Former Bush aide Dan Bartlett: Conservative blogs “regurgitate” our talking points
posted at 3:40 pm on December 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He names Powerline and Hugh Hewitt as examples but I’d be curious to know which others he’s “cultivated,” or thinks he’s cultivated. I can’t remember getting so much as a press release from the White House; in fact, we didn’t even get an invite to Bush’s signing ceremony for the pork bill, likely due to MM’s notably non-regurgitative ways when opining on Bush’s loathsome amnesty plan.
Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?
That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.
Well, they reach the president’s base.
That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
Ace checks his list: “Yeahp… Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal, immigration, pork, spending, etc…. all we conservative bloggers and commenters and readers do is endlessly regurgitate the party line coming out of the White House communication office.” The “Kos-Malkin convergence” on Julie Myers’s appointment would be another example. Captain Ed says he hears occasionally from the White House when they disagree with him, which is either a testament to his influence or to our own lack thereof — or both — because I don’t hear jack. Is it the atheism? The occasional fawning over lefty pundettes? Commemorating the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform with a joyous humpbot video? I feel so excluded.
As for the left’s remarkably self-unaware we-knew-it-all-along glee, I humbly refer you here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I got yer regurtitation right here, Danny-Boy…
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 3:42 PM
This is the Bush Administration hubris we could live without.
As pointed out above, conservative blogs have done more to kill the Bush agenda in the last liberal 4 years than the Democrats.
Valiant on December 6, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Is the WH not a viable source of information? Someone better tell the WHPC that.
And can you believe the way Tim Russert regurgitates quotes back to people when they are on his show? I mean, come on. You can’t use what people have actually said to base your opinion on.
VolMagic on December 6, 2007 at 3:46 PM
All your regurgitations are belong to us!
Ali-Bubba on December 6, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I think you’re misinterpreting Dan Bartlett’s comments. The Bush Administration reads blogs but is happy with them being completely independent. We here at [insert blog name here] are happy with this arrangement.
frankj on December 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Whoops! Let me try that again.
I think you’re misinterpreting Dan Bartlett’s comments. The Bush Administration reads blogs but is happy with them being completely independent. We here at IMAO are happy with this arrangement.
frankj on December 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM
My direct feed went down, but they’re working to get it back.
Like little chick’s waiting for some barf from momma.
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 3:49 PM
As much as I love Hugh Hewitt — and I do — Bartlett might have a point when it comes to him. Hugh can really be a water carrier sometimes.
Kensington on December 6, 2007 at 3:51 PM
If I had Photoshop skilz, Dan Bartlett would soon be performing in the Team America regurgitation scene.
ReubenJCogburn on December 6, 2007 at 3:51 PM
wow, they are taking credit for ‘cultivating’ the blogosphere? That’s as if not more over-reaching than Gore’s ‘invented the internet’ line.
I can’t believe he actually believes what he has said. We’ve disagreed with Bush on a lot. I don’t see many people on Bush’s side on many things.
ThackerAgency on December 6, 2007 at 3:51 PM
If Harry Truman’s Senate oversight committee was worth an entire division to George Marshall in Dubya-Dubya 2, then guys like Bartlett and Scott McClellan cost us two divisions for their inept and weak running of a wartime WH communications operation.
Mike D. on December 6, 2007 at 3:51 PM
I just threw up a little bit…in my mouth.
ronsfi on December 6, 2007 at 3:52 PM
If HotAir simply regurgitated the elitist party-line talking points I wouldn’t be here. It speaks poorly of Hugh Hewitt and Powerline that they apparently do, according to Dan.
FloatingRock on December 6, 2007 at 3:52 PM
I know I’ll get pounced on for this, but what he’s saying is true if you view it from his perspective. When they talk to the media, it’s subject to being paraphrased, taken out of context, or otherwise spun.
When they talk to the right blogosphere, they get get the courtesy of complete, in-context quotes along with analysis that doesn’t reflexively go for the throat. This is a luxury to a White House that has had difficulties getting its message out unfiltered by the press.
