NEA Chairman Defends Controversial Conference Call

Mr. Tapper,

I have read your subsequent posts on the topic. Thank you for providing the public with a better view of the overall picture (including one of Skolnick's quotes). It is my hope that these quotes can be used to form very pointed questions toward the current administration. This is one in a long line of questionable acts that the government - and primarily this presidential administration - is currently carrying out. In fact, I would say it's no longer appropriate to use "questionable" as a word to describe the situation. Situations like these are now just wrong and illegal. I would hope that ABC and other networks get to the bottom of these problems immediately. This is in direct defiance of "the American way".

When the president finds out how to keep these calls from coming, maybe he can give me a clue how to stop calls from Tom Price of Ga. He has called my home and last week called my husband, who is a democrat and total non political, on his cell phone with an area code of 202 (Wash.). Now how do you think he got that number....hummmmm?

"Ah. No controversy then?"

I don't think I said there was no controversy. Nope, just reread my comment and I said nothing about there being no controversy. I did say that US Attorneys, like NEA Communications Directors and Special Advisors for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired, reassigned, or forced to resign for any reason or for no reason.

They cannot, however, be fired for an illegal reason. Had their firings been illegal, those US Attorneys had recourse to the courts. Sort of like Gerald Walpin, the Americorps Inspector General who was fired by the Obama administration on trumped up grounds after he started investigating the financial misdoings of Obama crony, Kevin Johnson. He is now suing.

"Well, that explains a heck of a lot about where you're coming from on all this." posted by Alyson

What's that supposed to mean? I'm very upfront about where I'm coming from.

Oh Lord, back to Bush again. US Attorneys are political appointees.... They can be fired, reassigned, or forced to resign for any reason or for no reason.

Posted by: Bridget | Sep 23, 2009 9:03:42 AM

***

Ah. No controversy then? Well, that explains a heck of a lot about where you're coming from on all this.

"And they promised us they would be more transparent and open?
Balderdash!"

Gesundheit.

This is absolutely pathetic. Everyone needs to get their facts straight. The issue here is that - surprise, surprise - ABC and Mr. Tapper have done an extremely poor/non-existent job on this story.

There have been multiple parts to this. An artist (who was on the call) has released this story in multiple parts. The final part (I believe) was released this week. The transcript is 49 pages. For those of you saying it's not a big deal, and dismissing it, read pages 8-9...

To Mr. Tapper:

Feel free to send me my share of your paycheck for doing your work for you. Now if we could just get someone to actually ask questions about this.

Deception was the aim of this program.
Instead of the U.S. govt. being open and hiring people to create art for an ad campaign to promote govt. policies, they were hoping to deceive citizens into thinking that there was a grassroots movement among artists to voluntarily support Obama projects.
Deception by the Obama administration. And they promised us they would be more transparent and open?
Balderdash!

If Leonardo da Vinci was alive today, it would not be a portrait of Mona Lisa, but rather an NEA sponsored painting of Michelle Obama.

Any artist that gets involved in a plan such as Obama is doing with the NEA, should quit as an artist. We do not need "Big Brother" directed art.

As I understand it, there may indeed be a quid pro quo here -- the talk is that grants have been received by conference call participants SINCE this conference call, and that some of these conference call participants who received such grants have already produced art that DOES support the administration's agenda -- blatantly.

I have not, however, seen an enumeration of the works in question, so from my vantage point this remains an unconfirmed rumor.

"Doesn't California have strict eavesdropping and communication interception laws? Weren't several of the participants from Cali, including Courrielche? " posted by Alyson

Hehe. If you had your choice, which messenger would you prefer to shoot, Courrielche, Giles, or O'Keefe?

Anyway, that was a multi-state call, including participants from the most transparent administration in history who were presumably on federal property when it took place, and federal law allows for one party consent.

"Goodling hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys and DOJ prosecutors based on political criteria, for example."

Oh Lord, back to Bush again. US Attorneys are political appointees, sort of like NEA Communications directors and Special Advisors for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired, reassigned, or forced to resign for any reason or for no reason.

David, careful, your crude stereotypes are showing. I am a life-long Republican and a huge fan of the arts. Sure, I have to travel a bit to get to the urban center where I can see a world-class symphony or visit an excellent art museum, but I do so gladly. I have never drunk beer or gone hunting in my life. Being a fan of the arts is not the same thing as thinking the NEA should be a tool of a particular administration, sorry.

I live in a college town. We often bring in interesting artists of various stripes (and more often we bring in hacks and poseurs, but that's the arts for you). When I attend an opening or a performance, I do not make assumptions about the political leanings, religious preferences, or economic status of the others in attendance. First, it does not matter and second, I assume it is a delightful mix.

