And how many times do I have to say it:
We know he took money from congressional candidates in the 2004 election. We do not know which ones, and we do not know whether those candidates were subsequently endorsed on his blog.
Exactly. Thanks.
I think where we are, Mr. Moto, is that you feel that absence of evidence implies guilt. I don’t.
No.
Where I am is the general view that in politics, more transparency is generally better. Since Moulitsas’ business dealings are not transparent, I have a problem with them.
Umm, dude?
Most businesses’ business dealings aren’t transparent. Welcome to the world.
Maybe we should require transparency of any business that takes out political ads in the papers? Just wondering.
Why do you give two shits about whether a liberal website reveals everything about its business dealings to its readers? I seriously doubt that you are a regular reader or that you would have your vote swayed by anything Kos has to say.
I am a regular reader of Kos, and 1) I don’t believe he’s done anything particularly nefarious, and 2) I’m not at all concerned that his endorsements have been swayed by contributions.
Same reason you gave two shits when the Armstrong Williams scandal broke, and commented about it here.
C’mon. That’s a pretty dumb thing to say.
And I don’t think there’s anything nefarious, either, about taking money from people you’re touting. It just seems to be a strange thing to hide. Keeping it aboveboard keeps appearances clear, and people can evaluate things fairly.
Armstrong Williams wasn’t touting an individual, he was on the government payroll spouting government propaganda while in the guise of an independent reporter.
Your attempt to portray the two circumstances as equivalent is nothing short of hardened partisan nonsense, and right now I’m having a hard time even recalling how you introduced Kos into this discussion of John Edwards and his floorplan.
Because someone complained about a blogger who was working for the McCain camp without disclosing that.
Sauce for the goose, and all of that.
The comment about McCain’s blogger was that the person is a religious troglodyte.
You may sauce your gander with that, if you wish.
Frankly, I don’t care who’s payroll any particular blogger is on. Their words can stand on their own. We need less campaign finance regulation, not more. I don’t want to see Bloggers having to register with the government and jump through a bunch of hoops before they can speak.
Who did that? I missed it.
It still seems to be that your sole counter to the multiple proven offenses on the GOP side (Armstrong Williams, Patrick Hynes) is the hypothetical possibility of an offense on the part of Moulitsas a few years back.
I’m not exactly awed. But if you want to keep on flogging this dead horse, go right ahead.
I don’t know why you continue to say he hid the fact. It wasn’t hidden. Besides, he’s not a journalist.
Blogs are a fuzzy area anyway because so many people are involved. How do you know who’s even posting at a blog? Half the posts at any blog could very well be paid staff of a candidate posting a lot of positive things, or something negative about another candidate.
Sorry if this has already been posted here, but I just found this article with the following quote from Edwards:
Umm, yikes?
The quote is not clearly cited, however. Anyone know if this quote can be confirmed?
-FrL-
Try here, the Herzliya Conference on Policy and Strategy in Israel. Could be seen as pandering to the audience, I suppose, but in context he’s clearly referring to a threat to Israel, not to the US.
Yeahbut, he’s talking about going after iran, “educating” the american people to get them to “go along” with it, equating intelligence with “trusting the president…”
-FrL-
Still to an Israeli audience.
I don’t understand your point.
What’s the relevance of who the audience was in this case?
-FrL-