« The Fraternal Order Birth Effect | Main | This Is What We Should Drown In A Tub? »
June 26, 2006
And Here Comes 2008
Neil's post on Markos seems to have set off something of a clamor, so let me quickly address it. Looking through the e-mails I've gotten, I think folks need to separate between two types of speculation: fair, and unfair. There's no reason to believe Markos is in any way benefitting financially from Jerome's association with Warner. Speculation to the contrary is unfounded, and in my opinion, scurrilous (and those who engage in it are rapscallions and scallywags).
But Neil's actual point seemed sound to me. There's no doubt that Kos views Warner rather warmly. Warner was, after all, the only presidential aspirant afforded the honor of addressing the entire YearlyKos convention (and yes, yes, Gina did much of the scheduling, but I have trouble imaging that Jerome's name didn't open any doors there). I know for a fact that he wasn't the only one who wanted to. Meanwhile, Richardson, Clark, and Vilsack were ghettoized to panels and others simply didn't show. That's a bit odd, is it not? What made Warner more important than Western governor Bill Richardson (our future, according to Markos, is in the West, right?), or former general Wesley Clark?
Maybe nothing. My likeliest guess is that Jerome is simply savvier than the competition and fought to get Warner a prime spot, using his influence and early awareness to secure the position. But there were plenty of places where the other contenders could go, and none were afforded the opportunity. So do spare me indignation over the fact that some folks happened to notice the inequality in pulpit -- it was a tad weird. And it's stranger still because Warner, for all his technocratic charm, tends to disagree with the blogosphere on the few issues it actually is ideological about: censuring Bush, blasting Republicans, withdrawing from Iraq. He's not quite the likeliest choice in town. That doesn't mean he's not Markos's choice, or Jerome's, for perfectly sound reasons. But it's worth pointing out.
Jerome, now, is a consultant. He's a public consultant. His job is to raise the profile of the man who employs him. He's obviously excellent at it. He's possibly a true believer. It's not strange to assume he may have convinced his best friend that Mark Warner is a worthwhile candidate. And so, as the primaries roll gear up, it's worth trying to understand where folks are coming from, and through which prism their punditry should be evaluated. What I've always loved and appreciated about the blogosphere is that there's so little pretense to objectivity, such easy admissions that we support candidates, and believe in policies, and fight for ideals. That makes it a more honest realm than mainstream punditry. Markos is a good guy and a powerfully positive force, but he's as subjective and biased as anyone. Neil, an Edwards supporter, is arguing that that's led him to support a candidate ideologically unsuited to the netroots. That strikes me as a fair point, and one that should be seen as coming from the subjective prism of an Edwards supporter.
Larger point: these are just the opening salvos. As the primaries heat up and allegiances cement, the blogs really will be ripped apart by warring partisans, all the more so if folks refuse to divulge, but nevertheless exhibit, their preferences. My guess is that, going forward, transparency is the best policy, and we'd all be well-served by a willingness to calmly accept (and even respond to) speculation about the thought processes driving our commentary.
Update: Got some better info on how the speakers were chosen here.
June 26, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/5190097
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference And Here Comes 2008:
Comments
Neil, an Edwards supporter, is arguing that that's led him to support a candidate ideologically unsuited to the netroots. That strikes me as a fair point, and one that should be seen as coming from the subjective prism of an Edwards supporter.
He's arguing mor than that, as that point doesn't require reference to Armstrong's problems with the SEC. That makes it look the SEC problem is included simply to unfairly tar Kos with something slimy. That's sad. And, one assumes Niel would argue, should be included in our calculation of how much weight we should give Niel's arguments, now that we know there's a bias towards speciousness.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 26, 2006 12:54:39 PM
Well said, Ezra.
Was it Atrios who posted something not too long ago to the efect that the upcoming political season is going to have significant repercussions in the blogosphere? This seems to be the first case proving his point. Sadly, I doubt it will be the last.
Posted by: fiat lux | Jun 26, 2006 12:55:22 PM
I think he's arguing that Jerome's SEC stuff makes him seem untrustworthy, and if he's got Kos's ear, that's problematic. I don't necessarily aggree with that (as I said, jerome is a *public* consultant, not a secret one), but I see his point.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 12:58:55 PM
Thanks a lot for posting this, Ezra. I agree with it entirely.
Tim, again, the point of bringing up the SEC stuff is that it suggests that Armstrong can be a dangerously unreliable source of information, even to people who are in a trusting relationship with him. Insofar as Kos is influenced by Armstrong (and 'blogfather' is a pretty big word), there's reason to be concerned about decisions and beliefs Kos forms that Armstrong may have influenced.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 26, 2006 1:02:01 PM
I believe Neil was making the point about the SEC in order to illustrate that Jerome had a history of doing stuff like hyping stocks (whether of tech startups or political ones).
As far as Warner's concerned, I fail to see the case for him as a Presidential contender. Yes, he won the VA governorship, and his lieutenant governor managed to succeed him.
To which I say: So what?
Merely managing to win a one-off race in a red state does not extrapolate to managing to win a Presidential election. I'm not slagging him or anything; I'm just pointing out that as far as candidates go, his ascendance is rather unlikely.
Oh, and I'd like to see someone make a case for him that doesn't rely on making the electoral equivalent of a triple-bank-shot in pool.
Posted by: Raf | Jun 26, 2006 1:06:24 PM
On preview: what Ezra and Neil said.
Oh, and it would help if all of the Kos partisans (who are so peeved at Neil for not showing fealty to the One True Kos :-D) really calmed down. No one's trying to take out Kos. All we're asking is that he exercise the same level of transparency that he (self-righteously, at times) demands from everyone else.
Seriously, though, I've got problems with the setup if the one candidate addressing all of Yearly Kos is the one backed by Kos' best blog buddy. Either they all address it equally, or none at all.
Posted by: Raf | Jun 26, 2006 1:13:29 PM
This space for hire. Will comment for Krispy Kremes, Guatemala Antigua beans, and blank CD's.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 26, 2006 1:17:19 PM
Ezra:
Neil did not write this post. He wrote a different one.
This post is very good. I agree with it.
Neil's was a guilt by association smear, apparently unintended.
The reason why Neil caught hell from me is precisely because he did NOT write this post, he wrote what he wrote.
The differences are patent.
I am glad to see that this is what Neil meant. Because it is not what he wrote.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 1:22:49 PM
Though Ezra, I think it is clear that Raf did not understand your post.
Unless I missed something. Ar eyou Ezra saying that transparency was aproblem for Kos? If you did I missed it. And I would ask, what transparency is lacking?
All snark aside, Raf's comment is emblematic of the problem - axes will be ground on posts like Neil's.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 1:25:09 PM
agree entirely ezra, I believe Atrios had a post up a couple months ago about the coming blog wars, though he was alluding to 2008; things have gotten started a lot sooner. One hopes that after the various blogs rip each other to pieces during the primaries they will be able to unite again behind whom ever emerges as the 2008 nominee.
