Jason Zengerle of The New Republic is really starting to piss me off. He is on the warpath to embarass anyone associated with Jerome Armstrong, including Markos and Chris Bowers. First Roddy Boyd of the Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post revealed that Armstrong had made some kind of deal with the SEC over allegations that he had acted “as a shill for a worthless dot-com stock.” None of us in the blogosphere had any way to assess the truth of his allegations, nor could we know why Jerome allegedly took a deal rather than fight the charges. All we knew was that Jerome was quoted in the article:
Armstrong denied to The Post that he did anything wrong and said the SEC made a mistake in charging him. “This was a long time ago and I settled the case without admitting or denying guilt, and I paid no fine,” said Armstrong, who refused to comment further.
Armstrong signed off on a settlement of the charges on Dec. 16, 2003, barring him from touting securities. In addition, Armstrong agreed never to deny any of the SEC charges. It was not immediately known if his statement to The Post denying guilt would violate the settlement agreement.
Provided that Jerome was quoted accurately and that Boyd had his facts right, it was immediately apparent that Jerome was contrained by the deal from defending himself. While it was obvious that the charges were unseemly, it was also obvious that Jerome was being attacked by a Murdoch outlet and he couldn’t say much in his defense. It was also obvious that the reason for raising these allegations now was to use them to attack Markos after his wildly successful convention in Las Vegas and his appearance on Meet the Press.
None of the major liberal bloggers wanted to assist Murdoch in this attack…especially considering the circumstances. But that basic respect for Jerome’s awkward position and that basic awareness of what was going on apparently meant nothing to Jason Zengerle. He came across a private email that Markos sent out that addressed the issue and he published the contents.
Now he has published more private emails. The essential charge against Markos is that he made a request (in his private email) that appeared to have been respected.
My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story.
Zengerle is now suggesting a conspiracy to explain why this request was respected.
As I wrote in this post,
some of that influence likely stems from the ideological and partisan
loyalty liberal bloggers feel toward him. But I also raised the
question of whether Kos exercised some degree of financial influence
over liberal bloggers through something called the Advertising
Liberally BlogAds network. A number of Kos’s defenders have criticized
me for misunderstanding the nature of Advertising Liberally and Kos’s
relationship with it.
Let me join in chorus of people criticizing Zengerle for misunderstanding the blogads network. Chris Bowers administrates it, but that means next to nothing. The idea that Chris Bowers would direct advertising my way or refrain from doing so for political reasons is absolutely preposterous. And, it is even less likely that Markos would ask him to do so, and even more preposterous that Bowers would heed such a request. All this is is an effort to slime the entire progressive netroots by associating us with a several year-old problem Armstrong had with the SEC, which we knew nothing about and that we are contrained from fully understanding.
I am not, and never was, on the Townhall mailing list and I never received any request from Markos to starve the Armstrong story of oxygen. I just had the basic decency and good sense to do so on my own. And, I’d actually continue to starve it of oxygen if it were not for Zengerle’s insinuations about the character of Chris Bowers. I’ve banned one person on this site for making this same slur over a sustained period of time and not listening to reason.
As soon as I saw Warner called a “progressive superstar” at Yearly Kos, watched his infomercial, and received my Warner t-shirt, I knew there would be a shitstorm over it. It looked really bad and Warner is a good man, but no progressive superstar. I knew that people would question whether there was some quid pro quo between Armstrong and Markos over Warner. But Zengerle’s tactics are absolutely despicable. Publishing private emails is a tactic of a scoundrel. Impugning the character of anyone that refuses to help Murdoch embarrass Markos, or suggesting that Chris Bowers might punish bloggers for editorial content (without a whiff of evidence) is disgusting.
I don’t support anyone that engages in pump and dump tactics. And if that is what Armstrong did, he deserves to be criticized for it. But we don’t know the facts, and it is just plain wrong to tar anyone that is associated with him for things they did not and do not know about. The New Republic is full of shit and they should be ashamed of themselves.
I think it’s extremely valid that Kos and company are mad over this. Breaching the privacy of others is heinous enough.
Screw TNR. They’re a bunch of milquetoasts, and apparently, committed to firebombing us like the DLC did. Look at what good that got those folks over at that outfit – their chairman (Vilsack) and their rising star (Warner) attended Yearly Kos.
Fuck ’em all.
yes, fuck them all.
It’s despicable.
It’s been posted about before but I used to be a New Republic subscriber (print and online) until 4 years ago while they were continuing their progressively downward (and rightward) descent. As far as I’m concerned it’s now a conservative rag.
This sadly underscores and confirms that decision to me.
The idea that Chris Bowers would direct advertising my way or refrain from doing so for political reasons is absolutely preposterous.
Well maybe, but he sure will ban people from his blog that bring up legitimate progressive views that he disagrees with for political expediency. Before the PA primary, I was trying to discuss over at his blog why Bob Casey was not fit to be a progressive choice for US Senator because of his backward and conservative view of women’s rights. Well Casey was the annointed one don’t you know even before the primary, and I was banned from the site for questioning the higher authorities I guess. Therefore, I am not to sure Bowers would not do other things for HIS political views because once you start down the slippery slpe of censorship of legitimate comment, you then have no easy way of knowing when to stop, IMO!
Jesus. Bowers was for Pennacchio.
Was He?
Yeah, he was. If you go back and read MyDD before the primary, I believe Chris openly stated he supported Pennachio.
What you do speaks louder than what you say! I am telling you what happened, and that is all I know. I just do not respect his tactics so I can not respect him!
yes.
There’s always more than one side to a story.
Just sayin’…
There’s always more than one side to a story.
This may be true. However, let the person doing the banning give advance notice of why he bans someone to the entire group, and let him also tell the one being banned personally why!
To just be banned without any comment and notice is the path to cheerleading only allowed because then people are afraid to speak/write their mind. That is just wrong!
apropos.
By their tactics ye shall know them.
AG
I’ve not been a fan of The New Republic since 1988. Our animosity goes waaaaaaaay back. I had them marked as right-wing tools then, and they’ve not improved their record since.
The idea that you would willingly suppress anything because Kos “ordered” you to is patently ridiculous.
Armstrong settled his case and that’s that. I see no connection with Moulitsas at this point.
However, there are a few puzzlements in this matter that were brought up by some other commenters at the discussion on My Link:
And then there’s this:
My own question is this: Mr. Armstrong WAS a “poor grad student” when first charged by the SEC in 1997, but by 2003 he was earning as a blog advisor to Howard Dean’s campaign, among other ventures–and it was in 2003 that Mr. Armstrong settled. So on the face of it, the “poverty” excuse seems a bit weak.
And by the way, I agree that Mr. Moulitsas was very foolish to write that email and to attempt a coordinated “starving” of this story. Is he really so arrogant that he thinks he can manage the news? Even if Mr. Moulitsas had the power to intimidate or persuade all other progressive/liberal bloggers to do as he ordered/requested, Kos certainly cannot coordinate silence on the right-wing end of the blogging spectrum, nor on Fox News, etc.
Now, with this email, it LOOKS as if he HAS coordinated a suppression of the story in the “progressive” blogosphere (even if he really hasn’t!). So now he has the worst of best worlds.
No matter what else you think of this story, Booman, ya gotta admit that’s some shitty media strategy.
….or dyslexia. Something.
“Now he has the worst of BOTH worlds” is what I mean to write in my next-to-last paragraph. “Worst of best worlds” sounds like I’m still learning English.
I blame Schwarzenegger. I listen to him so often I’m starting to write English like his. Ach, das ist schlecht!
Hey, this is the part where everybody rushes in to disagree with me and tell me I don’t have brain damage.
Hm, same thing happens when I tell my students I’m getting old. Nobody disagrees with me.
That dress doesn’t make you look fat.
On allegations I am a cross-dresser:
Um…next question!
No comment.
Mr. Armstrong was NOT charged in 1997.
The “stock touting” he was charged with allegedly took place in 1999 and 2000, and charges were brought (and settled) by the SEC in 2003.
I hope I didn’t confuse anybody with the incorrect chronology above.
You will not get banned for this, MWAC. Booman is WAY better than that.
Here is the bottom line on all of this…and it goes DIRECTLY to the character of those who have “managed” dKos into the lockstep, clomp-clomp-clomping minefield of PC bullshit that it is today.
Kos and his allies are not very subtle or perceptive hustlers. They overmanage; they try to contain; they sic their DHinMI dogs on those who deviate from their line; they ban; they ally themselves with two-faced corporate lawyers; they set up a major convention of “the netroots left” in the NASTIEST bastion of corporate greed that exists America……you all know the drill…………..
This isn’t ABOUT “ethics” here.
It is about lack of talent, imagination, and commitment to real progress.
Democratic progress. (“Democratic” the idea not necessarily the party.)
I am sorry, folks. I have been saying this for nearly a year. Since the Pie Fight/July 4th massacre.
Choose your leaders well.
You have chosen…or perhaps better stated, allowed…the wrong people to gain the upper hand in this netroots system, and we are all going to pay the price.
Choose your leaders well.
You would think that we would have learned this lesson by now.
But apparently…we haven’t.
So it goes.
Plan A or Plan A Lite.
Business as usual.
Hustlers to the fore.
TALLY-HO!!!
AG
your obsession with the conference being held in Vegas is silly. First of all, it was the cheapest place to hold it. Secondly, where else could I win enough in craps to pay for my plane ticket?
I was kidding when I asked Booman not to ban me! If I thought he did things like that, I wouldn’t be here.
Please, Booman…do not mistake concern for obsession.
If it had been almost ANY conference other than one ostensibly about changing the rightward course of America, I would have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about it.
i am a pretty fair poker player myself, and will suffer the dangers of plastic poisoning now and again to make a little money and indulge in my love of intellectual/emotional challenges.
But to have a conference like that in Las Vegas!!!??? I am sorry, but we are in a battle of perceptions here, and that is very simply the wrong message to be sending.
And as far as it being the least expensive place?
You have said this before, and all I can answer is bullshit!!!
Round up the Chamber of Commerce in say Camden, NJ, Dearborn, MI or even a “big city” like Cleveland or Buffalo…ANY rustbelt afflicted/minority welfare-problemed place in America…and tell them that you are going to bring in a convention of however many thousand people with national news coverage and major political candidates in attendance and they would fall ALL OVER THEMSELVES to put together rates for you.
BET on it.
Geez, BooMan…ain’t you never done business?
I mean…maybe people would not had had such a “good time”…but what the fuck, was this a drinking party or a place to try to change the world?
I mean…
C’mon, man…
Think of the COVERAGE!!!
“We could have gone to a major resort area” stated the leader of this left-wing movement, Markos Moulitsos Zuniga (aka “Kos”), “but that would have been so…Republican, if you know what I mean. Here in Dearborn, a once flourishing American manufacturing city, the unemployment numbers have been skyrocketing since the Reagan administration and we want to change all of that. So we decided to have our first Yearly Kos Convention here, in a place that is symbolic of the decline of America under Republicanism. And at the same time, help to nourish the city with what meager monies we on the left have available to spend. let the crooked republican hustlers and lobbyists live it up in places like Las Vegas. We will go where the PEOPLE live.”
But NOOOOoooooo…!!!
BIG mistake.
One of many.
Sorry, man. That’s the way I see it.
You wanna go to Vegas or Atlantic City to play craps, drink and hang out?
Be my guest.
I’ll join you, maybe.
On the breaks between sets.
Not the craps, though. I do not gamble on anything that I cannot seriously influence with my own skills.
I WORK in places like that. Sometimes. I know what’s up.
Best of “luck”, ‘bro.
Later…
AG
I don’t agree with everything you write, Arthur, but I’ll give you this one. I think your point about the location of Ykos is a good one. I’ve organized small conventions in the past, ~500 people, and have hosted them in local halls or hotels.
That would have been a good PR move for a ‘netroots’ gathering. But, what’s done is done, so maybe that can be a consideration for next year’s Ykos.
Don’t hold your breath.
Next year…someplace REALLY crooked.
Like DC.
Bet on it.
AG
(Not: these are not meant to antagonize. I have no opinion on this matter, yet. I’d just like some information.)
I am not, and never was, on the Townhall mailing list and I never received any request from Markos to starve the Armstrong story of oxygen. I just had the basic decency and good sense to do so on my own.
Why did you choose not to blog about it?
That’s it. Thanks.
Catnip, I hope you don’t mind if I answer two of your questions.
1. To my knowledge, Jerome Armstrong cannot say anything about this matter because the SEC agreement he signed says he cannot do so.
The SEC complaint against Mr. Armstrong is to be found here:
SEC Complaint
This is what Kos has to say about the Townhouse list (it’s private, not public):
This is how Zengerle described the Townhouse mailing list, which pretty much fits Kos’ description:
Hey, why wasn’t Booman on the list? And MSOC? “Elite liberal bloggers” my ass.
Thanks.
Who leaked then? That’s what I’d like to know.
And how do I get to be one of the “elite”? Or is it like zen: you’re a buddhist when you say you’re a buddhist? And, once I become “elite”, can I be a “fancy pants elitist”? Do you actually have to buy fancy pants for that?
Well, obviously the leaker is:
A. Somebody who’s on the list
B. Somebody who thought Mr. Moulitsas was wrong to ask people to “cool it” on the Armstrong story
By the way, Mr. Moulitsas has unsubscribed to the “Townhouse” mailing list as of today.
I guess Kos trusted the wrong person (if there was only one leaker) or people (if there were multiple leakers).
My point is, it was very foolish of him to send out this email to ask people to “coordinate” a suppression of the story–even if the email didn’t convince anybody to suppress it…because now it APPEARS as if Kos DID coordinate a suppression.
Worst of BOTH worlds. Kos has taken a scandal with his friend Jerome and attached another scandal involving HIM. Yeesh. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Well, this is kind of like Bushco going after the MSM over the Plame outing instead of focusing on the actual leaker.
Got this from one of the many links:
It sounds like “they” know. Oh boy. What fun.
…a leaker of emails to The New Republic?
Steve Gilliard–somebody I usually don’t read–actually had some first-class advice for Kos on how he could have managed this problem:
I think it’s actually really good advice. I guess it’s easier to see things when you’re not the one being attacked, and let’s face it, Mr. Moulitsas can be a bit of a hothead sometimes.
There are only two significant crimes in modern US politics:
Everything else is just business as usual.
According to Trevino, MSOC was turfed from Townhouse. (not that I see Trevino as a credible source) I guess MSOC can speak for herself if she chooses to.
There’s a lot of backroom stuff going on out there.
link
MSOC, getting pushed out of the Kool Kids treehouse…
Or Booman, never getting invited in?
Did they take back MSOC’s secret decoder ring, too?
I’m sorry, but I find the whole idea of trying to “coordinate” the blogosphere a bit silly. What purpose did Kos hope to accomplish? Let people write what they want to write. Since most political blogs are driven by current news, they’ll end up writing about more or less the same things, anyway.
I mean, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News pretty much cover the same main stories in their nightly newscasts without any “coordination”–because something like Hurricane Katrina or the Senate vote on the Kerry-Feingold Amendment is something that EVERYBODY is going to write about.
One thing that does emerge from this whole thing is that Kos is NOT a very savvy media strategist.
Well, I don’t know what to make of all of this but, as they say, the coverup is usually worse than the crime (See: Watergate).
Exactly! Trying to spin this just made it worse.
However, I think many of us feel a great distain toward the so called MSM because we believe there is a coordinated attempt to taint/censor the news discussion by the corporate ownership of these MSM outlets! Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for many so called progressive blogs to be censoring their material to counteract the hated censoring from the MSM???? I mean just where in the hell does one go anymore to hear some uncensored truth???
Stock touting–or shilling to drive up the stock price, which is what Jerome Armstrong did according to the SEC complaint against him–is NOT a victimless crime.
Investors lost thousands of dollars when the stocks Mr. Armstrong “touted” dropped to zero or near-zero value.
This sort of behavior–artifically inflating a stock’s price–is unethical and, according to the SEC, illegal.
As it should be.
I just wanted to remind everybody here that we are not discussing mere abstractions. Mr. Armstrong is alleged to have participated in a scheme that defrauded investors of many thousands of dollars. And he is now the chief blog advisor to Mark Warner, who is positioning for a run for President and is “courting” the blogosphere.
Backroom stuff?
You BET there is.
That is the PROBLEM.
AG
Gosh, I just LOVE secret, anonymous, offtherecord, “No Such Agency” conspiratorial groups with snide little ingroup names, dedicated to creating an open, transparent, democratic, honest society … without ever actually taking the chance of the “wrong” people getting involved….
Somebody wanna explain to me again why exactly I’m supposed to believe that these #@!#!@ are on my side?
Because they look to me an AWFUL lot like just another group of wannabe fascists with a different speechwriter…
If they’re fancy pants elitists, you’d think they would have chosen a name like “mansion” or “maisson” instead of the lowly “townhouse”.
Nah. Gotta sound “downhome” so that if the name slips out somehow the ignorant peasants won’t get it…
Actually, having a townhouse in Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) or New York City is VERY upscale.
Or at any rate VERY expensive, for reasons that escape me.
I’d make a lousy republican. Another of my little idiosyncracies — in addition to being homicidally anti-authoritarian — is that I absolutely have no use for conflating “expensive” with “valuable” or “worthwhile” or “important” – or, for that matter, “desirable.”
Everybody knows that THE BEST is THE MOST EXPENSIVE.
So the current American occupation of Iraq must be THE BEST occupation EVER.
Ah HA. You’re a Halliburton plant, ain’cha?
Back ontopic, sort of, this is classic “arrogance of power” behavior. Watergate, Iran-Contra, L’affaire Lewinsky, the entire Shrub administration, now the Townhouse that leaked.
Lord Acton’s comment about power comes into play… those who get some measure of power — apparently by any means — come to see themselves as uniquely favored by God or evolution or some damn thing, and thus free to exercise power in any manner they see fit. Sometimes it’s for personal ends, and sometimes it’s for what the perp seriously belives are “higher goals.”
I have no doubt that Shrub genuinely believes that what he’s doing will result in a “better world,” just as I have no doubt Kos believes likewise, and Jerome, and Booman, and everyone else here. (I don’t expect my contributions here to make a damn bit of difference to anyone. But in other parts of my life, yes, I DO think it matters.) But belief is proof of nothing BUT belief; it has no intrinsic determinative value. Every dictator, tyrant, slaveowner, reformer, liberator… without exception everyone wants to build a Better World. The problem is determining what that Better World is, and who gets the benefits of it.
And, IMNAAHO, WHATEVER that Better World may be, the better world reached through the smoke-filled-room where nobody hears or sees or says anything is NOT the real Better World.
your last line gave me a new perspective on that famous Margaret Mead quote that i parody in my sig.
New perspectives are always valuable, whether one agrees with them or not. At best, you learn something. At worst, you have a better idea just how crazy people can get.
I chose not to blog about it because I had nothing to say about it. I had no insider knowledge, and I didn’t see the point of doing the right-wings work for them.
Ok, but I have a question to add to Catnip’s:
Does it bother you that Jerome signed the SEC statement basically agreeing that he was a “stock tout” during 1999 and 2000?
Given that Jerome Armstrong is Governor Mark Warner’s blog advisor and has pressured Markos Moulitsas to endorse Warner, isn’t it even a bit troubling to learn that Armstrong has engaged in unethical and allegedly illegal behavior on the Internet in the recent past? Isn’t that rather a shady past for one of Warner’s close advisers to have?
I’d at least like to learn more. No, I’m not trying to “smear” anybody–but an examination of the facts isn’t going to hurt Jerome if he’s done nothing wrong.
As far as I can see, the only “wrong” Kos has done in this matter is trying to coordinate a suppression of the story (which of course, has quite obviously failed, as even Kos is now discussing it on the frontpage of DailyKos and we are discussing it here), which now becomes THE story.
As Catnip wrote, it’s a Watergate-eseque situation, in which the coverup is worse than the “crime”.
Yes, it is a legitimate topic, but why is TNR making it their jihad and publishing private emails to advance their argument?
Oh, it’s pretty obvious The New Republic and Kos are at each other’s throats and have been for some time now.
That’s why I feel slightly embarrassed raising these questions, because I hate to be seen throwing in with The New Republic and Zengerle. I have no respect for either of them.
But both Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas look bad in this matter. That’s why I’ve tried to gather as many facts as I could and look through them as much as possible; I didn’t want to fall into the trap of being pushed into having a wrong opinion by Zengerle, who’s obviously got a grudge against Armstrong and Kos.
But let’s face it, Armstrong’s past as an alleged con artist does not make him look like an ethical, trustworthy person.
And Kos trying to “coordinate” a suppression of the story about Armstrong’s embarrassing past makes him look unethical and shady, too.
I guess the way I looked at it was this: what if this was happening, with identical circumstances, to a right-wing blogger? For example, if the odious Michelle Malkin was revealed to be a stock tout who had signed an agreement with the SEC? And then another right-wing blogger–Hugh Hewitt, for example–did what Kos did, and tried to “coordinate” a suppression of the story on the right-wing blogs?
I’d say the whole thing was bullshit and be furious at the hypocrisy.
I guess I have an advantage of not knowing Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Moulitsas personally. I’m only judging their actions in this particular case and don’t have any personal feelings towards them one way or the other.
The whole mess makes me more cynical of the blogosphere. I’m glad BooMan was not involved. But ever since the politicians invaded this space back in whenever it was, I’ve kind of gotten the sense that we are indeed just a fucking credit card to most politicians. And in terms of real politic, we are what — able to turn out a dean-like performance. Kind of disgusted. This totally smells like smoke in a backroom to me. And the blogads thing. It just sounds bad. I don’t care that I’ve got no evidence. I usually trust my gut. The way dKos polices its own site for content. (The attacks on BooMan from this week are still pissing me off). Combined with this cloud. Blech!
I think the reason that Booman was NOT invited to join this “Townhouse” group is because the organizers knew that he wasn’t going to be told what stories to run or do whatever this form of “coordination” required–same reason MSOC got kicked out of the group.
Yep, trust your instincts. My instincts were that Booman is trustworthy and a straight-up kind of guy, and this episode only confirms that initial hunch.
Whatever differences Booman and I have had, I’ll definitely give him props for being straightforward.
That’s all I ask, honesty. I can disagreement if people are open and honest about who they are.
These backroom deals–“coordination”–stink.
I don’t want to be part of somebody’s “coordination” or “strategy”, at least not without my knowledge or consent.
More and more, every day, I feel like a pawn. I don’t agree with Booman on everything, but at least I don’t feel like he’s trying to use me and he certainly doesn’t lie to me.
Yup.
Wow between you and Catnip, you guys have given me loads of food for thought.
I have to wonder at KOS’ issue here. Yet another instance of trying to suppress info. He is definitely beginning to have an apparent pattern. Of course, maybe that’s what Jerome is trying to play up. That he does it in such an underhanded, despicable way wont matter so much as long as he can exploit KOS’ weakness.
Pish, the whole mess is just so Kindergartenish.
what a lonely guy you are.
If you don’t think this “shit” is important (or at least interesting) why are you reading the comments?
Old guy here. Been involved in politics for about 50 years now. Still work in government, well past retirement age. And this is the most bullshit about nothing that I’ve ever witnessed. As far as reading comments – I have to. It kinda directs my attention as to where the next cow paddy is coming from. A lot of effort is being spent on this crap that should be spent trying to save our country. But, go ahead and lock yourselves in the house and then set it ablaze, that’ll teach’em – those damn right-wingers. this is all bullshit- pure as bullshit can be.
not very nice? nice snark, but irrelevant.
Cheviteau responded with his opinion (clap clap), and it parallels well mine. this subject is meaningless and a misdirection, a typical ploy used by the Right.
its akin to watching Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” and correlates well with the scene where the oppressed Jews bitch over who is more pure, the Peoples Front of Judea or the Judeans Peoples Front; when the enemy was actually the Romans.
I’m not interested in the various recipes for ketchup, so I don’t waste my time reading those.
one might read the back of a catsup bottle, but because of it few would actually spend their time writing a treatise on the history of the love apple.
You’re right!
Booman should delete all diaries discussing this issue, ban everybody who’s commented on it, and we should all wipe our memories clean with our amnesia rays.
What’s that? You haven’t got amnesia rays? Damn.
I have amnesia rays. I can barely remember what happened yesterday!
I meant amnesia rayguns.
I have one, but I can’t remember where I put it <groan>.
So right. Read my comment about this crap. People can parse this situation from here to eternity – and it’s still all bullshit. You’d think Kos was trying to cover up the crucifixion of Jesus Christ himself.
Or that Armstrong should be sent to solitary confinement for the next hundred years. Damn, folks, get a grip. This is NOT that important.
You write:
“…Armstrong’s past as an alleged con artist does not make him look like an ethical, trustworthy person. “
And
“…Kos trying to ‘coordinate’ a suppression of the story about Armstrong’s embarrassing past makes him look unethical and shady, too.”
MWAC…I am sorry to have to say this (I really am.), but the tactics and policies of dKos for the last year and a half…actually, at least since the 2004 election theft and dKos’s co-ordinated attack on ANY discussion of that possibility…ARE “unethical and shady.” They are at the very least markers of a tendency towards that kind of action.
These little wisps of smoke coming out of dKos are no surprise.
Granted, The New Republic has other agendas. But engaging in ANY sort of defense of dKos is a mistake, I believe. If they are the nasty spirited hustlers that they have shown themselves to be in their tactics thus far, let them go down if that is what must happen.
If we on the left have to adopt the tactics of the right in order to “prevail” against them…then we BECOME WHAT WE FIGHT.
That was the whole point of my recent diary Everything is NOT relative. And dKos is not about free speech. I quoted extensively from the I Ching about the advice it gives regarding opposition to evil.
One of the quotes was:
And there it is.
It also states:
DKos has CONSISTENTLY failed these tests.
The I Ching on situations similar to what happened at dKos a year or so ago?
man, such occurrences are grave omens that he does not neglect. This is the only way of averting evil consequences.
“However, to the thoughtful man, such occurrences are grave omens that he does not neglect. This is the only way of averting evil consequences.”
The very point that I have been making about dKos for a year. A number of people…including Booman…initially thought that it was some kind of sour grapes routine that I was running. But it was not. I am a “thoughtful man”, I SAW a grave omen of future consequences, and I have been ringing the bell about it every chance that I have gotten to do so.
My own take on the best possible result of what is happening here?
Dig deep and think well, folks.
That nagging suspicion so many of us have experienced that all is not well in DkosLand?
First Armando, then Warner, now Armstrong?
Dig it.
Something is rotten in the state of DkosLand.
If we continue to allow our wagon to be primarily hitched to their horses…then we have made the wrong decision.
And we will ALL pay for that mistake in the end.
BET on it.
AG
you and your evil. You throw that word around too lightly…unsuspecting and undeserving people get hit with it.
Think about what your saying for a moment. Does it make any sense to discredit what I say because I have drinks with Duncan or play trivia with Chris, and that they associate with someone else? No. That’s nonsense.
Even though Markos and Jerome are good friends, have co-authored a book, have been prior business associates, and probably talk to each other on the phone about their everyday problems, is still no reason to taint one or the other of them for what one or the other of them might have done in the past.
I object to three things here. First, Jerome deserves at least a presumption of innocence, in the same way all American citizens do. But, even if you want to make a presumption that there is fire where there is smoke, it should not be used to impugn the integrity of other people that are merely friends or associates of his.
And lastly, I object to TNR turning on the left blogosphere and publishing the private emails of people that are not even main players in the dispute. Why the fuck are they publishing Mike Stark’s email? As a reporter I understand the desire to break a story. As a partisan, I pick and choose which stories to break, and I don’t publish my allies emails in order to embarrass people that I might have a slight political difference with.
Evil? Hardly. The evil is all over at the TNR where they love their Lieberman so much they can’t even accept the fact that Warner is just as good for their purposes (probably a better pol) and that Jerome works for him. WTF?
Know your enemies. These two fighting is a little absurd.
I use ‘evil” because I have possess better word to describe dishonorable conduct.
On ANY of the (usually) three sides of a given fence.
Because The New Republic has demonstrably allied itself with scum like Lieberman and is therefore squarely in the wrong camp as far as I am concerned…does that mean that all those it attacks are NOT “evil”?
Wrong in thought, deed and tactic?
What did Jerome Armstrong do?
Well, one thing he most clearly did is cop a plea.
Would I have done the same thing if I were in his position at the time?
I would not have BEEN in his position at the time, Booman, because he was involved in a system that I consider to be rotten TO THE CORE.
And that is a red flag marker, as far as I am concerned.
This is not about drinks and trivia games, Booman, and your use of that analogy trivializes the whole situation.
If I sit at a bar and converse with a coke dealer, am I to be painted as approving of the whole disastrous cocaine-fueled right-wing B.C.C.I/IranContra/destruction-of-the-black-inner-city-culture effort of which this particular fool is an unwitting cog?
No.
Of course not.
But of one of the cogs in that machine…one who is now working as a prominent so-called “reformer” who has made suspicious (to me, anyway) choices in his tactics and alliances…is suddenly outed as having been a salesman for that effort…???
On ANY level?
Well, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame.
And the corporate/usury/play-the-legal-system-for-fun-and-profit games in which both Armstrong and Armando have recently been shown to have participated at various levels appears to me to be WORSE than the cocaine endeavours.
Their DADDY, truth be known.
Thus I object.
It’s all one, Booman.
Dkos’ viciously exclusionary tactics in pursuit of its line, the dishonest (or at the very least dishonourable) hustles of some of its highest advisors (with more to came, I’ll betcha), it’s choice/non-choice of Warner (wink wink, nudge nudge), Las Vegas…
It’s all one.
Choose your leaders AND your allies well, Booman.
And your friends, too.
Ye shall knoiw them by their hustles.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
Given that Jerome Armstrong is Governor Mark Warner’s blog advisor and has pressured Markos Moulitsas to endorse Warner,
Is that a fact or your opinion?
I read somewhere that Armstrong was trying to get Moulitsas to endorse Warner.
Oh, right, it was BOOMAN who wrote it:
Source: Booman’s diary on DailyKos.
Markos and Warner are Getting a Little Cozy
Hey, could you tell me what “asdf” and “n/t” mean? I asked my students and they said they knew and weren’t going to tell me.
They don’t “respect mah authoritie”!
Damn teenagers.
n/t = “no text” in the body of the message (shorthand for those who read comments just by checking out the subject lines)
asdf = a generic subject line when you don’t really want to write your own – taken from the position of the letters on the keyboard
If you’re around teenagers chatting online, POS stands for “parent over shoulder”, so they can let their friends know not to send them any funky messages their parents shouldn’t see.
Oh that last one’s VERY useful. If I see TOS it means Teacher Over Shoulder.
Ha ha I’ve got them now!
but you didn’t quote Jerome’s contention that I got that wrong and that he has never pushed for an endorsement. He made that denial in a comment in the orange thread. And I accepted his denial and his correction.
Do you have the quote? Not that I’m doubting you, but it’s good to read the words for myself. When that diary was up, my school was in its last throes (final exams), and the Fall of Saigon was more orderly–so yup, I missed it.
And the three big issues here are:
Actually, I don’t much care about Jerome Armstrong. I’ve never trusted him. He says he did nothing wrong and just settled the case to get on with his life; the SEC says different. I tend to think the SEC wouldn’t go after somebody unless they had enough evidence to do so, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. Governor Warner certainly should demand some clear answers from Mr. Armstrong, because he does NOT need his chief Netroots adviser to be a crook or someone who has a cloud of suspicion hanging over his head.
The answer to question #2 appears to be very damning to Moulitsas. And #3 bugs the living hell out of me–what’s up with having a secret email group to manage things in the Internet equivalent of a smoke-filled backroom? Jesus, that’s everything I hate about politics.
Oh for the love of god.
Let’s take this one at a time.
Is Jerome guilty of doing something wrong and running afoul of the SEC? He denies it as strongly as he is able to under the circumstances. Trust him, don’t trust him, you don’t know anymore than me.
Do you or I have any interest in furthering speculation that he is a crook when we have nothing to work with? Absolutely not. Does the New York Post? Yes, they do.
Second point: did Markos do anything wrong? No. He made the exact calculation I did. Since Jerome can’t defend himself we should just ignore the story rather than give it oxygen. We have no tools to fight back, and we don’t even know if we want to fight back. No facts, no counterargument? Might as well ignore it.
I didn’t need an email to explain that to me.
Is there anything wrong with having a private email list to coordinate certain efforts? Please. We all have our own private email lists for coordinating things. It’s not a smoke-filled room for chrissakes. It’s just a way to strategize about message when things like the Alito confirmation come along.
This whole story is unfortunate. But, please, don’t make it worse by continuing to draw others into a situation that really involves just Jerome.
The main allegations are false. Markos didn’t try to stifle the story but to explain that Jerome could not respond to it, and that therefore it would be best not to give life to a story where we have no rebuttal. And Chris Bowers did not and would not punish anyone for writing about Jerome. Period.
Well, that kind of blows Jerome’s ‘I can’t talk about any of this’ defense out of the water. Do you not think it might have been useful if he had posted at MyDD that 1) he can’t talk about the SEC case and 2) he has some thoughts about the Zenergle affair – instead of standing on the sidelines or commenting on a thread that no one outside of dkos would read?
I’m just wondering…
But that could have been my answer: someone who is not connected to or impacted by Kos or Jerome or what goes on on their blogs.
Since this was published in a quasi MSM publication (The NYPost), it obviously was something that wouldn’t be ignored by the right-wing blogosphere. So I’m a bit surprised by your answer – not saying you made the wrong decision. I’m just surprised.
It does smack of gossip but the SEC charges were a fact as was kos’s attempt to ‘supress’ the story. To what end? That’s what I don’t get.
That broke the story. It was Chris Suellentrop who first broke the story, but a lot of people didn’t pick it up because it was hidden behind the New York Times subscription wall.
The New York Post, which has no such subscription wall, picked up the story and ran with it.
I have a subscription to The New York Times premium, and I believe if you’re a regular over at My Left Wing that MSOC will let you borrow her pass if you want to look at the article.
The link to the Chris Suellentrop story in “The Opinionator” column of The New York Times is:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=225
An excerpt:
…was to the New York Post.
Why did you choose not to blog about it?
Catnip, I know you weren’t asking me and that Booman has already answered your question. Since I am a front page writer here (missing lately) who hasn’t written on this, I’d like to offer my own answer as well. My answer is that I tend not to care about this sort of thing. Even if we take everything that has been speculated, make it all true and amplify it ten times over, I still don’t care. The alleged personal failings of bloggers is of little interest to me. Jerome hasn’t blogged regularly in so long that I can’t even recall why he used to piss me off so much, but that’s really where it ends with me as far as this medium goes. Maybe I should read his book just as a refresher. Pump and dump blows and I only wish I’d had enough money at the time to ripped off by that sort of scheme. I wish I had that kind of money now. Whether or not he had anything to do with that kind of thing has nothing to do with whether his opinions on politics and direction of this country and his party are good or bad or decent or for shit. That’s all that any of us have ever had to go on. In his current career as a political consultant, I doubt any of his employers, whether I love them or hate them, have ever gone on anything other than his opinions and his work ethic and his resume as they know it. But as far as crimes go, if you found out tomorrow that I was arrested in 1999 for carrying an ounce of dope in my backpack, would it make my opinions less valid today? If so, would it make your opinions less valid if yours agreed with mine? I realize I’m over simplifying and that I wasn’t asked and that I’m reaching beyond the question you asked. I just tend not to care and so I didn’t blog about it. I’d rather see Jerome shot down on the merits of his opinions and his arguments.
I appreciate that answer and, yes, I was asking Booman because he personally ‘knows’ these guys.
I also didn’t blog about it because it really doesn’t concern me. However, if left-wing bloggers, collectively or not, decided not to write about it knowing it would become a politcial blogopshere issue, I was just wondering what their rationale was.
This may not amount to a whole hill of beans for Joe and Jane citizen, but political bloggers take notice of these kinds of things, so I don’t see any reason to back away from the story on the lefty blogosphere hoping it will just go away.
We all kind of hoped that support for Bush would just blow over too, but look where that got us. The Decided-in-Chief, Round 2. (Not that everyone didn’t work damn hard, but we can’t take things for granted even when the facts ought to be stunningly obvious to anyone with a brain.)
There are times to ignore things and times to pay attention to them.
So, I guess I have formed an opinion about that aspect of this story now.
And remember – even the appearance of a conflict raises doubts, whether there is one or not. The right-wingosphere counts on that.
But as far as crimes go, if you found out tomorrow that I was arrested in 1999 for carrying an ounce of dope in my backpack, would it make my opinions less valid today?
The specifics of the crime matter, and you know it too! Stop trying to cover for this fiasco. If I get convicted of speeding, well I thing my relationship with children is still untainted. However, if I get convicted of child molestation, well you know the rest.
If this Armstrong character was convicted of advertsing false material for his client’s personal gain, well I’d have to say that was pretty relevant to his current job, NO??? In a nutshell that is the crux of the matter here, and I thing anyone trying to minimize this event is either naive or has an alternative agenda of some kind that they are trying to protect!
You’re right, that was a bad analogy. As to whether I’m naive or have an alternative agenda I guess I’ll have to go with naive. I wouldn’t mind a few more choices, but whatever.
you are missing the point.
Number one: Armstrong cannot defend himself. It doesn’t make him innocent, it doesn’t make him guilty.
Number two: I didn’t know about these allegation, and I doubt any of the other bloggers knew about them either. Maybe Markos knew, but I wouldn’t assume that.
Number three: Bowers is not controlling debate about this or other issues by steering advertising. That’s a flat out lie.
Number four: this is an attack on Markos, not Jerome, and what has he done other than request that people not feed the story since Jerome cannot currently make any statements?
We can all speculate all we want, and it is possible that Jerome did something very wrong, but we can’t really know that right now. And even if he did, why should that reflect on any of us, on Markos even, or Bowers, or on the Advertising Liberally Network? It shouldn’t.
Lastly, TNR has shown their true colors because they not only ran with this story but did it in a totally dishonest way.
Number one: I disagree. Armstrong already defended himself when he spoke to the New York Post reporter and denied that he did anything wrong. Armstrong signed an agreement with the SEC that he would say nothing, and he has already broken that agreement. Besides, he can hire an attorney to speak for him. However, Armstrong has already spoken publicly on the matter (in the NY Post). Armstrong cannot simultaneously speak up in his defense and then claim that he must be silent when people ask further questions. Either be quiet or speak up; he cannot do both.
Number two: I partially agree. How the heck was anybody supposed to know about this before Chris Suellentrop’s article in The New York Times “Opinionator” section (which is where the story broke, not the NY Post)? But that is NOT the question. THE questions are: 1. Did Kos attempt to get some of his fellow bloggers to hush up the story and 2. Did they do so? It appears the answer to both questions is “yes”. That’s not good, Booman.
Number three: I agree 100%. Zengerle hasn’t proven a damn thing about Bowers or Advertising Liberaly and he’s admitted it. Talk about sloppy “journalism”!
Number four: Kos didn’t make a request to help Jerome, he made the request to help HIMSELF:
Booman, there’s no way in hell to “spin” that statement positively. “It would make MY LIFE EASIER…”, is total CYA. “Let’s starve it of oxygen”? Oh brother.
Kos was trying to manage the news to prevent personal embarrassment to himself, when an open and honest discussion of this whole matter would have had a much better appearance.
Booman, you know very well that appearances matter. How does all this appear? It looks to me like, at the very least, that Kos thinks people can’t handle the truth, and they’ll get it when HE is ready for them to have it.
That stinks.
Bullshit.
Jerome tried to defend himself. Hopefully he didn’t violate his agreement in doing so. The very point that he might have violated it only points out how hamstrung he is to respond, not the opposite. That was a totally dishonest point for you to make.
And it is also totally unfair to pick apart Markos’s reference to making his life easier. Of course he wants to limit the exposure of his co-author to these accusations. This is especially true because he has nothing he can say about them, and so is a sitting duck for the exact type of insinuations being made by the New Republic.
His analysis of the situation was correct. The people that wrote back saying it was an inadequate response were ignoring that there is nothing they can say, legally.
Was it smart to write that email? Does it look bad? Give a reporter my emails and I’ll be running for cover too. You trust people and then you get betrayed…I don’t pile on when that happens.
You seem to be more interested in discrediting them than you are in what actually happened.
What, am I on Zengerle’s side now, too?
I’m on the side of hearing the truth and not being manipulated.
I’ve been lied to and I feel that I’ve been manipulated.
I didn’t write that email, Moulitsas did. I’m not “discrediting” anybody, I’m examining what happened. These guys are not my friends and they’re not my enemies. Never met them, have no interest in doing so.
I’m beginning to wonder if they’re my political allies, which is all I ever wanted from any of them. They seem to have all kinds of behinds-the-scenes things going on that make me suspicious of them.
And I found Armstrong’s denial that he pressured Moulitsas to endorse Warner disingenuous at best. “Just a joke”? Jerome Armstrong certainly thinks everybody but him is stupid, that’s for sure.
Convicted? I’ve read nowhere that he’s been convicted of anything. I’m gald I’m not as morally fastidious as some of us seem to think we are.
But because of this little situation in which we find ourselves, the right-wingers will now not like us. How sad. Just think of all the goodwill from them we’ve now lost.
Do you mean to tell me that John Hinderaker won’t be sending us Christmas cards this year? This is awful news.
You write:
“Whether or not he had anything to do with that kind of thing has nothing to do with whether his opinions on politics and direction of this country and his party are good or bad or decent or for shit.”
No, Chris.
You are wrong here, and i believe that you know it, deep down.
You SHOULD know it, if you do not.
The so-called left is fighting against a totally crooked, totally criminal backroom system. That institutionalization of the practice of that kind of criminal deceit is what has gotten the United States in the truly awful position it occupies today, and ANYONE who claims to be fighting that system had DAMNED WELL better come up clean and smelling like a rose in those matters if they are to have any credibility whatsoever.
An ounce of weed?
That’s just an attempt at learning how to perceive better, useful or not.
Pump and dump?
Enron Jr.
Whole ‘nother balllgame.
If you were say a dedicated pacifist and found out that your Gandhi/MLK Jr.like leader had been convicted of multiple slashing murders in a nolo contendere sort of deal…need I finish the thought?
I think not.
Choose your leaders well.
That’s really all I have to say about this little tempest.
Choose ’em well.
By your leaders shall ye be known.
And I do NOT want top be known as a follower of Kos and his Kronies.
NO FUCKING WAY.
AG
Again, bad analogy. You win. Enjoy. I think I would have been better off being a bit more blunt. Something along the lines of, I didn’t blog about it because I don’t give a figgity figgity fuck about Jerome Armstrong. The exact amount of time I’ve spent in my life worried about Jerome’s doings is exactly this much – None. He may be your leader AG, but I sure as hell didn’t pick him.
Jerome Armstrong isn’t anybody’s “leader”.
He IS the head Netroots adviser to Governor Mark Warner, and is pushing Warner to the Netroots.
Markos Moulitsas IS considered a leader of the Netroots–Kos himself wrote at Yearly Kos that he is “trying to build a movement”.
Well, you cannot have a movement without a leader. Kos can declaim the title of “leader” all he likes, but a leaderless movement is an amorphous mob.
And Kos is an opinion leader. Now we have the spectacle of an opinion leader, the owner of the biggest blog in the leftie blogosphere, caught trying to suppress a story that is damaging to him. And we the even sadder spectacle of many bloggers agreeing to cover up the story, even though it’s clear from their emails at the Townhouse site that they had serious questions about Armstrong’s shady past and criminal dealings.
That’s what this is all about.
You can replace Jerome with Markos in my previous comment and my feelings will be the same. I’ve made it through my enire life not caring about Markos or his website. Now I’m sure this makes me naive, but it’s true. I’ve been told repeatedly that I ought to give a fuck about Markos and his website, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.
We ase all Republicans when the lights go out.
Almost all…
Sad thought.
Sorry.
But that is what I am seeing here.
AG
Not MY leader.
Bet on it.
But closely allied with the “leader” that has been picked by the MSM, one who is being supported in his efforts by others who should know better?
Bet on THAT, too.
What is your/our goal,.. here, Chris?
Long term.
If it is to replace Plan A with Plan A Lite, to replace right wing hustlers with left wing ones…then we are well on our way.
Not MY goal.
And there’s your third bet.
Gonna put your money down? Place your effort bets? Choose your bets well. You only have so much to wager before you’re broke.
AG
one who is being supported in his efforts by others who should know better?
Not by me. You should go talk some sense into those people. I’ll get back to you on the master plan. I need to get my head on straight before I start talking about the plan. You can bet on it if you like, but I’m not much for gambling.
Been TRYING to talk sense for well over a year.
Not well enough, apparently.
AG
Nowhere to go but up I suppose. No, that’s a lie because things can always get worse and probably will.
The problem is that this sounds like the howl of a lone wolf on the part of Zengerle. It seems like they know that they are not relevant in the debate, and that they are lashing out as a result. This is similar to the lone wolf howls of Joe Lieberman who is being marginalized over Iraq.
Well, he’s not quite alone.
Somebody amongst that “group of liberal elite bloggers” on the Townhouse mailing list leaked Kos’ email to The New Republic. At least one person did, and maybe more than that.
So somebody that Kos trusted has provided Zengerle with material damaging to Kos. And who knows what else that person has?
There’s no privacy on the Net now, if there ever was. Seems like we have to assume that everything we send is going to get put in the public domain at some point.
I know of no blogger who would lower himself to that level.
Search me…I have no idea who subscribed to that list. Given his feud with The New Republic, Kos was very foolish to send out that email to the group if any TNR writers were on it.
Some other time, I’ll tell you the nasty personal letter I got from TNR when I tried to cancel my subscription in 1988. Someone in their subscription department accused me of being anti-Semitic for wanting to cancel my subscription! They’re a bit touch (and touched in the head) at that place.
I know of no blogger who would lower himself to that level.
Don’t bank on that. There have been a lot of discussions lately about securing our privacy. Trust no one.
How do I know you’re the REAL Catnip?
And how do we know I’m the real Man Without A Country?
(Btw, I’m just trying to screw with the NSA monitors.)
how many of the several million bloggers do you know?
I have no idea who would have done something like that. Sooner or later, though, people like that will reveal themselves. It’s a matter of knowing who to trust and who not to.
I posted this in orange here.
Git yer tinfoil hats right here!
Step right up folks and git yer tinfoil hats right here!
Jeebus! If somebody posted that George W. Bush really, really regreted every single bad thing he’s done there’s be somebody commenting:
‘Yay, he’s seen the lite!’
Credulity thy name is blogger.
Git a grip folks. TNR is runnin’ a classic Rove scam on yer….and yer goin’ for it.
Pathetic.
Nobody’s ‘goin’ for it’. I know I’d just like to know what’s going on. That’s all. And, there are legitimate issues here that are worth discussing, n’est-ce pas?
Zengerle writes:
what’s wrong with that reasoning?
Hm, I think it’s Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the pipe wrench, myself.
I have NO IDEA how many people were members of this “Townhouse” group at the time Kos sent his “you don’t know nothin’, understand?” email. It sounds like rather a small group, since it’s “elite bloggers” and not even MSOC and Booman are members.
A dozen members? More? Less? One of them distrusts or dislikes Kos enough to leak this email.
The point is NOT who leaked the email, the point is that Kos was dumb to write it.
yeah, that’s a point. my question was really for Booman, who refers to Zengerle’s use of ‘private email’ as the “tactic of a scoundrel.” maybe it is, but it seems pretty much beyond dispute that Zengerle didn’t publish a private email. he published documents leaked to him, as do many great reporters whose work we love and benefit by. but for some reason – and it actually doesn’t seem all that mysterious a reason – this makes Zengerle “scum.”
actually, there’s another leg to Zengerle’s supposed scumhood. Booman writes:
here’s the relevent bit from Zengerle’s piece:
in short, Zengerle is reporting from a source within the Townhall list. obviously, at least one (Zengerle mentions three in his opening paragraph) person on the Townhall list is unhappy about what’s going on, and Zengerle’s reporting based on that source or sources.
both the claims of despicable behavior that Booman makes (publishing private emails and impugning character on zero evidence) are clearly contradicted by Zengerle’s post.
First, minor factual correction: It’s the Townhouse list, not the Townhall list. Townhall.com is a right-wing website that publishes Ann Coulter’s brain byproducts.
