What? How in the heck does your family have anything to do with this? Are the Democrats holding them hostage?
It’s old news. It was discussed endlessly on the blog and any question people had **3 years ago ** (and I don’t remember any of the posters there having a problem) was asked and answered.
Secondly, what does Markos or the way they run the Kos have anything to do with Edwards or his campaign? Why bring that up at all except to throw a little dirt?
No, just that nearly my entire family are Democrats.
They’re just not the kind that blog or care about blogs, and frankly, like I said above, they regard activists on either side as a bit strange.
IOW, we had to go to the link to find that the impression you gave with the quoted material was false.
OK, then. That’s better.
Here you are talking about Markos’ ethical responsibilities, but I have to pin you down to keep you from weaseling out of your own.
And this proves that he endorsed them in his blog how??
Should this apply to posts here at the Dope, or just to blog posts? If there’s a different standard, one from the other, then why? They’re both in the Internets, after all.
Well, that’s just it. We don’t know. We know he took money from some candidates, and we know he endorsed lots of other ones. There is no transparency at all to show that there is no overlap between the two.
Now, I think it would have been fine to take money from people that you then talk up, as long as you let people know that you are working for them. That way, they can judge your posts accordingly.
I think most of us who work in politics as paid staff or volunteers know that even paid staff work, generally for people they believe in. I don’t, therefore, think this would be at all sinister as long as it isn’t hidden.
Armstrong Williams kept similar behavior secret, and was stung for it. Rightly so, I might add. In fact, Kos was one of his critics. He ought to live by the same standard he insisted upon for Williams.
I don’t know. I do know that I approach my posts here with this standard in mind.
So, your family doesn’t care about blogs, but you post here about some horrible blog scandal because it will be so detrimental to Democrat candidacies based on your knowledge of your family that doesn’t care about blogs.
My family doesn’t care about blogs, true.
However, if my mom knew that a staffer of John Edwards said the things that Amanda Marcotte said, it might affect her vote. Like I said, she is religious. And a Democrat.
I thought the statement was a little weak. He sounded like he was unaware that his bloggers had written some potentially inflammatory material, when there’s no way in the world that’s true. He could have defended them more and condemned them less. But given the tough spot he was in, it wasn’t bad.
Personally, I will feel sympathy for people of faith who feel maligned by left-wing bloggers on the day when I can read the right-wing blogs for ten minutes without having my own faith (or, more specifically, my lack thereof) maligned.
But we don’t know that he did. Just that he kept his client list confidential, like most law firms and consulting firms I know of do. But apparently that in and of itself is damning to you, despite being (AFAICT, anyway) a fairly standard business practice.
I’m glad that ‘even’ paid staff work. I’d be disappointed if they sat around and surfed the Web all day. (I honestly couldn’t parse that paragraph.)
I thought Armstrong Williams was nailed for propagandizing on behalf of the U.S. government, which isn’t supposed to be paying people to do that. At all.
Oh yeah - and he kept it secret that he was fluffing for them.
So we know Williams was doing it. We don’t know that Moulitsas was doing it. And you’re equating the two.
That’s pretty dishonest, don’t you think? I sure do.
Well, we know only after it came out in the Williams case. It hasn’t come out for Kos because he refuses to tell.
You take Williams to task for advocating for a cause he had a financial stake in, and keeping it secret, and give Moulitsas a pass for keeping similar secrets. Might I ask why? It seems like a partisan excusal to me. Please tell me why it isn’t.
Just in the interest of rare agreement with Mr. Moto, I agree that bloggers who get paid by the people or organizations they write about need to disclose it, completely and explicitly.
I don’t get too worked up about it with Kos, partially because I’ve never gotten the impression that his writing was biased, and partially because he provides about one-one-millionth of the content at his site. But if he’s getting money from the politicians he’s supporting, then he should be clear about it.
Back to the fun.
As I predicted, and as could have been expected, there is a vigorous reaction against John Edwards’ decision not to fire the bloggers - from religious Democrats.
They did. In 2003. Which makes this whole Markos obsession silly.
Really? What did he disclose, then, in 2003?
Wow. A guy who writes for a magazine with a circulation of 20,000 “on a good day” thinks this is a big deal! Sheesh, what a vigorous reaction! You sure were correct, Mr. Moto.
Well, your call. If you want to keep the religious left marginal, keep marginalizing them.
There’s a big difference between marginalizing the religious left, and allowing folks like Donahue and you to create and propigate phony wedge issues like this to sow fear in Democratic candidates. Nearly all on the left who are also religious will duly ignore this.
I’ve searched through all the polling on pollingreport.com that surveyed concerns expressed by voters. When the question is put to people in an opened ended fashion, religion or morals is never nominated as a signficant concern.
Thanks once again very much, however for all your concern about how people on the left might alienate their voters. All your predictions for 2006, based on similarly honest concerns, sure were born out, weren’t they?
Because we don’t know that Moulitsas has a secret of that sort that he’s keeping. How many times do I need to say this?