1. Conflict of interest charges surface against Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong, suggesting that Moulitsas provided favorable press for left-wing candidates on his site, Daily Kos, in return for said candidates' hiring Armstrong as a consultant. Armstrong, who recently settled with the SEC in a separate stock-touting scheme, therefore has a record in similar pay-for-play behavior. Moulitsas posts this on the supposedly off-the-record web site Townhouse, for the private consumption of left-wing bloggers:
This story will percolate in wingnut circles until then, but I haven't gotten a single serious media call about it yet. Not one. So far, this story isn't making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn't do anything to help make that happen.
My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I'll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on. If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let's starve it of oxygen. And without the "he said, she said" element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction.
2. In keeping with Joseph Kennedy's maxim, "Don't commit anything to writing you wouldn't mind reading on page one of The New York Times," Moulitsas's posting falls into the hands of The New Republic's Jason Zengerle, who publishes the posting in TNR's "The Plank." Zengerle compares Kos's posting to a "dictat" from a virtual "smoke-filled room."
3. Kossaks (Moulitsas's wide-eyed acolytes) go nuts. Open threads fill up with postings of the "Yeah, you got him--and he killed Hoffa, too," variety.
4. Finally Kos writes on his own behalf on Daily Kos. The full text is more artifact than apologia, unintentionally revealing the paranoia, defensiveness, name-calling and faulty reasoning that dominate his site. The title is a good indication: "TNR's defection to the right is now complete."
A few highlights.
About "Townhouse," Moulitsas writes:
There was one big rule for this list, an important cog in the growing Vast Left Wing Conspiracy -- everything discussed was off the record.
That was obviously violated today as the New Republic betrayed, once again, that it seeks to destroy the new people-powered movement for the sake of its Lieberman-worshipping neocon owners; that it stands with the National Review and wingnutoshpere in their opposition to grassroots Democrats.
The magazine published, in its website, an email I sent to the list. There is nothing controversial about the email, but Jason Zengerle tried to spin it as evidence that there is a "smoke-filled room" and that I send "dictats" to other bloggers, controlling what they can and cannot write about. In a subsequent post, Zengerle went further, saying that I control the financial fates of much of the progressive blogosphere. My power apparently knows no bounds!
Leaving aside the notion of "Joe Lieberman" as a curse word for the left (he's not the most exciting dude in the world, but wow), a few thoughts. There is no indication that either TNR or Zengerle are either members of "Townhouse" or signatories to the off-the-record agreement. As Moulitsas doesn't clarify this either way, one must assume that they aren't. Conclusion: somebody finked Moulitsas out, but it wasn't TNR.
As to "nothing controversial," try to imagine Jonah Goldberg writing Hugh Hewitt, Powerline and Captain's Quarters and telling them to keep quiet an accusation against NRO that had been made in The New York Times.
Markos on TNR:
Ludicrous, all of it, but that's the new rules of the game. TNR and its enablers are feeling the heat of their own irrelevance and this is how they fight it -- by undermining the progressive movement. Zengerle has made common cause with the wingnutosphere, using the laughable "kosola" frame they created and emailing his "scoops" to them for links. This is what the once-proud New Republic has evolved into -- just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy.
The notion of Peter Beinart as a cog in the VRWC--how far out do you have to be?
Then this:
If you still hold a subscription to that magazine, it really is time to call it quits. If you see it in a magazine rack, you might as well move it behind the National Review or even NewsMax, since that's who they want to be associated with these days.
This is beyond cute. Funny thing is, I did cancel my TNR subscription seven or eight years ago, when publisher Martin Peretz fired Michael Kelly, God rest his soul. The real beauty here is the call to hide the magazine behind other magazines--a common enough tactic among the left, who often brag about filtching Ann Coulter books from Politics and Current Events and hiding them in Gay Issues. But note the tone Moulitsas uses: not instructing the reader to hide copies of the magazine (as he does re cancelling subscriptions) but stating that Kossaks "might as well" hide them, as if he arrived to this conclusion with great reluctance. The poor, overburdened man.
The real coup de grace somes two paragraphs later:
But I do admit being surprised by the sheer creativity of their invented attacks, such as my supposed "pay for play" scheme. Let me be crystal clear. I deny that charge completely. I have stated the sources of my income and they do not include money from people asking me to shill for anyone or anything.
The rhetoric here is Clintonesque in its inventiveness. No one is accusing Moulitsas of accepting money. They're accusing Armstrong of accepting money. They're accusing Moulitsas of improper shilling.
Then:
Problem for these writers, is that the law doesn't protect such defamation. The truth is an absolute defense to libel cases. If they have evidence for those smears, then they have nothing to fear. But if they, say, recklessly invented all manners of illegal or unethical activities by me without bothering to see if they bore any basis in truth, then they'll have plenty to worry about.
Hmm. If they have evidence for those smears. Meaning they might? Keep in mind--if anyone has noticed--that Moulitsas has not denied his own role in pay-for-play as it has been defined by third parties.
So in the end, what do we have?
1. Moulitsas blaming a TNR writer for breaching a confidence between Moulitsas and certain others, which is a bit like Barry Bonds suing the authors of Game of Shadows, not for libel but because the book used grand jury testimony.
2. Moulitsas trying to stifle unfavorable news about himself, then calling the action "nothing controversial."
3. Moulitsas encouraging (with a note of feigned weariness, so to give himself an out) the hiding, in magazine stores, of a magazine he doesn't like.
4. Moulitsas denying the charges against him, but doing so in such a way that misstates the charge against him, and declares himself innocent of something no one has accused him of.
Then, two consecutive posts at NRO's The Corner:
You Want a Conspiracy [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
Regarding your post in the corner:
>>>>>>>>>
The Newest Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy [Kathryn Jean Lopez ]
The New Republic, according to DailyKos. Posted at 6:49 AM
<<<<<<<<<
Make note that there is speculation that Hillary is behind the attacks on Kos - she is perturbed by their petulance and will not let them interfere with her presidential ascendancy.
Now, who orginally came up with the concept of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?
Posted at 10:27 AM
Kos & Affect [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Jonah,
Interesting: Kos demands that everyone shut up about the SEC issue, since Jerome Armstrong cannot speak out (being in the midst of litigation). That never stopped him from blogging about everyone else in the middle of litigation (think: Rove, Libby, Haditha soldiers, et al). Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do"
A second data point: Notice in the post that KLo linked to: he imputes all sorts of nefarious schemes to the owners of The New Republic, while simultaneously stating that he is but a simple blogger. He then sends out an email that, frankly, reads as 'marching orders' to the group members.
Kos has the ability to hold others to rules that he himself violates at will.
Continuing . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment