure 1-3 go monday through wed...then 4-6..ok
we're really gonna fuck them over this time...
now, anybody want some dead puppy salad for lunch?
or it could be completely and totally innocent..more likely something in between
we'll never know, eh?
no record, no quotes = secret, imo
Excelsior?
10 - Michael J. West
Gonzo, it wasn't off the record. They were allowed to repeat anything they were told. No secrets, no deception.
That's not what Boortz says:
"We could discuss our impressions of the visit. We can reveal the matters that were discussed. But we are not allowed to quote the president. There were also elements to the conversation that we've been asked not to repeat."
11 - Dave Nalle
Boortz hadn't done his show yet or the small writeup you linked to when I wrote the article, and of all the people there he's the only one I'd trust 100%. A few comments being 'off the record' isn't the same as it being a session where they were being given secret conspiratorial marching orders as gonzo suggests.
I'm going to try to listen to Boortz today and get the full story.
Dave
12 - Rhampton
Anyone who doubts the catastrophic influence of Saudi-funded Wahhabism simply hasn't been paying attention. From Nigeria to Serbia to China to America, the Kingdom spends billions annually to subvert traditionally tolerant and respectful sects of Islam with a radicalized puritan version of Sunni fundamentalism.
I track the Saudi funded expansion of militant, extremist Wahhabi (Salafi) Islam at my blog, Wahaudi.
13 - Alec
Dave - RE: It will be interesting to see which has more impact, the conservative talkers promoting the idea of progress in Iraq, or their leftist counterparts decrying the inappropriateness of turning the radio airwaves into a presidential echo chamber.
What an odd, and obviously false dichotomy. Conservative pundits and bloggers claim to be more tough minded, objective and "fair and balanced" than their supposed opponents in the "biased liberal mainstream media."
But if they are eager to serve as bootlickers for the Bush Administration, then their dishonesty goes beyond any remedy that might be provided by an ill-advised return of the Fairness Doctrine.
An ethical commentator is encouraged to disclose the fact that he or she has been paid by a company or a political party when he is championing their position. Shouldn't a pundit, talk radio host or blogger -- without regard to his or her political affiliation -- disclose to the audience that he or she is operating as an unpaid propagandist for a political party or group?
By the way, it is simply not true that these people are not necessarily Bush's most loyal allies. One of the attendees, Hugh Hewitt bends over backwards to praise and defend almost everything that Bush does (he was one of the biggest supporters of the wonderfulness of Harriet Miers' nomination to be a Supreme Court Justice) and has gone so far as to suggest that the Republican Party is the sole legitimate political party in America. Michael Medved's crocodile tears cannot hide the fact that he long ago sold out any integrity that he had in order to whore himself out to the Bush Administration (though what he hopes to gain from this is unclear). Medved could not be concerned about the appearance of impropriety because he has done this before. I recall a front page photo in the New York Times several months ago of Medved and other talk radio hosts speaking personally with the president.
That Clinton or other presidents did the same thing before is not an excuse, especially from those who generally disapprove of everything that Clinton did in the past and might do in the future. I recall a moment when I ceased to pay any attention to one of the TV pundit shows during the Clinton presidency: one of the female guests was obviously and clumsily rehearsing information "leaked" to her from Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. Some of the sentences that she used were verbatim from a script that formed the basis for a later news story crediting unnamed sources in the White House. But the pundit had been passing this crap off as her own analysis of whatever policy issue was being discussed.
If these conservative pundits see themselves as champions of the Bush -- or any other administration, then they certainly have no business claiming that any other branch of the media is biased. Nor should they claim that their conversations with their listeners represent their own views or thoughts if they are not willing to disclose the degree to which what they say has been shaped by the White House.
RE: it wasn't off the record. They were allowed to repeat anything they were told. No secrets, no deception.
That's funny. Hugh Hewitt's blog notes the following:
President Bush invited ten talk hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today --Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and me. This was an off-the-record conversation, and so I won't be quoting the president.
You can check Hewitt's statement for yourself.
I bet that if these clowns were ever asked to justify themselves, they would claim that they were covered by executive privilege.
Again, while there is nothing illegal about this, it is ethically despicable. And just for the record, note that I would feel the same way if these people were moderates or liberals. I don't care about ideology. I do care about independence. I detest anyone who acts as the surrogate or advocate for any politician or party, when that person claims that he or she is representing objectivity, truth or is "looking out for me."
14 - gonzo marx
Boortz sez - "There were also elements to the conversation that we've been asked not to repeat."
that right there is more than enough to toss suspicion on it all...no record, and stuff they were told not to repeat
even if it's 100% harmless...and especially in light of this Administration's track record on all things "executive priviledge" and secrecy...any objective observer is forced to harbor some suspicions...
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior?
15 - Dave Nalle
Ok, I just finished listening to Boortz on the WSB feed, and to clarify exactly what he meant, it seems that Bush revealed some operational details which are not yet cleared for the public and asked that they be held in confidence until he could get approval from the Pentagon for the talkers to discuss them on the air.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. In fact, it seems appropriately responsible.
As for what was discussed, Boortz stressed a couple of things. He pointed out as he has before, that when you talk to him one-on-one Bush is far from the dummy the left makes him out to be. He said that a number of the guests asked Bush pointed questions, made suggestions on better ways to fight the war in Iraq, and openly ctiticized policy, including someone he didn't identify telling the president he was dead wrong. So it sounds like it wasn't exactly an echo chamber. He also said that Bush listened and promised to take their suggestions seriously. Finally, Bush said that the main thrust of the meeting was to present them with what he seemed to think was pretty convincing evidence that Petraeus was having substantial success in winning over insurgent groups, making allies and suppressing al Qaeda and insurgent operations.