Ok, so mid-course correction on an analysis of the story:
Some people would argue that a private email should NOT be leaked under any circumstances. I guess it depends on who’s doing the leaking and the parties involved in the private email. I don’t think most people in the progressive blogosphere (me included) would have a problem if Zengerle had leaked a private email from Karl Rove to the editor of the Washington Post, asking him to “be quiet” about a story because having the story on the front page would “make life difficult” for Mr. Rove. I wouldn’t even think of questioning the ethics of such a thing, because I’d want to know that Mr. Rove and the WaPo editor were doing some “coordinating” they didn’t want me to know about.
Obviously, the situation here is not exactly the same, but it is analagous. Mr. Moulitsas, embarrassed by the revelation of Mr. Armstrong’s shady deal, tried to spare both himself and Mr. Armstrong further embarrassment by asking people he thought he could trust not to discuss the matter on their blogs. It turns out that request may not have even been necessary, since many important bloggers like Booman never got such a request and decided that it was a non-story anyway.
I think what Booman is reacting to is the fact that Zengerle and The New Republic seem to have a bit of a grudge against Armstrong, Moulitsas, and Daily Kos. I agree, they do (and the feeling is mutual on the part of Moulitsas, that’s for sure). That gives a slimy patina to the entire affair.
3. The “evidence” that Zengerle cites for the idea that Bowers or Moulitsas or Armstrong can “punish” recalcitrants is the statement of Steve Gilliard, who is one of Kos’ favorite bloggers (but not one of mine, for reasons I won’t go into here). The “evidence” is merely Gilliard’s opinion and he is Zengerle’s sole source. Now, if you could get half a dozen bloggers to say, “We always have the thought, ‘What if Kos/Bowers/Armstrong doesn’t like what I’m writing? What if they kick me out of the Advertising Liberally network?’ in the back of my mind when I’m blogging, you might be able to make a case that the fear does exist. Stronger evidence, of course, would be an overt or even a veiled threat by Kos or Bowers to kick somebody out of the ad network if they didn’t “toe the line”, but no such evidence has been brought to light.
So I think one of Booman’s main points stands up reasonably well: Zengerle has attempted to impugn people without any solid proof that any pressure has been applied.
Indeed, Zengerle himself admitted he’s got an empty bucket where his proof should be:
However, I do agree with Glenn Greenwald, who wrote this message to the Townhouse group:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=21869
Finally, let me say that I agree with those bloggers who think that Kos’ defense is extremely narcissistic and over-the-top. Kos has declared that The New Republic has “defected” to the Right because it has gone after him. So an attack on Kos is an attack on all liberals everywhere? Kos isn’t even a liberal and disdains the word!
Here’s what Ron Chusid at The Democratic Daily (which is a LIBERAL blog) had to say on the matter, and it seems a very sensible position to take:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3392
yes, i know that Zengerle mentions three sources. see the third to last line in my comment, where i parenthetically refer to that fact. and yes, i know that Zengerle hasn’t been publishing emails sent directly to him. that was the point of my first comment (to which you responded), as well as the point of the first paragraph of my last comment.
not sure if you think you’re explaining those things to me, or just summing the whole thing up for posterity.
either way, your point 3 is in my opinion pretty much entirely wrong. you’re misreading things pretty severely here. specifically:
in fact, Zengerle quotes Gilliard’s denial that bloggers are intimidated to stay in Kos’ good graces. Gilliard calls the idea “a joke”
he is not the source of Zengerle’s evidence. i explain this in the comment you’ve just responded to.
further, the passage by Zengerle that you then quote (which i also quoted) proves that he’s not impugning anyone on the basis of no evidence, but rather reporting what he has been told by a source within the Townhouse group.
in conclusion, i think the whole idea that this reporter is showing poor netiquete is silly. good reporting very often involves the publishing of leaked material. being the subject of leaks is a part of having power. if Kos doesn’t like it, well, i personally couldn’t care less. as for Kos’ behavior in trying to starve the story, i’m not even slightly surprised.
what i am surprised at, in this thread, is Booman’s labeling of Zengerle as “scum” on the ground of what are basically false accusations.
what’s false about it? Is Zengerle a right-wing journalist? Is he a non-partisan journalist? No. He’s a journalist for a major left-wing (supposedly) national journal. Is he writing about what is wrong with the nation, the government, the other party? No. Is he publishing their private emails? No.
He’s publishing private email of Markos, and Greenwald, and Mike Stark, and so on. It’s not just Markos, by the way, whose privacy is being violated here. It’s the whole list. It’s a betrayal by the leaker, and it is terrible judgment by Zengerle to publish it for a basic non-story, and a story that advances no just cause.
Zengerle is scum. And he is double scum for spreading around fatuous conspriacy theories that Chris Bowers is steering advertising dollars based of fealty. Total, total bullshit. He bases that on an unattributed hunch? Jesus. I’ll stick up for my friends when I see them maligned in print. Zengerle is scum.
he’s scum because he’s reporting on your friends instead of your enemies? what kind of standard is that?
the whole violation of privacy bit is a complete non-starter. he’s a reporter. reporters violate the privacy of people in power. that you don’t regard the violation as serving any noble purpose is clearly a function of your own bias. that you seem bent on defending that bias is interesting, in so far as it’s such a common sentiment, but otherwise not really worth arguing. someone is scum because they criticize your friends. ok, sure, whatever.
as to his spreading fatuous conspiracy theories about Chris Bowers steering of ad dollars, yes, he attributes the idea to a source that he doesn’t name for obvious reasons. he also provides a link to a post by one blogger who was dropped from the Advertising Liberally network by Bowers and Markos. interesting reading. anyway, to suggest that people might be influenced by advertising dollars is hardly some wacky, scurrilous, conspiracy theory. he also suggests the other obvious motivation at work here: loyalty.
your argument is pretty much nothing more than name-calling, and if you’re comfortable with that, i’ve got no interest in discussing it further.
Let’s be frank, Zegerle is involved in a pissing match with Markos over policy, so he goes after his co-author, spreads total bullshit allegations against Chris Bowers, and publishes the private emails of a variety of peripheral people. That’s why he is scum. The fact that he would do all that just to get at Markos is despicable.
I agree, watching Zengerle and Markos fight is like watching two grade school kids going after each other. It’s not exactly a battle of the Titans.
Zengerle definitely has bad motivations. But that doesn’t change the truth of what he’s exposed about Kos. He’s proven NOTHING about Bowers and that part makes me mad, too–and I don’t even know Chris Bowers, but Zengerle surely did malign him.
that Zengerle’s ‘doing all this to get Markos’ sounds entirely like speculation on your part. it seems clear that a number of individuals within the Townhouse group are unhappy with the letter Markos sent. meaning: there’s more to the origin of this story than this one guy out to get Markos in order to win a policy debate.
i don’t see how he’s spreading lies about Bowers. he’s saying that these few people control a valuable advertising network, and that some people worry about displeasing them on account of that. he even admits that his source’s fear may be irrational. still, for some the fear exists. given how vindictive this community can be, given Kos’ love of banning and excommunication, this strikes me as a very plausible fear.
again, Zengerle’s motivations are a matter of speculation that you interpret according to your biases. fair enough. we all have biases. the story strikes me as newsworthy, in particular because it fleshes out the pattern of controlling behavior that so many people are chafing under.
my point being that it’s one thing to give an interpretation of Zengerle’s motivations for writing the story – to have a perspective on it – and something else to start throwing out despicable and scum and all the rest. i find that whole hate the official enemies bit to be a part of the problem, not the solution.
You could read it all over at MyDD but, of course, I think it is more credible to hear me defend Bowers than to hear him defend himself.
Bowers set up the Advertising Liberally network, which is something that anyone that has a blogads account can do. Markos and a woman named Anna are technically involved in an advisorly role, but in reality have no day to day involvement.
About 90% of the ads I sell are unsolicited and not part of mass buys, but when they are I am informed about that from Blogads. Only this small portion of my ads is even conceivably vulnerable to steering by Bowers. For example, he could give advice to a big buyer about which blogs to advertise on, and he could make those choices based on his like or dislike of individual bloggers. I say, “could” because he doesn’t do that, but it might be possible for him to do it.
As for Markos (or Jerome) they do not even access to the account, and they would have to rely on Chris to do any of their bidding. Chris would not agree to engage in any retributive actions related to people’s advertising, but even if he was inclined to do that, it would effect a very small percentage of the overall advertising. Any advertiser is free to advertise here without going through the AL network.
When it comes to political beliefs, I’d say that Chris and I are much more closely aligned than Chris is to either Jerome or Markos. If you want to call them pragmatists, you might call Chris and I more believers that pragmatism is part of the problem. So, there’s no chance of Chris penalizing someone for being critical of Warner, for example, or Casey, because he is not a centrist and wouldn’t do something like that for political reasons. His ethics would preclude him from doing it to centrists.
People just fail to understand the way things are set up and that we are all different people, with different beliefs, but that we can work together on a lot of things, like advertising.
These charges keep coming up related to Chris and I find them very annoying.
Now, I was the first to mention that Warner’s role at Yearly Kos looked suspiciously like a quid pro quo and that it was going to cause controversy. That is an entirely different issue. The exact relationship between Markos and Jerome is complex and hard to gauge. They will have to struggle to keep their roles transparent. But that has nothing to do with Chris Bowers, or Advertising Liberally, or some secret cabal of big league bloggers trying to stifle debate or control blogs. All that stuff is bullshit.
i really appreciate your taking the time to explain that.
the hypothetical case you raise, concerning criticism of Warner or Casey doesn’t seem to me quite applicable. for someone to go against Kos’ explicit request and give fuel to the story about Jerome would have been viewed not as a difference of opinion, but as a betrayal. that’s what Zengerle is pointing to.
we’re not talking about differing political philosophies, about loyalty and the definition of the overall struggle. as you say, Zengerle is a shithead because he’s ‘fighting the wrong fight.’ loyalty relates to what we might call the ‘meta-fight.’ power is about defining that fight – which is exactly why Kos, Jerome and the Townhouse are attracting this attention: they’re consciously involved in trying to define the real fight.
