Daily Kos paid by the Dean Campaign...

[CADsortaGUY]

"to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

It's no wonder everyone thought dean had the internet locked up - he was paying Bloggers.

I wonder if this will hurt his DNC chair chances.

CsG

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

It's no wonder everyone thought dean had the internet locked up - he was paying Bloggers.

I wonder if this will hurt his DNC chair chances.

CsG

fortunately anyone in their right mind wouldn't take internet bloggers all that seriously anyway 🙂

 

[conjur]

I doubt it would hurt his DNC chair chances too much. This will sweep away.

But, I'm kind of surprised that Dean went this route. Well, I shouldn't be surprised. Color me still a bit naive.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

I didn't say you were excusing it. However, having a "technical consulting" disclaimer isn't what realistic people would call fully truthful.

CsG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

I didn't say you were excusing it. However, having a "technical consulting" disclaimer isn't what realistic people would call fully truthful.

CsG

Never said it was.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

I didn't say you were excusing it. However, having a "technical consulting" disclaimer isn't what realistic people would call fully truthful.

CsG

so on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being completely truthful, 0 being completely untruthful...

- this is about a 5

- Williams situation is about 1.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

It's no wonder everyone thought dean had the internet locked up - he was paying Bloggers.

I wonder if this will hurt his DNC chair chances. CsG

Dasm, that's why he failed, he didn't pay me or any of us non FLL's in P&N 😀

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

I didn't say you were excusing it. However, having a "technical consulting" disclaimer isn't what realistic people would call fully truthful.

CsG

so on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being completely truthful, 0 being completely untruthful...

- this is about a 5

- Williams situation is about 1.

Ah so we start with the moral relativity stuff? Do we compare who is worsterester? IMO it's about a 3 to 2.

CsG

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal."

It's no wonder everyone thought dean had the internet locked up - he was paying Bloggers.

I wonder if this will hurt his DNC chair chances. CsG

Dasm, that's why he failed, he didn't pay me or any of us non FLL's in P&N 😀

I'd think that Dean would want to hire someone coherent, Dave. Sorry, but I don't think you'd make a great spokesman. 🙁

 

[Infohawk]

From the don't cast stones department:

The issue of political payments to commentators has become hot following disclosures that the Bush administration paid a conservative radio and newspaper pundit, Armstrong Williams, $240,000 to plug its "No Child Left Behind" education policy.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

I didn't say you were excusing it. However, having a "technical consulting" disclaimer isn't what realistic people would call fully truthful.

CsG

so on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being completely truthful, 0 being completely untruthful...

- this is about a 5

- Williams situation is about 1.

Ah so we start with the moral relativity stuff? Do we compare who is worsterester? IMO it's about a 3 to 2.

CsG

I didn't say morality - I just said truthfulness - morality is a personal issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Was I excusing it... no. But at least they did have a disclaimer, unlike Armstrong Williams. Should Kos have had more overt disclaimers? Sure they should have.

I didn't say you were excusing it. However, having a "technical consulting" disclaimer isn't what realistic people would call fully truthful.

CsG

so on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being completely truthful, 0 being completely untruthful...

- this is about a 5

- Williams situation is about 1.

Ah so we start with the moral relativity stuff? Do we compare who is worsterester? IMO it's about a 3 to 2.

CsG

I didn't say morality - I just said truthfulness - morality is a personal issue.

Which is exactly how you are playing this. You are taking your morality and making the "worsterester" argument on truthfulness. It's a relativist argument.

CsG

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur
I doubt it would hurt his DNC chair chances too much. This will sweep away.

But, I'm kind of surprised that Dean went this route. Well, I shouldn't be surprised. Color me still a bit naive.

ha, like you can possibly hurt the DNC anymore

 

[Pliablemoose]

I dont know if the DNC is ready for Dean.

He's made it very public that he wants it (usually one of those smoke filled room decisions)

And he pissed off the DNC more than once during his pres run...

The payola allegations will prob kill him.

Isn't John Edwards looking for work?

 

[Harvey]

CAD -- Are you flaming Dean for this or trying to excuse Armstrong Williams? If it's the former, I agree with you, but it in no way excuses Armstrong Williams.

There are still significant differences between the two cases. Dean was a candidate for public office, and any payments to bloggers were from his campaign. I think the more significant issue is that the payments to Armstrong Williams were from the Department of Education, an official government agency using public funds, to promote the administration's policies. To make things worse, Education Secretary Rod Paige has publically defended the payments:

Ed. Secretary Defends Payment to Armstrong Williams

By Dave Astor

Published: January 14, 2005 updated 12:40 PM ET

NEW YORK Education Secretary Rod Paige is finally speaking publicly about the $240,000 in taxpayer money his department spent to promote the No Child Left Behind Act via Armstrong Williams' TV and radio shows.

In a statement e-mailed to E&P and other publications, Paige said: "I am sorry that there are perceptions and allegations of ethical lapses." But he defended the expenditure, saying it "went exclusively toward the production and airtime of advertisements in which I described the law and encouraged viewers and listeners to call the Department's toll-free information line. The funds covered those costs alone and nothing more. All of this has been reviewed and is legal."

But USA Today reported today that the Department of Education contract with Williams also called for him to "comment regularly on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts."

That is way out of bounds for a public agency, and Armstrong Williams's failure to disclose the payoff while promoting their policies is inexcusable.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Kos was supporting Dean way way before his job with the campaign began. Read the democratic primary cattle call posts on his site going back to 2002 and its clear who Kos supported.
In summary:
1. Kos supported Dean long before any financial relationship between the two parties.
2. Kos gets hired by Dean campaign for technical consulting regarding how to use the internet for political campaigns. Note this key quote from the horses' (zephyr's) mouth link

We were paying him in part because WE hoped that he, and Kos, would blog positive things about Dean, but that was never explicit or implicit in the contract. This has to do with OUR motives, not some contract, and no compromise on their part.