Posted by: Jake | Jun 26, 2006 1:26:32 PM
Ezra, I've yet to see you or anyone else make the case that Moulitsas's support of Warner is somehow atypical. He lead half the blogosphere in attacking NARAL for fighting Jim Langevin's senate run in Rhode Island, and Langevin's weird record of culture war voting hardly makes him the archetypal "netroots" candidate. He's chastised his own readers for criticizing Mary Landrieu on the grounds that any Democrat in Louisiana will have to be a DINO. He's consistently supported the candidates he thinks are most electable, not the candidates he thinks would make the best policy. His animosity for Lieberman isn't due to Lieberman's stance on the war but on his habit of attacking other Democrats. He's always had a soft spot for the New Democrat Network, who are policywise in the same camp as the DLC. His problem with the DLC has always been the frequent attacks its most visible members make on the rest of the party. He wants Democrats to win before he wants them to be right. So what makes his support of a popular, centrist Southern governor so unthinkable?
(Note: I am not a Warner fan, nor an Edwards fan, nor a fan of anyone else who might be conceivably elected president in 2008. I like Russ Feingold, and the day a twice-divorced Jewish Senator from Minnesota gets elected to the president I'll be too busy making snowmen in hell to notice.)
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 1:37:37 PM
And the language used in Neil's original post - asserting that Markos is "just another gullible Bluepoint investor" and that "we ought to be suspicious of pro-Warner comments Kos makes in the future" - was not merely "fair speculation." It was an assertion that Markos's credibility had been obviously damaged, and that we shouldn't trust his advocacy from now on.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 1:43:08 PM
Great post, Ezra. As for the issues being raised, both concerning the relationship between Kos and Armstrong and concerning the relationship between the blogosphere and the establishment, discussing them isn't some radically new idea. Salon published a feature on Armstrong (for which both he and Kos were interviewed) earlier this month, which addressed Kos' perceived flips on Paul Hackett and the DLC after Armstrong's employment by Sherrod Brown and Mark Warner, respectively. And as far back as 2004, Billmon (writing for the LA Times) broached the issue of A-list bloggers "selling out," which was not exactly met with unanimous appreciation then, either.
In that piece, Billmon forecasted, quite correctly, that "If the mainstream media are true to past form, they will treat the A-list blogs -- commercialized, domesticated -- as if they are the entire blogosphere, while studiously ignoring the more eccentric, subversive currents swirling deeper down," which is precisely what we've seen during this whole TNR debacle, even though, as I've pointed out, Kos' "influence and visibility are exactly what makes him perhaps the singularly worst possible exemplar from which to extrapolate details about the rest of us." In light of that, the rest of us who populate the blogosphere do and should have a very keen interest in what our most visible representatives are doing--which is not to suggest we should, as you point out, engage in unfair speculation, but certainly it's not only fair to raise the questions, but in our own best interest, since we are inextricably defined by the A-listers, whether we want to or should be, or not.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jun 26, 2006 1:47:42 PM
IL: You mean a twice-divorced Jewish Senator from Wisconsin.
And just what is it about Warner that makes him so electable, and everyone else less so? You could say that Edwards is just as electable, has more campaign chops, has bigger and better policy chops. What would make Warner a more electable candidate than him?
I'd argue that Warner's been the beneficiary of two less-than-capable GOP candidates for VA Governor: first Mark Earley in '01, and then Jerry Kilgore in '05. Point of fact, almost everyone thought Kilgore was going to beat Kaine and succeed Warner, until Kilgore released a TV ad that claimed that Kaine's opposition to the death penalty would keep him from executing Adolf Hitler. Had Kilgore won, would we be discussing Warner's electability as much?
Full disclosure--I supported Sunshine Johnny in '04, and contributed to his campaign.
Posted by: Raf | Jun 26, 2006 2:00:22 PM
Amen, Shakes.
Posted by: Raf | Jun 26, 2006 2:01:24 PM
which is not to suggest we should, as you point out, engage in unfair speculation, but certainly it's not only fair to raise the questions
What distinction are you delineating here? We shouldn't speculate unfairly, but we should raise fair questions--I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How could they? But we're arguing about whether the claims against Kos are fair or not.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 26, 2006 2:07:26 PM
"I am glad to see that this is what Neil meant. Because it is not what he wrote."
So is Neil still a "piece of crap" and a "slimy idiot", Armando?
Posted by: Petey | Jun 26, 2006 2:19:05 PM
"Amen, Shakes."
Indeed.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 26, 2006 2:22:14 PM
And just what is it about Warner that makes him so electable, and everyone else less so? You could say that Edwards is just as electable, has more campaign chops, has bigger and better policy chops.
Policy chops, as I noted before, don't matter much to Markos. If you're looking for policy at DailyKos, you're barking up the wrong tree - which is just one of the reasons I'm not a regular reader of his site.
As for Warner, he became a hot property after the Virginia governor's election last year, when the conventional wisdom more or less credited him with winning the state for Tim Kaine. Beyond that, he's got better "campaign chops" than Edwards - in that he's won just as many as Edwards has and unlike Edwards he hasn't lost any. He's got governing experience and isn't burdened with a senator's voting record, he's from a southern state that's widely considered winnable, and by all accounts he's fairly popular there. It isn't hard to see how someone making a shallow "electability"-based argument would like him.
I don't, but then again I'm not Markos Moulitsas, and the contention here is that Moulitsas's support of Warner is so uncharacteristic that the likely explanation is either bribery or deception. From what I've read of Kos, that hardly seems the case.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 2:22:48 PM
But we're arguing about whether the claims against Kos are fair or not.
That's not my perception. My perception is that Neil is being accused of making outrageous claims (i.e. unfairly speculating), as opposed to what I believe he did do, which is raise some legitimate concerns (i.e. ask fair questions).
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jun 26, 2006 2:25:51 PM
My perception is that Neil is being accused of making outrageous claims (i.e. unfairly speculating), as opposed to what I believe he did do, which is raise some legitimate concerns (i.e. ask fair questions).
Neil didn't just raise questions. He came to a conclusion: that is, that Kos's comments on Warner shouldn't be taken at face value. The evidence present really isn't strong enough to support that conclusion. That's an unfair claim.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 2:35:00 PM
I'm not sure about that iron. i think he argued that Kos's conclusions about Warner may not have been soundly arrived at, which is arguable in either direction, i think. Certainly Kos seems to think the guy more supportable and electable than I do.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 2:38:09 PM
What's fascinating to me, btw, is that Warner is the sort of candidate the media loves, that Broder will hype. To see them all arriving at his door for such different reasons is pretty funny.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 2:39:16 PM
the contention here is that Moulitsas's support of Warner is so uncharacteristic that the likely explanation is either bribery or deception. From what I've read of Kos, that hardly seems the case.
Well, to be fair, the contention is that it also could be that Kos has been blinded to good common sense because of his friendship.
I believe that Neil raises some good points, but that he does go a bit too far in trying to make the case that Jerome is - or could be - untrustworthy because of the SEC thing. Maybe he's guilty of something. But I have a hard time justifying the idea that we should "excommunicate" him from our "fellowship" based upon poor decisions in the past. Ezra and others have pointed out that Jerome is not doing anything in secret now; in fact, he seems to be performing his duties quite well and quite openly. To forever brand him as untrustworthy is something that conservatives would do, not liberals who believe in the human abilities for redemption and development.
The problem that so many people have with Kos, IMHO, is that he really is what he claims to be: a political novice (though that is changing, of course), a lawyer from Berkeley who wants to get involved and wants to help others get involved as well.
We are used to a certain order in our politics. There's city and countywide politics, where novices can get broken in and the field weeded a bit so that only those who show a certain aptitude can advance. The more one starts to advance, to either higher levels of local politics or statewide offices, then the more money and the more ability to hire handlers who will teach the novice politician how to act, how to speak, what not to say, how to respond and not say anything, how to attack one's opponent, etc. By the time someone starts to run for a federal office, there is a certain way they are expected to speak and act.
Kos and a few other bloggers have burst onto the national political scene without the "benefit" of these consultants and media handlers. Even worse, some of these bloggers, such as Jerome, have become consultants themselves! - taking jobs from such hardworking folk as Bob Shrum, may his name and memory be erased.
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves just how much of the media narrative - which we hate, right? - and how much of the accepted political wisdom - which we hate, right? - we have internalized and still buy into.
The simplest reason for Kos to support Warner is that he thinks Warner is electable. Surely Jerome had a big hand in this, and probably Warner's willingness to hire a blogger as a consultant plays a big part in it as well. We see conspiracies in this because there's always been conspiracies in this type of thing, because that's what Americans are supposed to see in our politics.
As a member of the "reality-based community," I'd rather wait for some actual evidence.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 26, 2006 2:46:01 PM
He came to a conclusion: that is, that Kos's comments on Warner shouldn't be taken at face value.
Actually, what he said was: "We ought to be suspicious of pro-Warner comments Kos makes in the future," based on the possibility that Kos has received bad advice from someone who has a history of giving it.
Aside from semantic distinctions, however, about which we could argue ad infinitum, I find it rather amusing that anyone would get his or her knickers in a twist about the suggestion that we should read something with a critical eye for any reason. Maybe I'm just an intractably hard-assed cynic, but that strikes me as basic common sense from Reading and Information Processing 101.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jun 26, 2006 2:46:09 PM
i think he argued that Kos's conclusions about Warner may not have been soundly arrived at, which is arguable in either direction, i think.
It's entirely possible that Neil's post is just sloppily worded and that he isn't really making the claim he appears to make. But his post really does read like a suggestion to apply extra skepticism to Kos on Warner/Democratic primary stuff, which implies a certain presumption of guilt at work.
To see them all arriving at his door for such different reasons is pretty funny.
Well, sure, but Martin Peretz just endorsed Al Gore, too. If Gore actually does run he'll have the fervent support of TNR and DailyKos. Strange bedfellows is par for the course here.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 2:47:14 PM
Aside from semantic distinctions, however, about which we could argue ad infinitum, I find it rather amusing that anyone would get his or her knickers in a twist about the suggestion that we should read something with a critical eye for any reason. Maybe I'm just an intractably hard-assed cynic, but that strikes me as basic common sense from Reading and Information Processing 101.
Quite so, though it seems that Kos and Jerome are not the ones who have a problem with this. Rather it is their friends and supporters who wish to defend people they like and admire. It's a noble desire, but Kos has said many times that what our side needs is openness, accountability and integrity. I don't think that Jerome or Kos have lost this - at least I see no evidence for it. But those who support them the strongest should be the most vocal about them laying out all the facts of the issue - when they can, of course, considering that there are some things they are barred by law from discussing right now.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 26, 2006 2:50:58 PM
For what it is worth, I read Neil's post as a an attack on Kos. The way it was written, it seemed to suggest tat Kos was hyping Warner solely becasue of Amrstrong. I was surprised, becasue that didn't fit the tone of Neil's writing on this site, but I certianly did get an accusatory tone from what Neil wrote.
Posted by: kevin | Jun 26, 2006 3:02:34 PM
we should read something with a critical eye for any reason. Maybe I'm just an intractably hard-assed cynic, but that strikes me as basic common sense from Reading and Information Processing 101.
So Neil, an Edwards supporter, claims that Jerome's alleged bad actions make Kos's support for Warner suspect. Physician, instead of getting thy knickers in a twist, heal thyself. We're disputing the good faith of Neil's argument, or at least that there is a good basis for the argument. But maybe we're just too cynical.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 26, 2006 3:03:59 PM
you people make the Republicans job easier to do. thx
Posted by: bruh | Jun 26, 2006 3:10:39 PM
"Kos has said many times that what our side needs is openness, accountability and integrity. I don't think that Jerome or Kos have lost this - at least I see no evidence for it."
Markos asking other liberal bloggers to be silent about Jerome's SEC thing isn't, at least, some small bit of evidence?
-----
I agree with you entirely on a philosophical level about openness and sunlight being healthy.
There's a huge amount of smoke here, and folks like Sullentrop and Zengerle are doing us all a service in lifting things up to see if there is any fire underneath, or to see if there isn't any fire.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 26, 2006 3:11:15 PM
Actually, what he said was: "We ought to be suspicious of pro-Warner comments Kos makes in the future," based on the possibility that Kos has received bad advice from someone who has a history of giving it.
Yes, precisely, and mere "possibility" isn't enough to justify an attack on someone's credibility. It was certainly "possible" that John Kerry wounded himself to get out of fighting in Vietnam and that dozens of officers lied to cover up for him at the time. But in general we tend to want more rigorous standards than mere "possibility" before we attempt to discredit what they say.
I find it rather amusing that anyone would get his or her knickers in a twist about the suggestion that we should read something with a critical eye for any reason.
Someone might be inclined to "get his or her knickers in a twist" about the suggestion that extra skepticism be applied to their arguments, especially when that suggestion is couched within the context of a pay-for-play scandal. The subtext here is an attack on Kos's credibility. I don't believe you're really so naive that you don't understand that.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 3:14:46 PM
We're disputing the good faith of Neil's argument, or at least that there is a good basis for the argument.
So, in other words, you're suggesting that Neil's argument should be read with a grain of salt because of possible conflicts of interest (yay you!), even though Neil's argument is that Kos should be read with a grain of salt because of possible conflicts of interest (bad Neil!). Okay, I get it now.
Physician, instead of getting thy knickers in a twist, heal thyself.