Try broadening your horizons and addressing the concerns of those who disagree with you, rather than making knee-jerk assumptions and perpetuating stereotypes.

Of course news of this call came around the time we learned of Obama's televised speech to students a few weeks ago. It was reasonable to think that both these efforts were just a part of 'Organizing for Obama -oops, I mean America' activities.

Excellent blog!

Steve T asks:

"Doesn't this warrant some tougher reporting?"

I think so. Here a current article from Big Government/Big Hollywood that broke the story:

At Least 6 Federal Laws and Regulations Violated By the NEA Conference Call

Republican hate everything except patriotic music and parades for the phony-baloney wars they engage America in.

Posted by: David | Sep 23, 2009 12:30:57 AM

***

Thanks for making me smile :>)

Just read the entire 49 page transcript and ....

****
That's odd since the transcripts I've seen are 44 pages long, but bygones. Maybe there's a 49 page transcript out there. I would say see avt2s's post but it looks like you've bought into the neocon spin on this. You know what I didn't notice in the transcript? Any reference to the call being recorded by United We Serve, by the NEA or by anyone else, including Patrick Courrielche. Informed or implied consent to record and disseminate the call was not given by any of the participants. Doesn't California have strict eavesdropping and communication interception laws? Weren't several of the participants from Cali, including Courrielche? Maybe that's irrelevant. I don't really know, but it seems a little creepy. As creepy as Sergant's comments, to me, anyway. But whatever. In terms of appearances, it was absolutely a big mistake for the NEA communications director to participate in such a call (which is why he isn't the communications director anymore, and rightly so; I disagree with avts on this-- he should've known better; we're supposed to be better than the GOP). NEA isn't supposed to be and shouldn't be involved in political advocacy, or the appearance of it. But, seriously, despite all the cheerleading going on by participants in the call, there's nothing in the transcript that suggests that NEA money or grants were being funneled to progressive artists -- this is the equivalent of jaywalking or rolling through a stop sign-- unless the secret taping folks have a lot more they aren't sharing. I find it hilarious that Repubs, tea partiers and so on are so worked up. I guess it makes them feel a little better--like somehow they're doing something besides coming up with no solutions to any of our very big problems.

And then there's the irony...

Many of the pushers of this story supported and voted for Bush, likely twice, and they yawned and turned their heads when the type of allegation being made here occurred during the Bush admin in waaaaay more significant contexts-- Goodling hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys and DOJ prosecutors based on political criteria, for example.

I agree with Larry, though I don't know that he intended it to mean this. There are definitely two sets of rules--neocons apply one very strict set of rules to their evaluation of the Obama admin (and Dems/liberals/progressives/community organizers) and another for everyone else.

The artist participants on the call were hand picked and known to be sympathetic to the administration's agenda. Most had worked on the Obama campaign in some fashion. And don't forget Buffy's piece in the transcript-- she told them she had some "asks" for them and reminded them, "we're running the government now."

All in all a pretty far cry from the murals and other arts projects the depression era Federal Works agency commissioned back when art was considered non partisan. And artists were not considered to be "for sale".

This is complete nonsense. I read the actual transcripts and thought Yosi was going to be completely cleared. In the most offensive sentence he actually says, "I would encourage you to pick something, whether it's health care, education, or the environment — you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.” The "corporation" is the Corporation for National and Community Service. If you go to their webpage (serve.gov) you can see their (actually 5) priorities - the others are safety & security and community renewal. This is nothing to be scared or shamed over.

NOTHING was said about what Obama wants these VOLUNTEERS to say. No specific ideas, no legislation, no policies, no programs. Just the general concept of improving the environment, our schools and health care. Is this anti-American?? Come one.

Obama needs to stop caving into this nonsense! Does he think they are going to stop if every target gets removed?

Unless he is outright lying, the only way to understand Rocco Landesman's claim that the "call was completely unrelated to NEA’s grantmaking" would be that the NEA's lists and good name were co-opted by the White House propaganda machine team.

If THAT is the case, Mr. Landesman has a responsibility to rectify the betrayal of NEA's mission that this call represents.

Come on, Rocco. Either get yourself on the high-minded side of this or start production planning on "Springtime for Barrack".

"The actual ends that the call was trying to achieve were an increase in community service, such as seeing more young people at blood drives." posted by Alyson

Nope. Just read the entire 49 page transcript and found nary a word about blood drives. Did find lots of backslaps and high fives for getting Obama elected, talk of how to transfer that effort to supporting the President's initiatives and furthering his agendas, and a fairly clear awareness on the part of several of the speakers that they were treading on very thin legal ice.