There was never any explicit or implicit agreement that Kos was being paid in part to shill for Dean.
Zephyr went .500 on her hopes as one of the consultants, Jerome Armstrong stopped blogging altogether during his paid consultancy. Great payola scheme there.
3. As soon as Kos and Dean started a financial relationship Kos disclosed this relationship, first with a post explaining it accompied by permanent text at the top of the page disclosing their relationship. In addition, every post Kos made about Dean during the period carried the disclosure.

Compare this to the facts of the Armstrong Williams affair and one sees that the two situations have nothing in common.
1. Dept of Education pays Williams with federal $$ to say good things about the NCLB legislation.
2. Williams shills for NCLB in print and radio commentary.
3. Financial relationship for explicit shilling is disclosed years later.

There is no relavism here because they are two fundamentally situations.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey
CAD -- Are you flaming Dean for this or trying to excuse Armstrong Williams? If it's the former, I agree with you, but it in no way excuses Armstrong Williams.

There are still significant differences between the two cases. Dean was a candidate for public office, and any payments to bloggers were from his campaign. I think the more significant issue is that the payments to Armstrong Williams were from the Department of Education, an official government agency using public funds, to promote the administration's policies. To make things worse, Education Secretary Rod Paige has publically defended the payments:

Ed. Secretary Defends Payment to Armstrong Williams

By Dave Astor

Published: January 14, 2005 updated 12:40 PM ET

NEW YORK Education Secretary Rod Paige is finally speaking publicly about the $240,000 in taxpayer money his department spent to promote the No Child Left Behind Act via Armstrong Williams' TV and radio shows.

In a statement e-mailed to E&P and other publications, Paige said: "I am sorry that there are perceptions and allegations of ethical lapses." But he defended the expenditure, saying it "went exclusively toward the production and airtime of advertisements in which I described the law and encouraged viewers and listeners to call the Department's toll-free information line. The funds covered those costs alone and nothing more. All of this has been reviewed and is legal."

But USA Today reported today that the Department of Education contract with Williams also called for him to "comment regularly on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts."

That is way out of bounds for a public agency, and Armstrong Williams's failure to disclose the payoff while promoting their policies is inexcusable.

No, I didn't say this excuses the Armstrong case.

Now lets turn this around, are you trying to excuse the KOS moron because you think Armstrong was "worsterester"?
If it was out of bounds for a public agency - don't you think that it is out of bounds for a political candidate?

CsG

 

[BBond]

I thought this was a joke at first. Comparing an internet blogspot with a national radio and television syndicated payola scandal. The wrong wing is really reaching on this one, reaching so far it's comical.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although I don't like this sort of thing (payola), at least the websites did have disclaimers. Mr. Williams didn't publically acknowledge his payola. Kos did, just not that overtly (which I think they should've been).

"technical consulting" :roll: Sure, whatever.

"...it was very clearly, internally, our goal."


CsG

Kos was supporting Dean way way before his job with the campaign began. Read the democratic primary cattle call posts on his site going back to 2002 and its clear who Kos supported.
In summary:
1. Kos supported Dean long before any financial relationship between the two parties.
2. Kos gets hired by Dean campaign for technical consulting regarding how to use the internet for political campaigns. Note this key quote from the horses' (zephyr's) mouth link

We were paying him in part because WE hoped that he, and Kos, would blog positive things about Dean, but that was never explicit or implicit in the contract. This has to do with OUR motives, not some contract, and no compromise on their part.

There was never any explicit or implicit agreement that Kos was being paid in part to shill for Dean.
Zephyr went .500 on her hopes as one of the consultants, Jerome Armstrong stopped blogging altogether during his paid consultancy. Great payola scheme there.
3. As soon as Kos and Dean started a financial relationship Kos disclosed this relationship, first with a post explaining it accompied by permanent text at the top of the page disclosing their relationship. In addition, every post Kos made about Dean during the period carried the disclosure.

Compare this to the facts of the Armstrong Williams affair and one sees that the two situations have nothing in common.
1. Dept of Education pays Williams with federal $$ to say good things about the NCLB legislation.
2. Williams shills for NCLB in print and radio commentary.
3. Financial relationship for explicit shilling is disclosed years later.

There is no relavism here because they are two fundamentally situations.

And Armstrong supported the NCLB before the ad "campaign" began.

There was implicit agreement, did you not read? It was their intent/goal - what more do you need? Sheesh.

They are similar but I see your apologist hasn't allowed you to notice yet, but again, I really don't care if you want to play the relativism game because this isn't about comparing them.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

I think both are lame but I agree with BBond the national syndication is more serious. Another thing you have to keep in mind is that bloggers were such a new phemenon in politics. Dean pioneered it. I'm guessing Dean didn't even understand the phemenon that well and just thought he was giving a partisan a sort of a contract-job on his campaign.

The real problem comes from the fact the bloggers started more and more to try and appear as a genuine alternative to the media. In the sense they are not and that they were more of volunteer partisans to begin with, hiring one of them isn't that big of a deal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
I thought this was a joke at first. Comparing an internet blogspot with a national radio and television syndicated payola scandal. The wrong wing is really reaching on this one, reaching so far it's comical.

The only ones comparing are you apologists and relativists. Can't you address the issue or is this the new line of defense from the left - "but the Bush admin..." 😉

CsG

 

[BBond]

See my sig. It's just a flesh wound.