If anyone on that list felt like their advertising was at risk if they ignored Markos’s request then they should read my comments in this thread and Chris’s explanation over at MyDD. They were wrong to feel that way, if anyone, in fact, did feel that way. So, part of what I am doing here is correcting the record.
Maybe they might have had a reason to fear being kicked off the email list, or being delinked at Daily Kos, but there was no grounds to fear that Bowers would take retributive action. That’s what I am trying to make sure people understand. This is not the first time that charge has come up and I doubt it will be the last. And it needs a strong rebuttal.
fair enough. my two cents then: the rebuttal is stronger without the name-calling. that stuff just adds to the sense of there being an unconsciously coercive environment.
I don’t know a better word than scum for what he did. It was a disgrace. You know what he should have done if he wanted to discuss the story? He should have done some reporting and called the people he was planning to attack, and the people’s whose email was was planning to publish. And he might have gotten his facts right. He might have found a good reason not to run the story, or to respect people’s privacy. He might have realized that there is a story there and what it is and what it is not. He might not have written his piece of crap pieces that wrongly impugned people’s character and spread unwarranted paranoia.
What is the story? Jerome and Markos are close friends with an obvious conflict over Jerome’s job to influence the netroots favorably towards his employer. That’s a story. Jerome may have committed a crime. That’s a story. Markos requested that other bloggers not give the story oxygen because Jerome was contrained from responding. That’s a story. The rest of it? Not a story. Not accurate. Not responsible. And, yes, aimed at tearing down people that should be at least partly allied with the New Republic.
Totally reprehensible behavior.
by ‘the rest of it’ do you mean the suggestion that other bloggers felt reluctant to not take Kos’ suggestion to stifle the story because of the ad network?
i’ve since read more of Zengerle’s work on the subject and wouldn’t defend his exact phrasing. still, i think the fact that some bloggers at least feel intimidated by Kos is also a story. it’s not like that feeling doesn’t accord with much else that’s gone on – e.g. the troll wars, the bannings, etc, etc, etc.
the strength of Zengerle’s writing lies in the fact that all of these stories hang together. they form an intuitive complex, a picture of how consent is manufactured. taken as that, your piece struck me as a thunderous THOU SHALT NOT LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN… cause it’s rude to see a man naked. i mean, look what happened to Shem (sorry, couldn’t resist the biblical reference).
i can see the sense of your argument, regarding tearing down the good guys. what Zengerle’s picture plays to is the growing sense of uncertainty over whether Kos, Jerome, etc are really good guys. as i’ve said, all of the little stories in this story contribute to this gestalt. further, this gestalt gains lots of credibility by the pattern of arrogant, exclusionary, behavior that Dkos is to many people known for. it’s very fashionable over there to belittle all discontent, whether through aggression of ridicule; and this behavior only cements the overall impression, even if it plays brilliantly to those on the inside.
so, you’re looking at Zengerle’s bit and getting really pissed about the weakest link in the chain. i’m looking at his story and going, yeah, the apple has a worm, but it’s still an apple.
[incidentally, regarding your policy of criticizing Dkos: i’d love to post my criticisms there as well, but having been banned, of course i can’t. it seems to me, given how many banned ex-kossacks you have, that your policy is a bit strange… though maybe i’m misunderstanding what you mean.]
again, i appreciate you’re willingness to engage.
Simon-
on your last point.
What you are referring to is the catch-22 aspects of the Daily Kos personal attacks rule. And here is the intent of the overall rule.
I do not want to censor what people write, and the rules here are pretty broad. Don’t be a prick, don’t post Bill O’Reilly talking points, that’s about it.
At the same time, a large portion of the community is here for the specific reason that they are unhappy with aspects of Daily Kos. And, specifically, a lot of people are here because they have had unpleasant run-ins with prominent Kossacks. This led, in the past, to a lot of diaries being posted here that were along the lines of “Dkos front-pager is a bitch” or “Dkos front-pager is a shill” or whatever. It started to become a feature of the culture to make personal attacks against Daily Kos writers.
Now, Daily Kos writers were surely responsible for this in a lot of ways. But many of the people banned at Daily Kos were just trolls, or just obnoxious, or had no ability to abide by the don’t be a prick rule.
The first thing I did was demand that anti-Kos diaries be cross-posted. Since I made that the policy I can’t remember anyone actually doing it. That was my intention. You want to talk smack about people, do it where they have a chance to respond. If you are afraid to do that, then don’t use the relative safety of the green place to get your jollies. That’s cowardice.
But, there were some people that were banned from Daily Kos, and therefore did not have the option to cross-post. They fall into the Catch-22 problem. The majority of people that have been banned from Daily Kos (at least until rather recently) deserved to be banned and have been banned from this site and MLW and MyDD and DU and so on. There is a subset of non-trollish people that were banned, and they just have to suffer the consequences of the bad behavior of their compatriots. I won’t allow this site to become the place to come when you get banned from Daily Kos to talk shit.
And since the rule only applies to diaries and not comments, there is still a lot of Kos bashing on this site. I hear about it everyday and am criticized for it whenever I post anything orange.
It is assumed over there by many members (falsely) that I actually share these anti-Kossack views and encourage them. My differences with Daily Kos are twofold. I have political differences. I think they are doing a bad job of administering the site. That’s it. I have good relations with everyone there except DHinMI.
i can appreciate your intention, but the logic has a critical weakness. because someone is banned from dkos, like me, that doesn’t make us compatriots. the idea of suffering the consequences of some illusory group is just something standing in place of an accurate understanding of what’s going on – which is where this final point loops back into the points preceding it.
i’ve become very conscious over the past couple of weeks of how much power structures depend upon these little distortions and lapses of logic. spoon’s last diary really epitomized that; but beyond that it just seems a general characteristic of dkos defense. don’t mistake me for angry about this. i find it fascinating.
that pride goeth before a fall is not mere coincidence. hubris generates antipathy, and eventually antipathy can no longer be managed by rationalization. a big part of the managing rationalization in this case, perhaps even the cornerstone of it, is the idea that ‘trolls’ as defined by Kos somehow form a natural group, rather than being simply an artifact of Kos’ judgement. we’re all made compatriots by Kos’ act. as Frank Herbert wrote: the fundamental question of government is: Who gets to play God?
there’s an unconscious hubris involved in imagining that everyone banned by Kos composes a natural group. in reality, we are not compatriots. we are not natural allies, or all of a kind. our grouping is a function of Kos’ judgement; and to mistake that judgement for reality, and then to reason from that mistake, is hubris.
you want to talk logic?
There is a set of people that have been banned from Daily Kos. Whether they are a natural group or not in really not the point. The point is that the rule exists to minimize the desire of people to use this forum for making personal attacks on Daily Kos front-pagers. Those that do not have the courage to cross-post such attacks will not be able to post them here, and thus we won’t be subjected to their attacks.
Those that have been banned from Daily Kos for whatever reason may be the most likely to want to make attacks against those that have banned them. They are victims of circumstance, to be sure, but the absolute right to make personal attacks about people from other forums, on this forum, does not exist.
I’m sorry if you are put out by being lumped in with people that I consider to have been rightfully banned, but that is not really the point of the rule. I make no effort to determine the justice of bannings, and the rule does not allow for such nuances.
If you haven’t been banned at Daily Kos and you feel some need to right a diary that is a persona attack about a front-pager there, you can do so. Just cross-post it an take the consequences.
But if you have been banned, and your attack cannot be launched there at all, then your right to badmouth their writers here is gone.
The rule works very well at what it is intended to do. And that is to prevent the diaries from here to filled with rage against another forum. Frankly, we have enough spill-over in the comments, and this site aims to be respectful of people, and to have respectful discourse. Too much venom makes it unpleasant.
This is not a perfect rule, but it does allow for people to say what they feel. Even the banned can make whatever comments they want.
as i said, i appreciate the intention of the rule – and also, i’m not angry about it. i’m fascinated by useful fictions; and also by the way those fictions are mistaken for reality, and the consequences of that.
so, again, i appreciate the intention of the rule. i was just pointing out the error in it. i’m not angry about this error, and not feeling particularly put out for being lumped in with my compatriots (though i think an awful lot of bullshit flows from that very failure to distinguish between rule and truth). my principle interest here is in liberating myself from the conceptual scheme.
so much of the faulty, self-justifying, logic of the power structure that you live within gets unconsciouly internalized. it’s like a splinter, an irritant. and at this point i’m finally pushing it out.
as i see it, my banning from dkos was a previous stage of this same process. it starts as a deep irritation, but as you go along and break the rules, and get past the fuck this and fuck thats, the quality of the experience changes. that is: i’m not so irritated anymore about the way these things are; while at the same time i’m feeling much clearer about what way that is. i can point specifically, now, to the basic mistake.
anyway, i’m just writing my own myth here, my own narrative. that’s the essential freedom of blogging. a freedom that might begin in intense dissatisfaction with the narrative imposed by power structures. even in the free world of the net, you still have to free your own mind. as Dylan sang: “And though the rules of the road have been lodged, It’s only people’s games that you’ve got to dodge.”
i imagine that you might very well just think i’m nuts at this point, but whatever the case, i appreciate your taking the time to engage.
regards,
i just want to make clear that i’ve no interest at all in writing personal attacks against Dkos folks. so, your rule doesn’t really limit me; and again, i completely agree with your desire not to have this become a platform for launching personal attacks on people there.
i responded to your compatriots line not because i feel unjustly limited by the rule (as in: real trolls shouldn’t be allowed to stage personal attacks, but i should be because my grievances are valid.) but because i think that conflation by which everyone banned by Kos equals a troll is the foundation of a whole bunch of crappy thinking. the few faux peace-making diaries from the last few days come to mind. the dkos community, as i see it, has done a poor job of understanding, much less integrating, dissent. it’s become very much a with us or against us mentality – which is ironic.
maybe as spoon says, the cult of personality is INEVITABLE. i still think it’s worth criticizing.
Booman, are you saying it doesn’t bother you that Moulitsas (1) has been participating in a secret “coordination” group to “manage” what’s on blogs? (by his own admission and according to Zengerle’s story) and (2) tried to suppress this story until a time that was convenient for him?
(1) has been participating in a secret “coordination” group to “manage” what’s on blogs? (by his own admission and according to Zengerle’s story)
It wasn’t a secret, it wasn’t an attempt to “manage” what is on blogs. Where do you get this shit?
(2) tried to suppress this story until a time that was convenient for him?
he didn’t try to suppress it, he tried to explain that they can’t talk about it so the best way to deal with it is not to respond.
That’s a little like pointing out a gun is useless if it has no bullets.
Why tou insist on seeing this as some grand conspiracy is beyond me.
Why didn’t people write about it? Because there was nothing to say. Why link to a hit piece if you are prohibited from responding to it? I’ve already explained that I came to same conclusion as Markos without the benefit of his advice, pressure, or persuasion.
I got it from Kos’ own writing, Booman (emphasis mine).
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/22/22310/2106
The definition of “conspiracy” is that people get together and agree on a plan, and then carry it out. And yes, this was a secret to me and to most people–I mean, come on, Catnip was surprised to learn of this “Townhouse” group and so were you.
Well, that’s all I have to say on the topic. I say let’s just let this take its natural course, whatever that is.
I wasn’t surprised by it. I hadn’t thought about it for a few months, but I was never invited to join so it wasn’t very important to me. Nevertheless, I exchange emails all the time, many with members of that list. Just yesterday I spent a good part of my afternoon discussing Fitzgerald’s investigation with Armando. We were throwing back and forth theories of what is going on. It’s not an attempt to manage what is on blogs.
We have conference calls too, you know. People want to help give us talking points on the issue of the day. Maybe it is the privatization of Social Security, the FISA law, the record of judicial nominees, the reasons to oppose the appointment of John Bolton, a politician that wants a hearing, or whatever. That comes much closer to controlling what is on blogs than any private email list.
I’m summing up for posterity. There are so many facts and theories scattered throughout this diary that I was attempting to gather them together.
I don’t agree that Zengerle has anything other than a strong suspicion about bloggers being intimidated with the threat of being pushed out of the Advertising Liberally network. Zengerle admitted he has no clear cut cases to prove his point!
If Zengerle wants to prove wrongdoing, then he needs to do some journalistic legwork and find firm evidence of this. Otherwise, he’s just making irresponsible charges.
I think Booman’s point about Zengerle being “scum” is that Zengerle is supposed to be on the left’s side, not the right’s side. However, I should point out that Kos has waged an online war against The New Republic for at least two years now, so this is just the latest skirmish in a long-running war between TNR and DKos.
I also object to the notion that Kos is peddling, that Zengerle is attacking the entire liberal blogosphere. He’s not. He’s attacking Armstrong, Bowers, and Kos.
I’d argue that the issues here, while legitimate, are really not that important. This shit is fun for insiders but the real world isn’t going to notice.
for blog frequenters, it is sorta fun to see the “townhouse” of the super-cool kids taken down a peg and their big secret outed. But coordinating message is IMO a good idea, look at how much we criticize elected Dems for not being able to.
I wonder if they ever tried to discuss choice among those elite bloggers? I’d pay to hear Markos and Jane discuss that.
I think you have a couple of good points 1) about the nobody but insiders caring and 2) coordinating the message.
However, it doesn’t stop the whole mess from being unfair all the way around. It’s really underhanded to publish private emails without prior consent. No ‘Buts’ about that. There’s also the matter of -what- message is getting coordinated.
Coordination is all fine and good as long as it’s out in the open. What we’re talking about here are a few people getting together and deciding….for us.. within the supposedly democratic Democratic party which things are getting to be ‘coordinated.’ and which things are quietly just going away. The very fact that the term ‘elite bloggers’ is beginning to be bandied about is quite frankly making my skin crawl.
wonder if they ever tried to discuss choice among those elite bloggers? I’d pay to hear Markos and Jane discuss that.
If you look at the censoring, banning, and cheerleadinbg centering around the Casey nomination in PA, I believe you will see that they certainly did discuss choice and women’s issues. Their verdict was to place women’s rights in a secondary status just like the religious conservatives, and go for a hollow victory with Casey. We will all pay badly for that decision, IMO, no matter whether Santorum or Casey wins. Great strategy and long term planning!
This could all be avoided by openness and the end of censorship of legitimate discussion. Why don’t people learn this simple fact and stop promoting ignorance???
heh.
lets see:
Gee, I wonder if they’re connected?
However, I think that these questions do need to be asked. These are the very questions that MANY people have been banned for just ASKING, and now it appears that we had reason to ask. You can write it off as “politics as usual” or whatever, but it does shed some light on the way dKos and some other blogs post/act.
There is no doubt that TNR has an obvious intent to smear Markos but I don’t agree that Zengerle is scum for publishing “private emails”. That’s what reporters do. We might praise TPMuckrakers for doing the same to Pajamas Media. Whoever forwarded the emails to him is scum… or possibly a concerned progressive made nervous by Markos’ request and/or jealous of the media success of the dKosCon. Instead of shushing the story, Markos should have front-paged it. Covering up the appearance of or actual misconduct is always a bad choice.
The info-bits that seem important to me are, possibly, quite petty:
if he were a regular reporter i would agree with you, but he is a partisan reporter, writing for an ostensibly democratic magazine. Why don’t I publish newsworthy email that I get? Because it would make me a dick and undermine my political allies.
This isn’t about journalistic ethics, it’s about being a shithead and fighting the wrong war.
pardon me for jumping in, but i’m interested in identifying your point, and this seems like it: Zengerle is aiming at the wrong people. he’s a shithead because he should be aiming at the bad guys and overlooking the flaws of the good guys.
thing is, everyone decides what to overlook and what not to. obviously Kos doesn’t restrict his criticism to only the most obvious enemies. there’s always struggle within movements, and the attempt to demonize others for engaging in that intragroup struggle is a typical part of it. the whole trick is to try to set yourself up as beyond criticism, all the while engaging in criticism. power is about getting to play the hypocrite. and shaming is the way to keep that powerplay unconscious. shaming (scum, despicable, etc) is employed to try to make a double-standard appear objective.
that seems to me exactly what you’re doing here.
look at the totality of what I have been saying.
Criticizing Markos is allowed here. Making personal attacks against him is discouraged, not by censorship, but by requiring that kind of diary (not comment) be cross-posted over there.
What is the point of Jerome’s alleged activities? Is it to get Warner to find a new netroots advisor? No. It’s to tar Markos by way of his affiliation. That’s pretty dishonest. Add to it, that the person responsible for publishing the private emails is doing so to make a couple of other dishonest points. Namely, to falsely accuse/suggest Chris Bowers is a partner in some nefarious scheme to stifle dissent. Also, that Markos’s communicating a desire to see the story ignored was anything more than a reaction to the contrained circumstances that he found himself in.
And then this idea that Townhouse is some effort to control the whole blogosphere.
Now, why level all these charges? Why go after Armando’s law practice? It’s to destroy the credibility of Daily Kos and MyDD and the other members that are affiliated with them.
That is why it is an attack on the wrong targets.
At base, we have a story of Jerome making a deal with the SEC that he cannot say much about. All of this other stuff has been brought into it. That is what makes the guy scum. I wish it wasn’t so hard to make this point, or that other people could see it more clearly.
Zegerle is taking policy differences and making it personal, and he doesn’t care that he is violating the privacy of innocent people to do it, that he is maligning the character of upstanding people to do it.
The Don, rest in peace, was slippin. Ten years ago, could I have gotten to him?
Paulie sold out the old man, that stronz.
Now, we insist it’s a public place, a bar, a restaurant, some place where there’s people so I feel safe. They’re gonna search me when I first meet them, right? So I can’t have a weapon on me then. But if Clemenza can figure a way to have a weapon planted there for me, then I’ll kill ’em both.
These things gotta happen every five years or so. Gets rid of the bad blood.
Apply quotes to whomever you feel appropriate.
Interesting post. It made the blogroll!
…I just noticed this.
It’s on the very top of the DailyKos site:
That’s a review of Daily Kos by Peter Beinart. Isn’t Peter Beinart the editor-at-large of The New Republic?
If Kos hates The New Republic so much, and Beinart in particular, why does he quote Beinart’s review? Am I missing something?
Good timing. See my latest post.
Does anyone else besides me find it a bit interesting that kos, while calling for everyone to cancel their subscriptions to TNR, has an endorsement for his book on the top of his front page by Peter Beinart, an editor-at-large of TNR?
ummm..?
Great minds think alike. We must have hit the “post” button at the same time.
FWIW, I don’t really have a problem with bloggers talking behind the scenes about stories and figuring out what to do with them. As a front pager here, we did that all of the time – at a very crazy pace at times. (Being a front pager is ‘hard work’.)
What I do have a problem with is stifling a story – unless there is good reason to do so based on a lack of credible facts or questionable sources. (No, I’m not attacking conspiracy theory-related stories which I think are sometimes worthy of discussing depending on the weight of the facts involved. History has shown us many times that power supresses truth.)
I don’t ever recall one instance of the Booman asking me not to write about anything. If I felt something may not have been front-page worthy, I’d do a side diary. (I didn’t have my own blog at that time).
So, I don’t see Townhouse as some grand conspiracy machine. I understand the need for private discussions. It does concern me, however, that a message was sent by kos to ‘starve the oxygen’ from the Armstrong story. On the other hand, I don’t know how many bloggers in that group actually took his advice.
Lessons learned: face what’s put in front of you and deal with it ASAP. Then you don’t end up having to have endless discussions like this based on the blowback for not doing so. That seems simple enough. But I’m a simple kind of gal.