BTW, Boortz apparently asked Bush specifically about the NYT op-ed piece referenced in my article and Bush went into more detail on some of the things mentioned in that article. Boortz also made the observation on his show that the article is likely to drive the left into an absolute frenzy, and the evidence that it has is already overwhelming, at least on the blogosphere. The outrage over that op-ed on Salon, DailyKos, Democratic Underground and elsewhere is really something to see. It's amusing to see people who used to greet everything from Brookings as gospel suddenly trying to figure out how to paint O'Hanlon and Pollock as neocons in drag.
Dave
16 - Dave Nalle
it is simply not true that these people are not necessarily Bush's most loyal allies
I didn't say they were all not total Bushies, just that as a group they were not uniformly loyal. I specifically cited Boortz and Larson as having previously been highly critical of the administration on a number of subjects. To suggest otherwise would be for you to admit that you're not familiar enough with talk radio to know who the players are and what they do with their airtime to comment on this subject intelligently.
Dave
17 - gonzo marx
@ #15 - objection, your Honor...
pure hearsay...there's NO record, and no way to show, one way or another the accuracy or veracity of said statements
and therein lies the rub...
Excelsior?
18 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, who cares? what is your actual point here? you and those like you are going to assume Bush is lying no matter what he says and no matter how ridiculous that makes you, so long as he disagrees with the package of propaganda you've bought into. your partisan interests overwhelm any reason or common sense.
all Bush is doing here is providing information about Iraq which isn't getting press coverage to people he thinks will be willing to actually talk about it. Seems to me like he's just trying to see that his efforts in that area get a fair shake in the media. In his situation I'd certainly do the same.
Dave
19 - Lee Richards
...neocons in drag...
would be a sure-fire crowd-pleaser at the YouTube debate.
20 - gonzo marx
@ #18 - actually...you should leave me the fuck out of it...i would like to have the full record, of this and other things like it...if they exonerate the Administration...great!!
if not...then investigate and take it from there
the problem for me is the secrecy and insistence of shit being "off the record"...and no records/minutes kept is my problem..i like transparancy
as i said, if it's good..i'll call it that way, if not..i'll say that too...i don't really have the axe to grind one way or another, i do my best to take things one Issue at a time based on the facts at hand...
systemic hiding of the facts...deliberately, and clearly shown by the facts infers the worst speculation...rather than showing that there's nothing to hide and being as open as possible
see the difference?
all may be as completely innocent as a new born babe..or they could have toasted their cabal by bathing in the blood of a 100 virgins...a simple tape recording would have told us which it was...or neither
but ask yourself...if all is completely innocent...why hide it?
Excelsior?
21 - zingzing
dave: "your partisan interests overwhelm any reason or common sense."
that knife cuts both ways, dave. what do you think we're talking about here? politics! remember?
"you and those like you are going to assume Bush is lying no matter what he says and no matter how ridiculous that makes you, so long as he disagrees with the package of propaganda you've bought into."
that's not the case and you know it. we know he's going to spin whatever he has to say his way, and that sometimes, he spins shit so far that it really is just a pack of shit. and we also know that he isn't beyond lying. sure, what he says will be taken with a grain of salt.
but if we didn't care what he had to say because it was all lies anyway, then why do you think people want to know what he has to say? doesn't the fact that we're interested clue you in to something?
22 - Dave Nalle
He's not hiding the facts, he's hiding the exact wording of what he said and the operational security of our forces in Iraq.
Whatever facts he trotted out the talkers are clearly entirely authorized to reveal except for those which impact the safety of our forces, and he promised to release them on those later.
The problem here is your predisposition to assume the worst, Gonzo, when there's no evidence to suggest it.
Dave
23 - gonzo marx
@ #22 - well i gotta say that without a record, there's NO WAY to know..one way or another, and THAT is the problem...
as for any propensity to believe the worst...i don't "believe" anything...do note you will NOT find me EVER using that word self descriptively...i say what i think..big difference
and do think about it for a moment...look for yourself at the HUGE piles of information requests that have been denied by the Administration...some maybe righteously...but all of them?
add that to the incidents where we finally got direct info..and it was always NOT good for the Administration..this becomes the only track record we have...
simple enough to clear up...let the sun shine in, i'll be one of the first to speak up on any bits that exonerate anyone
but until then..i'll point out when something is being hidden...or even when it COULD be that something is hidden...such as this specific case
the Administration has given up any right to having the benefit of the doubt due to their own actions and track record...i'll go so far as to not condemn without evidence...but i'll NOT expect them to be innocent when they themselves hide the facts
fair enough?
Excelsior?
24 - Leslie Bohn
Whether or not O'Hanlon and Pollock are "neocons" is irrelevant. These two have been war supporters since before the invasion, and have chimed in with similar rosy predictions and praise for the war strategy for more than five years. They've been wrong at every step.
This year, they strongly backed "the surge." Now they say it's working. Big surprise.
That's why their op-ed is not credible. They've staked their reputations as pundits on this war, and they'll do what they can to make it seem like they were right all along. They weren't. That's why I think they're wrong now.
So rather than the media meme of "Even liberal pundits say the war is going well," the real story is the much less interesting "Longtime war proponents reiterate their support."
25 - RJ
Glenn Beck talked about this meeting on the radio quite a bit this morning. He made it sound like some sort of high-level meeting on super-secret intelligence.
It's sort of odd that right-wing radio talk show hosts should be given insider intel on the GWoT, isn't it? :-/