I nominate this for Most Tortured Mixed Metaphor of 2006.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jun 26, 2006 3:17:01 PM
Shakes, by your logic, what's wrong with questioning Neil's credibility on the basis of his connections with the Edwards campaign? I'm losing track of whose knickers are meant to be twisted here.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 26, 2006 4:00:53 PM
I don't know if Neil, Ezra and Shakespeare's Sister are trying to be cute or if they really do not get it.
If anyopne thinks Ezra's post resembles Neil's then they either are not being hoinest or are not very discerning.
I understand that froendship with Neil is leading them to be reluctant to criticize what Neil has done, and that is nice of them.
And ironic as all hell.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:11:12 PM
Here is how I see it:
Nominating the correct presidential candidate -- one can both win and proudly implement Democratic policies once elected -- is a critical task for Democrats. Debating the relative merits of the candidates is necessary if we are to make a good selection. Questioning the judgment and biases (within reason) of each candidate's proponents is entirely fair...and a good idea.
Jerome has admitted to accepting compensation to pump worthless stocks. I am perfectly willing to accept that Jerome may have felt compelled to admit to civil violations because he felt unable to properly defend himself. It wouldn't be the first time that someone admitted to doing something wrong that they didn't do. But that doesn't mean that we must assume that is the case.
This is nothing like the swiftboating of Kerry. Kerry never admitted to anything that Corsi & Co. accused him of. Nor is this anything like the Zepyhr incident, which similarly involved creating facts out of thin air. Jerome has admitted to doing this. Neil is well within the boundaries of reasonableness to (a) assume that Jerome did what he admitted to and (b) that he may engage in behavior of a similar (though not exact) nature in the future. If so, that best bud Markos might accept arguments from Jerome that he wouldn't from a neutral person is also not an unreasonable possibility to consider.
It would not surprise me that Markos would support a guy like Warner if he got the nomination. So would I. Just as I would support Bayh or Richardson if they got the nod. But I wouldn't pick any of those three at this point when better Democrats (i.e. more loyal and with better judgment on foreign policy) are still in the running. I said that before I ever heard about Jerome's stock issue. IOW, this is really about finding a possible explanation for apparently odd behavior on Kos' part, not about going out of the way to find a reason to question Kos' judgment.
Posted by: space | Jun 26, 2006 4:11:18 PM
Here from Shake's place...and i want to thank both Neil and Ezra for their commentary here. It's pretty well insane to think that an SEC indictment doesn't create credibility issues, and how YK is one possible fallout.
However, i tend to think that it's one of the less important ones. Kos, as pointed out here, is famously non-idealogical...and that's problematic for me. Simply, he throws progressives under the bus for the win. My apologies to the such folks, but I don't know that i can call y'all friends if you think selling out my interests is a good idea.
The biggest implication of this case is how we want to operate our side of the discussion. SEC charges are, to put it midly, serious. Under the rug disposal should not be an option for us, and it's sad to see so many taking that route.
Posted by: sly civilian | Jun 26, 2006 4:14:55 PM
"I don't know if Neil, Ezra and Shakespeare's Sister are trying to be cute or if they really do not get it."
Are Ezra and Shakes "pieces of crap" and a "slimy idiots" too, Armando?
Posted by: Petey | Jun 26, 2006 4:17:36 PM
Petey:
Nope that would be just you.
I see where you missed where Neil agreed with Ezra's sentiments in this post.
Are you prepared to endorse this post Petey? Of course not Petey.
Because, to paraphrase the original Tom Kean, False smears and Petey - perfect together.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:21:15 PM
"It's pretty well insane to think that an SEC indictment doesn't create credibility issues"
Generally those credibility issues are limited to the persons actually indicted.
Apparently, in this new brave world, it extends beyond that.
Remarkable.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:23:09 PM
I associate myself with this-
"Jason Zengerle concedes that, as rumored in the blogofascistsphere over the weekend, the email he attributed to Steve Gilliard was inauthentic. He then pleads that we not "use this minor error to distract people from much larger issues," namely:
Armstrong's troubles with the SEC; Armstrong's relationship with Moulitsas and Moulitsas's pattern of supporting politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant; Moulitsas's attempts to silence liberal bloggers from commenting on these matters; the seeming acquiescence of so many of these liberal bloggers (including Greenwald) to Moulitsas's demands; and now, strangely, stuff like this.
I have to say that I don't understand this at all. Frankly, I think Markos' views on Mark Warner are wrongheaded and I've said so in the past. That said, I have yet to see Zengerle or anyone else adduce a shred of evidence that Markos took money from the Warner campaign, that Markos took money from Jerome Armstrong, or that Markos threatened or otherwise "silenced" liberal bloggers.
Rather, what appears to be the case is that Markos and Jerome, coauthors of a book on American politics, tend to have similar views about American politics. Zengerle's theory about the Liberal Advertising Network being used as a tool of intimidation was totally ridiculous and he never had a shred of evidence to back it up. Markos asked that people not respond to the story, and people respected his request. Quel horreur! Meanwhile, Jerome . . . what, exactly? Has wacky views on astrology? Appears to have committed unrelated financial misdeeds in the past?
Where's the beef in these charges? The evidence? Anything? Or is the idea that Markos should just operate under a presumption of guilt?
--Matthew Yglesias"
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:35:49 PM
First, I want to thank Ezra, Shakes, space, and others for correctly interpreting what I'm saying.
Second, I'd like to ask Armando to explain what exactly in my post is outside the space of argument that Ezra has established. I think that Armando misunderstood my argument from the beginning, felt some outrage (which would have been warranted if I'd been arguing what he thought I was arguing), and is now trying to justify attitudes he held while he was mistakenly outraged. To which I say -- don't worry, man, this happens.
I should add that I agree with everything Armando cited Yglesias as saying, and that there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between it and what I've posted.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 26, 2006 5:31:43 PM
Riiight Neil.
Listen I'll take it.
We agree. My apologies.
No more equating Markos with SEC violations, deal?
No more feeding the Right Wing beast - we on the same page.
No more inflammatory setups that smear people's integrity - right?
Ok, I apologize for misunderstanding your nuanced and subtle point - caveat lector - it was made so well.
Apologies are difficult you are right. so I'll apologize to you.
All better?
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 5:35:56 PM
Neil:
I agree with MY's post, too. But I certainly wouldn't have expected you to do so, given your post. I think most of the people reacting would find your agreement with MY surprising as well. (But entirely of a piece with the fairness that you normally exhibit in posts and comments.)
Jeebus, Armando, are you personally charged with tending the reputation of lawyers as dicks?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 26, 2006 5:45:02 PM
I understand that froendship [sic] with Neil is leading them to be reluctant to criticize what Neil has done, and that is nice of them.
Hmm...I'm wanting to say, "Don't be an ass; if you'd ever read my blog, you'd realize that neither being nice nor not playing with matches near my bridges are not among my fortes," but I'd better wait and see if that's okay with Ezra and Neil before I do.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Jun 26, 2006 5:49:07 PM
Sakes' Sis
You just blew away your own "lacking discretion" hypothesis.
Posted by: opit | Jun 26, 2006 6:12:40 PM
Generally those credibility issues are limited to the persons actually indicted. Apparently, in this new brave world, it extends beyond that.
You played the McCarthyist card in the last thread and now it's Orwellian too. All that's left are to call the criticism a high-tech lynching and a Swift Boating.
Is stock touting a serious offense, Armando? Should Armstrong have put Dean's 2004 candidacy at risk with his involvement in the campaign? Should he be running a PAC?
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 26, 2006 6:40:50 PM
Rogers:
It is a serious charge. IT is a charge made against Jerome Armstrong. NOT Markos Moulitsas.
It is not my decision what roles Jerome Armstrong should be playing.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 8:01:30 PM
"False smears and Petey - perfect together."
I'm honestly curious, Armando - what do you think I've said today that is a "false smear"?
I'm trying pretty hard not to overstate the case, and I'm curious where you think I'm doing so.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 26, 2006 8:17:20 PM
"It is not my decision what roles Jerome Armstrong should be playing."
I'm aware of that, but you've been one of the best known diarists in the Daily Kos community. The stock touting allegations are serious, and they reflect on the people, sites and groups with which Armstrong has been strongly identified.
Kos is clearly trying to dodge the stock stuff, which reflects poorly on him.
To me, the choice here is between loyalty and accountability. When I see liberals like Atrios choosing loyalty, it makes me question the commitment of the so-called "netroots" to getting rid of the corruption in D.C.
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 26, 2006 8:30:50 PM
I nominate this for Most Tortured Mixed Metaphor of 2006.
too late, Brooks already sewed that up with his venomous rabid lambs....
personally, I think Armando has this right. But according to you, we're supposed to suspect Jerome because of his relationship with Warner. We're supposed to suspect Kos because of his relationship with Jerome. But we aren't allowed to suspect Neil, who would like nothing better than to make Warner disappear from the Presidential race in order to enhance Edward's chances, nor can we suspect Ezra despite his friendship with Neil...
....and we can't suspect Shakes, despite her previous crusades against the oppression of A-List bloggers...
Sorry Shakes, you can't have it both ways.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 26, 2006 8:43:32 PM
To me, the choice here is between loyalty and accountability. When I see liberals like Atrios choosing loyalty, it makes me question the commitment of the so-called "netroots" to getting rid of the corruption in D.C.
and when I see one of Matt Drudge's editors posting on a progressive website attacking the premiere progressive bloggers while trying to present himself as an arbiter of ethics, I feel like vomiting.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 26, 2006 8:48:49 PM
DOH... I need to read more closely...
Cadenshead is not employed by "the drudge report", he's involved with "the drudge retort". my apologies.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 26, 2006 8:54:00 PM
If the charges against Armstrong are serious, then i think it is important to ask if kos knew about them when setting up blogpac etc. I think that goes directly to his judgement. kos directly asked his readers to contribute to blogpac possibly knowing someone with serious charge of a financial nature was sitting on the board - yet never informed his readers.
Do you think that is information potential donors should or should not know ?
As for the "candidate touting" naive at best to think no one would perceive anything untoward, and the manner it has been dealt with has been very poor. Someone didnt read crisis management 101 and as a consequence confidence in donating money to netroots candidates is bound to have been damaged and credibility of the left wing blogs jeopardized.
Posted by: Pounder | Jun 26, 2006 10:43:41 PM
"....and we can't suspect Shakes"
Suspect me. I am very suspicious. Wow, we drew Lukasiak and armando. I better go hide.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 26, 2006 11:09:57 PM
The Swiftboating of Kos ...Billmon of Whiskey Bar
I don’t know, man, there is so much trenchant analysis and vicious snark that I hardly know where to begin. Enough quotable lines to serve me for months. I felt like a kid in a candy store. Just the finish:
"Whether the grown ups (Peretz, Lieberman, Hillary) actually set the Swiftboat in motion, or just watched approvingly ("Who shall rid us of this meddlesome blogger?") as their hatchet boys did what comes natural, is almost irrelevant. The important thing to understand is that we have reached the point where the Dinos and their media allies are willing to use Rovian tactics against anyone who challenges their entrenched position -- even someone like Kos, who is hardly the second coming of Henry Wallace or George McGovern.
Whether that's good or bad for the Kossaks I don't know -- I suppose it depends on how much credence you give to Gandhi's old saw: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." In the real world -- and in imperial America, too -- the truth is that sometimes they ignore you, then ridicule you, then fight you and crush you like an overripe eggplant. We'll see if that's true this time. Either way, though, it looks like the battle between the netroots and dino Dems is going to get very down and dirty indeed." ...Billmon
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 26, 2006 11:35:08 PM
Apparently, what happens in Vegas DOESN'T stay in Vegas...
Zengerle's theory about the Liberal Advertising Network being used as a tool of intimidation was totally ridiculous and he never had a shred of evidence to back it up. Markos asked that people not respond to the story, and people respected his request.
Matt's first sentence summed up Zengerle's sin perfectly, The second sentence should be modified to say "Markos asked a few people" which would better advance Matt's point. How many people were on that email list? Do they really represent the blogosphere? The highest trafficked progressive blogs? Who or how many? Zengerle caught hell, I bet, from far more bloggers than Kos communicated with, precisely because there's thousands of progressive bloggers that Kos does not speak with or for, so the assertion Zengerle made was not just unsupported, but is practically almost impossible to do.
Kos apparently made a suggestion. Most on the list apparently agreed with him. That's a whole different dynamic than Kos playing dictator or the others acting as servants or even co-conspirators. They likely just are media savvy and are capable of choosing not to let political enemies control the spin.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Jun 26, 2006 11:41:05 PM
As regards Jerome, I think it unfair that Kos should be criticized for ANYTHING Jerome's done prior to their partnering years later. I also happen to think it's patently unfair (but typical, politically) to invest much effort in attacking Jerome about an event he legally can't respond to or explain.
In the frenzy of the daytrading in the tech bubble era, I witnessed many, many amateurs make numerous mistakes that technically violated some rule. I also saw clear indications that, if the SEC were acting evenhandedly, nearly every major brokerage house would have been sanctioned for all kinds of touting and insiderism.
Big touts (anyone ever hear of Tokyo Joe?) were brought down. The initial appearances of Jerome's violation suggests he was a minnow singled out in a pool of sharks. Did he cross the line unknowingly? Did he tout first, then got offered compensation to conduct PR for a company he thought was legit? For now, we can only speculate, and I prefer to withhold judgment on that point.
OTOH, I do think his astrological stuff is pretty kooky, and I'll judge that now, per my own beliefs. But that also is Jerome's stuff, not anything Markos should be held responsible for.
On Warner: it wasn't just his winning that merits our consideration but what he got accomplished while dealing with a Republican legislature. Just as I knew during the Dukakos convention that Clinton would be a leading candidate in '92, I felt Dean would do so long before many in the netroots fully recognized him, and I believe the same of Warner, now. In fact, he and Edwards are the ONLY two Dems from the South that I'd even consider in 2008. I would have considered Bill Richardson till the news came yesterday that he's backing a newly approved nuke plant in his state. ( And, no, I'm not ruling out Gore; I just don't believe he's a Southerner anymore).
I think Warner was a better governor than Clinton was. Yeah, he may have been granted special consideration in Vegas, but this far in advance, that really doesn't matter, imo. What all the potential candidates do in the next 14 months will have far more influence on their viability in 2008.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Jun 27, 2006 12:09:09 AM
It is becoming more obvious that there are many pundits who see political blogs as threats to their livelihood. We on this blog have already discussed the small circulation of various political magazines; indeed the number of people that faithfully read even syndicated columnists in national newspapers is much smaller than the shrinking circulation of the newspapers themselves.
And then DailyKos has a "circulation" of several million, with other sites like Eschaton, MyDD, Hullaballoo boasting fairly large readership as well. This blog, I suspect, is read by several people who are in either opinion or policy shaping positions, unfortunately not due to my brilliant analysis, but the value of its proprietor's insights.
Ahem.
This is not "blog triumphalism." It's recognition that something serious is going on, something that various entrenched interests in the Democratic party understand and rightly fear.
And when we start to buy into the idea that of course whatever allegations are facing Jerome Armstrong are very serious and throw into doubt the judgment of every single person who has ever done business with him, or has known him in a friendly way, we become water-carriers for those who think that the direction of the Democratic party for the last 20 years has been just fine, because it is a direction that keeps them on the "inside" and laughing all the way to the bank.
Very few people know what the hell is actually going on with Jerome right now, because it is being litigated. What you think you know, while it may prove ultimately to be true, is unfounded.
Remember, this whole kerfluffle was started by a guy who was burned by his "source" and who has chosen to defend and protect someone that lied to him over pursuing the truth. Or, what I believe to be more likely, his contempt for the intellectual ability of bloggers led him to think that he could just make stuff up without consequence.
Those that are calling for skepticism, transparency and a critical eye toward the most prominent - well, really, all - liberal bloggers should remember that there is a difference between that and assuming the worst about someone - regardless of whatever one might think of Kos, Atrios, et. al. personally.
Ultimately, this isn't about Jerome Armstrong, or Markos Moulitsas, or Neil, Armando, Shakes or the newest, littlest blogger out there. It's about the way in which we are going to treat people, whether we are going to act with integrity, according to what we, as progressives, say are our principles. These principles must be unchanging and applied to everyone, whether we like them or not.
I would hope that all of us could agree that we are at an important point for not only the idea of "blogs," but for our nation and its political process. At the very least, these blogs have increased political understanding and involvement. They could be much more, if we don't lose sight of our priorities.
I'm not calling for some mushy group hug where we all promise blind loyalty to one another. But I would hope that we can do a better job of fighting the battles that we need to fight.
And allowing a liar like Zengerle to throw us into an all-out war is not a battle we need to fight, people.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 27, 2006 12:37:01 AM
"Very few people know what the hell is actually going on with Jerome right now, because it is being litigated."
It's been settled since December 2003.
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 27, 2006 1:46:08 AM
It's been settled since December 2003.
Jerome's involvement in the case has been settled...contingent upon his co-operation in the prosecution of the larger case against the real con artists involved. Unless you have information that the entire case has been settled, once again you are blowing smoke.
Now that Jerome has the means to afford adequate representation, its entirely possible that his co-operation with the prosecutors in the case against Mankow et al will result in an amended plea deal that will allow Jerome to spell out precisely what happened -- or that court documents/testimony in the larger case will allow Jerome's story to be told far more accurately and fairly than people like yourself want it to be.
btw, Rogers, are you on the Townhouse listserv? Were you one of his "sources" who confirmed (or provided) the phony Gilliard e-mail? Just asking, since Zengerle pointed out you lament in having "Drudge Retort" thrown out of the Advertising Liberally network -- and he did his best to imply that it was your failure to march in ideological lockstep with Kos that caused the split (when, in fact, it was purely a business decision to include only "blogs" identifiable as such in the network -- a fact that you didn't bother to mention in your "lament.")
Just asking, because you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to dig up dirt on Jerome -- is this whole thing about vengeance?
*********************
Kos apparently made a suggestion. Most on the list apparently agreed with him. That's a whole different dynamic than Kos playing dictator or the others acting as servants or even co-conspirators.
it is vital to keep in mind why Kos did what he did. The New York Times blogger Chris Sullentrop did a smear job on Jerome, which was followed up by a story in the New York Post. Two participants in the Townhouse list (Greenwald and Slate?) both suggested that Jerome needed to get out in front of the story, and respond to the attacks.
Kos responded the way he did because under the terms of his plea deal, Jerome is unable to discuss the case in any manner that suggests that he was not guilty of the violations of which he was accused, nor could he have "third parties" do so on his behalf, without voiding the plea deal.
In other words, Kos wasn't volunteering a suggestion that Jerome's legal troubles be covered up, he was making it clear to the list that no response was possible at that time -- and that under the circumstances it was best to not engage in idle speculation to which no response could be given.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 27, 2006 8:44:40 AM
Kos is clearly trying to dodge the stock stuff, which reflects poorly on him.
puhleez. Kos cannot raise any kind of adequate defense of Jerome without jeopardizing the terms of Jerome's plea arrangement -- a fact of which you are well aware, but keep trying to hide from readers....
....this level of intellectual dishonesty strongly suggests that you are engaged in a personal vendetta against Jerome and Kos because "Drudge Retort" was thrown out of "advertizing liberally" when they changed their business model.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 27, 2006 8:51:06 AM
btw, Rogers, are you on the Townhouse listserv? Were you one of his "sources" who confirmed (or provided) the phony Gilliard e-mail?
No to both questions.
Just asking, since Zengerle pointed out you lament in having "Drudge Retort" thrown out of the Advertising Liberally network -- and he did his best to imply that it was your failure to march in ideological lockstep with Kos that caused the split (when, in fact, it was purely a business decision to include only "blogs" identifiable as such in the network -- a fact that you didn't bother to mention in your "lament.")
At the time I wrote that, Chris Bowers had ignored several e-mails in which I asked about my ouster, so I couldn't pass along his reasoning.
Just asking, because you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to dig up dirt on Jerome -- is this whole thing about vengeance?
I dug into his stock postings because I wanted to see if the tout allegations were legit.
You can keep attacking me for looking critically into this, as Armando as done to Neil, but that just seems like an implicit acknowledgement that there's no real defense for his actions. I think you'll find that we're not the only people who expect some accountability here, in and out of the Kos community.
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 27, 2006 10:01:11 AM
I think you'll find that we're not the only people who expect some accountability here, in and out of the Kos community.
hopefully, you are the only two who are demanding "accountability" from someone who is legally enjoined from defending himself. Stalin would be quite proud of you.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 27, 2006 11:04:24 AM
Rogers:
Please don't lie about me. You write:
"You can keep attacking me for looking critically into this, as Armando as done to Neil . . ."
I attacked no one for looking critically into anything. I attacked Neil for attacking Markos becuse of Jerome's situation with the SEC.
Neil acted UNcritically and falsely smeared Markos. I think my comments looked critically into Neil's poor post.
And I have been attacked for that by you, Petey, Ezra, Shakes Sis, etc.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 27, 2006 11:25:48 AM
As I said, there doesn't seem to be a real defense for his stock activities.
That's a shame, but it demonstrates something that grows more abundantly clear by the day -- neither Kos nor the people close to him are prepared for the role in which you've been thrust by the growing public prominence of the "netroots" movement.
For all of your time in the limelight and the $15 grand a week ad revenues of Daily Kos, netroots leaders are still naifs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kos doesn't even appear to have hired a publicist who could help him weather PR debacles like this Armstrong situation and get some of his own spin out there in response.
And you're the folks who are going to roll the Democratic establishment if they don't get out of your way?
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 27, 2006 1:01:13 PM
As I said, there doesn't seem to be a real defense for his stock activities.
That's a shame, but it demonstrates something that grows more abundantly clear by the day -- neither Kos nor the people close to him are prepared for the role in which you've been thrust by the growing public prominence of the "netroots" movement.
For all of your time in the limelight and the $15 grand a week ad revenues of Daily Kos, netroots leaders are still naifs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kos doesn't even appear to have hired a publicist who could help him weather PR debacles like this Armstrong situation and get some of his own spin out there in response.
And you're the folks who are going to roll the Democratic establishment if they don't get out of your way?
Rogers,
I wasn't sure what to think of you until I saw this. If this is how you actually believe, then you are an idiot, regardless of whatever Kos or Jerome may or may not have done.
Yes, Kos is a "naif." And your response is that of the entrenched consultant/pundit class: get that man a publicist and turn him into one of us as soon as possible!
American politics would be well served if there were more "naifs" and fewer slicked-out, media-savvy, managed "personalities" out there, using thousands of words to say nothing at all, dwelling on minutiae like how many nights Bill and Hillary are spending together instead of the thousands of American troops who have died, or the billions of dollars still unaccounted for in Iraq, or the NSA spying, or whether Bush needs to follow laws he has signed - should I go on?
Kos may be the world's biggest asshole. Lots of people sure seem to want that to be true. Jerome may be as crooked as Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers. Again, there are quite a few who seem to be quite invested in the idea that he is. Personally, I think it is schadenfreude of the basest, most petty sort.
But whatever one thinks of Kos and Jerome, or whatever might be the truth, the absolute, undeniable reality of the situation is that there are thousands of people who are involved in the political process - volunteers, candidates, consultants - who owe that to Kos and Jerome.
That is what the progressive movement needs. Not more well-coiffed, coached, substance-less talking heads who refuse to say anything of value out of fear that the "other side" might somehow attack it.
I guess to sum it up, Rogers, your attitude does more damage to progressive causes than a thousand Asshole Kos's and Stock-Touting Jeromes ever could.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 27, 2006 1:22:08 PM
Rogers:
Who the hell are you addressing with that?
It is not my business to manage PR for Jerome Armstrong and it is not Markos' business either.
You have something to say about Jerome Armstrong, then say it, but make sure you tell the truth. You are having trouble with that right now.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 27, 2006 1:47:34 PM
I think that's a huge misread of his goals. Kos has said a bajillion times that he belongs to the wing of the Democratic Party that's fed up with losing. You can see in his endorsements that pragmatic concerns about electability override ideological purity.
You may not like it, but in today's politics, if you can't spin, you can't win. Look at how often Congressional Democrats flounder under the coordinated GOP message machine.
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 27, 2006 1:49:58 PM
You have something to say about Jerome Armstrong, then say it, but make sure you tell the truth. You are having trouble with that right now.
If you're going to call me a liar, identify what I've said about Armstrong that's factually untrue.
Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Jun 27, 2006 1:51:34 PM
Rogers:
You make my point. I have not said that you said anyhting untruthful about Armstrong. I said that Armstrong's problems have nothing to do with Markos despite the insistence of you, Neil and others.
That is the lying I am referring to.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 27, 2006 2:43:09 PM
Just a bit of background -
The Zengerle story was launched by the Suellentrop piece in the NYT which originally relied in part on false information posted by "Petey" on another blog. As the media coordinator for YearlyKos, I requested and received a very solid correction of that information by the NYT and now Ezra has also posted a correction as a later post here.
The reliance on unsourced and un-checked "information" - esp "information" from parties with a dog in the fight be it animus toward Markos or something else - in this whole uproar is a very good lesson in how far journalistic ethics have fallen.
Stephen's comment about our internalizing of the media message is very important and should be noted. It's fascinating to see so many jumping to the tune of the smear campaign - for that is what this is - rather than considering what and why is driving this story. With CTG and YKOS making a big impression beyond the blogosphere, the powers that be are hitting back - and it seems that many here are very willing to add their weight to that hit.
Are there questions about Jerome's past - seems so - and I'm sure they will be addressed when and as they can be. But the point of the attack is not to hurt Jerome, it's to hurt Markos as the representative face of the blogoshere. We may all understand that identifying Markos as "the blogosphere" is a sign of how much "they" don't get it - and we may have varying personal opionions about Markos (I like him but disagree with him on a bunch of stuff) - but the apparent willingness to ignore what is really going on here - a serious attempt to discredit the blogosphere - shows that a lot of "us" need to learn a bit more about how the game is played.
The best responses to this whole thing have come from the wide array of blog readers who have fought back with humor and baaa's and gone on with their work to change the political discourse in this country - they understand that our work is not dependent on or dimished by either the possible flaws of one person or the approval of the big boys.
Posted by: siun | Jun 27, 2006 3:34:44 PM
Some one believed Petey about kos? No they didn't. Suellentrop has his own axes to grind. The New York Times didn't write a story.
Chris Suellentrop reran the same BS one he wrote when he worked at Slate.
Except he added Jerome's SEC troubles.
This whole episode was a joke.
And Neil was blinded by his pasion for Edwards and did what he did. I hope he regrets it and doesn't do it again.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 27, 2006 3:43:31 PM
Basically it seems one of the problems with the "new media" is that anyone can hide behind a false label whether it is an anonymous like me here or some snappy meaningless name as others use, build a false identity, and parade themselves as what they want. And then sometimes they can potentially move on from this to be actively involved in campaigning. To be perfectly frank I am quite horrified that someone who was under SEC investigation was at the same time working as a paid adviser to who was at the time a potential president. What were they thinking? Whatever it was it wasnt anything to do with furthering a cause. If there is no trust on the internet in even who a person is, there sure are going to be all kinds of allegations and suspicions cast around, and in the already shady world of politics this will be even worse. It also will not be helped by one of the few who have progressed having made serious errors of judgement in being part of a campaign while under investigation.
Posted by: anonymous | Jun 28, 2006 4:33:46 AM
[Y]ou are the only two who are demanding "accountability" from someone who is legally enjoined from defending himself.
To be fair, Armstrong agreed to that term. When prosecutors ask for something like that, often there is a good reason.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | Jun 28, 2006 2:48:21 PM
To be fair, Armstrong agreed to that term. When prosecutors ask for something like that, often there is a good reason.
prosecutors get what they can from defendants. Armstrong was in no position financially to take on the SEC (unlike the real con men in the case, whose case has yet to be settled.... it takes a lot of money for lawyers to keep the case against them from going to trial.)
Here's the thing. I was arrested once, because I witnessed cops hassling and then arresting some drag queens, and I gave one of the drag queens my phone number. I was charged with obstruction the police -- and I was innocent, because nothing I did obstructed what they were doing. The cops knew they didn't have a case against me, but they also wanted me to keep my mouth shut, so they refused to drop the charges. Since the cost of defending myself was beyond my means (and because I wasn't quite indigent enough to qualify for a public defender) I wound up pleading guilty in exchange for having my record expunged after a couple of years of good behavior -- which included keeping my mouth shut about what I had witnessed.
So I KNOW from personal experience what its like to be innocent, but plead guilty and agree to keep my mouth shut, simply because of a lack of money to "fight city hall."
That's why I'm so adamant in my insistence that we not judge Armstrong until he is free to speak about the case. He's been silenced, and idiots like Cadenshead and Neil and Brooks and Ezra have exploited that forced silence to attack Jerome to advance their own agendas.
Screw all of them.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | Jun 28, 2006 8:38:26 PM
"The Zengerle story was launched by the Suellentrop piece in the NYT which originally relied in part on false information posted by "Petey" on another blog. As the media coordinator for YearlyKos"
Well, "siun", even if we postulate that your protestations about Markos not being personally involved with the scheduling of yKos are utterly and completely true, that doesn't affect my initial point in the slightest.
You pretend I made a more specific and extensive claim than I actually did in order to deny it.
"With CTG and YKOS making a big impression beyond the blogosphere, the powers that be are hitting back"
I'm not a "power that be". Neither is Rogers, I would guess. I'm sure it's very convenient for you personally to ascribe blame to Markos' critics rather than Markos, no matter what has actually transpired. But that's mostly of use to you personally, not the left in general.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 29, 2006 6:26:06 AM
And I notice you avoided my question, Armando.
You claim I'm guilty of "false smears". I asked you politely what they were.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 29, 2006 6:29:20 AM
Petey,
You've been smearing Kos since before it went onto the Scoop platform.
Get back in your bottle.
Posted by: RedDan | Jun 30, 2006 2:12:32 AM
And just to spread some of the nasty vibes around, Armando, I wanted to tell you two things:
1) Your response to Neil was unjustified. Yes, Neil's post was not very good, yes, Neil did not bother to fully read through or think through the issue before posting, and yes, Neil should retract it and apologize for the guilt-by-association...but your vitriol toward him was over the top and not helpful. Sometimes backing off gives people more room to review and retract.
2) Compare your extremely angry response to Neil's post with your pussycat "Gee I'm sorry" response to Josh Trevino in that thread over at Swords Crossed.
Trevino is driving a lot of this hit job, and you know it.
Trevino has had a massive grudge against Kos since LONG before Kos "got big" and you know it.
Trevino blatantly cherrypicked his "datapoints" in trying to show that Kos was being dishonest in his highlighting of Chelsea Green's "Unembedded" and was somehow giving special favors to Chelsea Green in return for Publishing Kos' book. Never mind that Chelsea Green was highlighted on the site LONG before CTG was even an idea, much less an actual book...you remember? Lakoff was published by Chelsea Green, right?
Trevino explicitly equated Kos with the head of the John Birch Society, and explicitly implied that everyone who posts over there a cultist metrosexual freak.
And the best you can do is that puffery over at swords crossed?
And yet you absolutely lambaste Neil, swearing, cursing, yelling, and being totally nasty?
Not cool, Armando.
Posted by: RedDan | Jun 30, 2006 2:26:36 AM
Dan:
Since I have spent a year chastising Trevino on Kos you should rethink your comment.
At Swords Crossed, I ripped Leon but good.
Swords Crossed requires civility and no profanity. I abided by the site rules.
Do your homework before you chastise me next time.
No cool Dan.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 30, 2006 3:01:56 AM
You backed off completely, Armando.
Yes, you ripped Leon, and rightly so.
And your initial critique of Trevino was fine...but I was surprised and a bit saddened by the speed with which you backed away from what was a very reasonable critique when challenged directly by Trevino.
All I am saying is that if you are willing to be that gracious to Trevino, why are you not willing to be that gracious to Neil...conversely, if you are going to give Neil the gears with no mercy, then you should be willing and able to do the same to Trevino...with or without profanity.
Just sayin.
Posted by: RedDan | Jun 30, 2006 3:26:32 AM
That's why I'm so adamant in my insistence that we not judge Armstrong until he is free to speak about the case. He's been silenced....
I'm sorry that you had such a miserable experience with the law.
I have had cars that stopped working. But that doesn't mean that when I see a car, I assume it won't work. The SEC is not in the habit of targeting people for no good reason. If there were some reason to believe that the SEC was out of line in pursuing Armstrong, I'd be all ears. But that's not the case, so far as we know.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | Jun 30, 2006 12:30:30 PM
I backed off nothing. Trevino thought I was accusing him of some type of clinical obsessiveness.
I made clear that I was referring to blogging obsessiveness.
I made clear that Trevino's post was ridiculous.
And let us be clear, Leon posted the piece at Swords Crossed, not Trevino.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 30, 2006 5:41:40 PM
And Red Dan:
I apologized to Neil and Ezra privately.
But if you want me to make a big show of it, I can do it here.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 30, 2006 5:42:35 PM
Armando,
Fair enough. No need for a show trial or anything of the sort.
Posted by: RedDan | Jun 30, 2006 9:40:23 PM
"I guess to sum it up, Rogers, your attitude does more damage to progressive causes than a thousand Asshole Kos's and Stock-Touting Jeromes ever could"
Actually, Kos stating "Screw Them" about murdered American contractors does more damage to progressive causes than the unknown Rogers. Markos and Jerome both think they can hide behind their keyboards and change the world, but their lightning quick insults and accusations only allow themselves to become bigger targets. Like Armando.
Posted by: christian | Aug 16, 2006 2:12:42 PM
There are some silly comments here. Oh well at least people are speaking out..
Posted by: Kay Thomas | Aug 9, 2007 8:12:33 AM