LB - the one that isn't LaShawn Barber on December 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Hump-bots?
Weight of Glory on December 6, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I think if that had been his meaning, the word “regurgitate” would never have been used.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Possibly. Or, maybe he’s just tactless. Regurgitate is as accurate as any word I’d replace it with so’s not to offend, tho…
LB - the one that isn't LaShawn Barber on December 6, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Forget Bartlett. Send Dana Perino over and maybe she convince me to say something nice.
JammieWearingFool on December 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM
That’s pretty tactless. No, I think this shows complete disrespect on his part.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 4:04 PM
+1 – nice idea.
LB - the one that isn't LaShawn Barber on December 6, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Maybe if the White House regurgitated Michelle’s talking points they’d have done a better job this term.
JammieWearingFool on December 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM
He fricken wishes! Partisan Hack….
ps..
Its definitely the humpbots….
liquidflorian on December 6, 2007 at 4:09 PM
What a complete moron. No wonder Bush’s Comm sucked after Ari left. They are all complete idiots.
TheBigOldDog on December 6, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Mmmmmm… Imagine a Republic party that listened to Hot Air the way the Dhimmicrats listen to DKos and HuffPo…
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 4:11 PM
what an idiot, zero political IQ unless he’s now working for the other side.
jp on December 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Dan Bartlett must be drunk.
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I don’t know why he left off Redstate.
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Now I agree with that portion of his statement. It is something that has come back to bite them in the backside on more then one occasion. Unlike the mass market media who paraphrase.
LakeRuins on December 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM
I lay blame on two things: Humpbot and Tay Zonday videos.
It is for these two reasons HA doesn’t get the credit it deserves.
Or, maybe like the NIE, the WH does use HA but keeps it under “Top Secret” section. You are free to speculate why it would be there.
Weebork on December 6, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Harry Reid isn’t even stupid enough to say this, and he actually has meetings with the DailyKos crowd!!!! and they go and speak at their conventions.
jp on December 6, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Typically Bushco. He’s got it ass-backwards. All your talking points belong to us!
km on December 6, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Bartlett’s right. Look how much the conservative blogs helped the administration get Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Oh wait…
Maybe by ‘regurgitate’ he means throw them on the White House.
Drew on December 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I haven’t the faintest idea whether Bartlett’s word choice is due to habituated White House parlance or true feelings by he and the Administration he represented, but it ought to be a point of pride if you aren’t seen as a regurgitator in either sense or, for that matter, that you are some flora to be watered, weeded and trained to grow on some sticks.
That said, the one saving grace in the White House’s cultivation of contacts for regurgitation of information is that it’s one bypass of the MSM, who has a habit of spraying the Administration’s communications with Round-Up before putting it up for sale. I’ll give Dan the benefit of the doubt here that this is what he meant, but he does Hugh and Powerline no good by talking of them using such derogatory language.
Dusty on December 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Me either. Maybe they don’t have enough traffic to bother with.
It’s probably because of all this regurgitation that Bush’s aprroval ratings are so low among Republicans. What a genious that Bartlett is.
jaime on December 6, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I believe you nailed it. Heck, my first heap of posts was on the Mushroom, which I ultimately decided was poisonous.
steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM
opps. genius. Now we know who the real genius is.
jaime on December 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I think what he’s saying is that conservative blogs more accurately quote conservatives. I don’t think he’s saying that they are in the tank or anything like that.
SoulGlo on December 6, 2007 at 4:52 PM
AP I think there is another way to read this:
This could mean:
“The conservative bloggers quote you exactly and fully, getting your message out, instead of other media sources who selectively quote and paraphrase, potentially distorting your message.”
I think this is a valid way to read this quote, and yes I looked at the context, because for bloggers, when the White House puts out a message, that is in and of itself a story. That gets its own post. When the White House talks to a mainstream media source, its message gets put in a story mixed up with opposing views and criticism, drowning out the message, and unsympathetic journalists (which is most of them) can distort the message coming out of the White House or at least cut it down.
kaltes on December 6, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Never had much use for a man who could only spell a word one way. Shows lack of imagination.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Wile E. Coyote? Sorry, somebody had to say that.
steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Sometimes? I can’t even read his stuff anymore- unquestionably carrying water for Bush was bad enough, but now the almost daily Romney-worship has pretty much destroyed his credibility as a serious commentator in my view.
Hollowpoint on December 6, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Just a dumb thing to say. He talks about what a good avenue bloggers provide to reach the base, but then he uses a term that is a slam at both the base and bloggers, painting them as the mind-numbed robots that Dems and the left thinks they are. And this guy was a communications director?
I can’t wait until the first potential client brings this up when Dan is trying to sell his services there in Austin.
rivlax on December 6, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Now I understand why the Bush White House went astray after the 2004 election.
DFWShook on December 6, 2007 at 5:14 PM
“Is it the atheism?”
Haha, if I hadn’t drank up all my milk I would have snorted it out through my nose…
Seixon on December 6, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Sometimes I feel that way.
jaime on December 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Let me just offer what my first thought was when I read this. If one a blogger on the right had called him up about a story, that blogger would have used his actual quotes and not take it out of context. In fact, it is what I’ve seen happen, time and again, at NRO and other places. The actual quotes, not what someone wanted the quotes to be, were “regurgitated” on blogs. MSM is very good at using quotes out of context. As everyone here knows. A snippet of a quote that doesn’t portray what the speaker was actually trying to portray. That is what I thought he meant.
Sue on December 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM
In Hugh’s defense, I expect he’s probably trying to get Bartlett to come on his show and defend himself as we speak, and there’s a better than even chance that Hugh will make him look like a fool if he agrees.
As for the Romney stuff, I don’t begrudge Hugh his choice. I just think it was a bit weird that he pretended for so long that he hadn’t made up his mind yet. Your comments about his credibility are well-taken. I think his judgment on matters electoral took a huge hit when he got the ‘06 elections wrong pretty much across the board, but it’s still a good show. The weekly Hitchens, Steyn and Lileks segments, for example, remain top notch, but it’s probably smart to take his ‘08 prognostications with several grains of salt.
He was a beacon of sanity on election night in ‘04, however, and he’ll always have my respect for that.
Kensington on December 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I’m not sure how Hugh could possibly make a convincing argument that he’s not been a tool of the Bush White House.
I don’t have a problem with him being in Romney’s corner- I do have a problem with his complete overzealousness in shamelessly pimping Romney almost daily in his column while bashing… pretty much everyone else.
Also, I’ve listened to his radio show while he sometimes gets it right, I sometimes find his method of questioning to be cheap and pushy.
Hollowpoint on December 6, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Maybe on immigration? The guy most closely in line with the White House there has been Medved.
Hugh also criticizes the president when he muzzles Israel.
Kensington on December 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Yeah, we all read the immigration talking points…
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 5:54 PM
What I wonder is, is Bush really such a horrible judge of character and intellect or are all these bozos he is always loyal to just like him?
peacenprosperity on December 6, 2007 at 6:00 PM
What I wonder is, is Bush really such a horrible judge of character and intellect or are all these bozos he is always loyal to just like him?
He does seem to have some jarring blind spots. It’s not across the board, so I don’t think a blanket “bad judge” label fits, but it’s been alarming for almost the entirety of his presidency. See Norman Pineta, Harriet Meiers, Colin Powell, et al.
Kensington on December 6, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I was trying to bail you out :-)
Sadly, I was using Acme products again.
-Super genius (or is that mud?)
steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Bartlett is deranged. He and his colleagues let sleazebags like Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin and Reid hammer this President mercilessly with nary a response. It was people like Hewitt, Rush, YOU GUYS, MM, Ingraham, Coulter and the rest who delivered the required punches. What a dolt.
D2Boston on December 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Comment pages: