I just read Josh's essay about half an hour ago and it is excellent. I've had some exposure to JBS and the whole Markos odyssey has a similar feel to it.

You seem to be under the impression that people are wanting to hear specifically -- and only -- about Armstrong's SEC case.  This is false.

That was the specific allegation to which kos' 'omerta' request referred, in the context of his email.  It seems a little dishonest of TNR to have extrapolated beyond that, and doubly dishonest considering - as I mentioned - the way they selectively bolded certain sentences to give the impression that it was not related to Armstrong's inability to speak up.

What else do you think they want to hear about?  The non-existent payola scheme?  I'm sorry you've let yourself get so obsessed over something that will end being a big disappointment for you.  I really am.

My understanding is that there are certain aspects of the case that are still unresolved. All this will devolve into an unwinnable argument since none of us here know the whole story.  It has occured to me that if I were Jerome and I had once agreed to a ruling because I could not afford to fight it at the time, I might later appeal that decision if I found myself with money to spend.  It seems quite possible that is what is going on in this case.

Of course, it?s possible that he was misled by Jerome....

Or, in fairness, that Jerome himself was misled by the conjunction of Quaoar with Venus.

That's what you were talking about the last time this got brought up here.  Maybe you've changed your mind?  As for me, it's bedtime here and I have a busy day tomorrow.  Good night.

Part of accepting a settlement on a case is that you give up the right to appeal this later. When you plea bargain, you are expressly trading a lesser sentence for the right to contest your conviction in court, or to have appeals. It's the same in civil suits. If you reach a settlement in a civil suit, and evidence comes to light that completely proves that you were in the right, that's tough. We read a case one time this year about a guy who accepted a settlement in a paternity suit, and then subsequently got a paternity test proving conclusively that the child was not his - but the court still made him honor the settlement, because that's what a settlement means.

I don't know all the particulars of the ultimate resolution of this case, but if Jerome has accepted a settlement involving a permanent injunction, he's not going to get to appeal that part.

Your hero-worship of your blog idols is beneath you.

Well, maybe not.  But it's beneath most.

Oh and Josh, when the Right wants to prosecute the NYTimes for treason, I doubt the concern about "journalist abuse" is probably best focused in that direction.

The lack of self awareness on the Right is often humorous. This is one such occasion.

The post to which you refer pointed out that the myth of "McCarthyism" is preposterous - a junior Senator from Wisconsin, in the minority party (the FAR minority party), held the entire country in terror? It's especially preposterous when you read all the newspaper editorials from McCarthy's day denouncing him. Nobody was scared of McCarthy; "McCarthyism" was a myth liberals created that they could invoke whenever someone questioned their patriotism. That, I stand by.

That does not, as such, qualify as a defense of McCarthy, any more than the observation that Tammy Faye Baker is a harmless crank who holds no legitimate sway with anyone is a defense of Tammy Faye Baker.

I hate to post a semi-off-topic comment, but I believe that tacitus.org is currently experiencing a denial of service attack.

And, I suspect, based (admittedly) on circumstantial evidence, that it is being done by Kossacks. This includes the timing, the nature of the site redirect that occured yesterday (to www.alluvus.com ), and the changes to Aarons recently created wiki here: http://tacitus.pbwiki.com/Kos

Not trying to start any trouble really, just trying to contact some of the other tacitus denizens who are currently probably wondering what the heck is going on.

Disingenuousness is not your forte.  You know quite well what I'm referring to.  Yes, I write about Kos, and dKos, and the associated movement fairly often.  It's news, in case you've not noticed.  Public figure, single largest online community in existence, significant political force, etc.

The "obsession" trope is an idiot dodge: rhetoric-as-dismissal.  One need pay no attention to an obsessive, right?  The reality is that I'm no more "obsessed" with the above subjects than you are with, say, SCOTUS topics.  Your beat is your beat; this is one of mine.  This doesn't actually need explaining to you -- I'm embarrassed for you that you'd try it nonetheless.

What would obsession look like?  It would look like jealousy, for starters; it would probably involve some denial of the very real and even laudable accomplishments of the subject.  I'm on record as calling Moulitsas a "genius" for his efforts, and noting specifically his "singular hard work" and vision.  And I'll say here that Fishyshark was the most charming and sweet fatherhood blog I've ever seen.  This isn't obsession: it's not even close to the subject I've written most on, nor my principal public concern.  Obsession would look like the fellow at Sadly, No, who has spent years complaining about me at, uh, online baseball fora.  It would look like the ludicrous "Thersites," who has never interacted with me to my knowledge, but nurses an abiding public hate nonetheless.  It would look like much of the readership of Obsidian Wings.  It would look like a person who asks one's friends to correct the record on minor points about oneself, behind the scenes, at right-wing blogs.

I'm a bit tired of batting this one away, Armando.  And I'm annoyed beyond expression that you of all people would actually haul it out.

Gosh, maybe Kos can be the mastermind, plotting and foiling, ego tripping, and influencing and having like minded Associations with Democrats and start a blog. (OMG associations??? Is he a communist?)

And even worse, did you hear, he sold a BOOK!  gasp/shock/snap

  (and did you hear about his friend..... whisper, whisper, whisper)

  He is brilliant and passionate Obviously a liberal conspiracy is afoot...... to start a movement to get Democrats elected. Imagine....! Oh the horror.

P.S. I have been thinking more about it, and he sent me an e-mail of a friend

of a friend, who wrote a book, for a friend and then asked me not to mention

...but, you are not going to believe this, they printed it in the NYTimes. The rabid

lambs are coming. But it is really just a cover for Peter Daou, who has had

associations with Hillary. Yes that Hillary. Hillary Clinton (did she write a book)

I heard he was going to help Peter Daou with some blog software, for Hillary's campaign. Give him a few tips. The Daily Kos is just a cover for his deeper more

secret desire....... to give you all the vapors and work for Hillary's reelection in '08.

And I think his friends, friend or was it his girlfriend, is writing a book next year, by the same publisher.

  So has anyone heard how the SEC filing has ruled in Bill Frist's stock sale? And is he still working for his own campaign.

Fine. Obsession was a tweak, not a diagnosis. I apologize for offending you.

And I have always and often expressed that, in my opinion, you write too much about kos.

It is an opinion. Not a fact.

Hunh. Are you denying that the basic substance of McCarthy's claims were not true? Were the Venona cables a hoax?

What I find most fascinating of all is your laser-like focus on the anti-communist activities of the JBS, as though the point of the post was that Kos was paranoid about communists.

I am denying that anything McCarthy said was based on knowledge he had.

The man was a pathological liar. One of the most despicable men in the history of American politics.

As I said Leon, someone who stll defends Joe McCarthy is not in a good position to be labelling other people as 'like the John Birch Society.'

This discussion gets more and more fascinating. As not even you can dispute the fact that the "basic substance of McCarthy's claims were true," (which is exactly the extent to which I defended him), you have now resorted to attacking the fact that it was not true based on knowledge that he had at the time. And yet, despite the fact that the Venona cables positively identified virtually all of McCarthy's purported "victims" as actual communist infiltrators, he is somehow a "pathological liar."

Now, McCarthy was dead before I was born, so for all I know, he really *was* an overbearing donkey's rear, so I'm not prepared to defend him on that point. But I refuse to believe the myth that liberals have created around him (again, the junior minority Senator from Wisconsin strikes terror into the heart of no one, no matter how boorish he is), and I will point out that the only reasonable explanation for the existence of this myth is the fact that McCarthy was ultimately proven to have been right.

But the most fascinating thing of all is how we're still pretending that Josh said that Kos was like Robert Welch, Jr. because they were both paranoid about communists. Oh yeah, and we're also ignoring the fact that while you've argued ad hominem against my qualifications to link to Josh's post, you've not addressed the substance of Josh's post whatsoever.

I am hardly a hero worshipper of Markos.  And certainly not of Jerome.  As I can demonstrate with links if you desire, I have called out Markos when I thought he was wrong.  I do admire the way Markos allows open criticism of him on his blog.  And he has a lot of political savvy.  But he also has a tendency to occasionally go overboard, something he seems to be aware of.

Now Wes Clark I admit to worshipping as a hero.  Because he is in many different ways.

I'm just saying that while belief in astrology is unusual, there are people with much higher profiles than Jerome (like Nancy Reagan) who also believe in it.  Taking potshots at ones belief in astrology just seems cheap to me.  Surely some as intelligent as you can think of something more substantive to say. 

I can see from your comments exchanged with Armando that you don't like the word "obsession" being used to describe your focus on Markos.  Perhaps that is the wrong word (though I don't think so) but you have to admit you have been writing about him a lot lately.  And a very large portion of what you have written has been based on rumor and innuendo.  It is far from your best work, it isn't even good work really.

I disagree with Armando that it is your least attractive aspect though.  To me your namecalling of Jane Hamsher is even uglier.  I've always thought you were smart and I don't understand how someone as smart as you could fail to see that these aspects of your work look unsavory to many who would otherwise be your allies and make them more likely to ignore you when you have other things to say.

And I do really think that in the end you will be disappointed with what happens with Markos and Jerome.

I am beginning to think it is a coordinated attack from both sides.

Well, yeah.  You do think that.  QED the point of the original post, eh?  Surely it's not the Leaders relentlessly feeding ammunition to their foes -- and minting those foes by the bushel?

The whole of your theory, while well laid out and an interesting history of political movements is off the mark.

  That there was such a thirst for an alternative to the Republicans, that gave rise to the fresh and exciting undercurrent of a populist movement, known as Deaniacs. That they were naive to the realities of the media blight that did not favor them and the subsequent chorus to subvert is a lesson learned.

  You can get hung up in the legalese and details of Jerome, and speculate daily on liberal integrity. You can assign unkind motives to Markos, who had the insight to realize the power of the internet and open it up as a blank page  for conversation. But you cannot deny  the success of the Daily Kos, that I suggest,  is the genesis of this very site.

  Your attempt to link Markos and friends with foul whiffs and whispers of past and dark political movements, is itself a McCarthy like effort to stigmatize and dishonor. A tactic known as, swiftboating.

  Your efforts to intellectually swiftboat successful voices for progressive change,  give them even stronger motivation to thrive.

Hi Leon,

This is a Redstate comment from you berating Charles Bird during the Domenech affair because he didn't get his talking points from the Redstate.org editors before posting a diary about Augustine's plagarism:

It's almost like you don't have access to the Editor's IM, or the Editor's email list, or Ben's personal email, or any other mode of communication by which you could have determined whether Ben or anyone else was already working on this.

I say it's "almost like" that because it's actually nothing like that at all, and you haven't bothered to take the time to investigate the matter for yourself, despite having ample opportunity to do so.

What it is actually like is someone who feels such a pressing need to have moral midgets like Markos Moulitsas say nice things about him rushing out to play first to be "responsible" and undercut a loyal ally and a friend.

Classy.

Sorry, I screwed up my comment.  I also wanted to say:

I don't see how your comment to Charles is much different from Markos' e-mail to the Townhouse group.  You were trying to get all the Redstate.org editors on the same page re: Augustine's plagarism and Kos was trying to get all the Townhouse bloggers on the same page Re: Jerome's difficulties. 

I realize I am attacking you instead of your argument but I have found that I must fight fire with fire.  It would be nice to actually discuss blogger ethics with you and Trevino but when you and he compare Daily Kos to the John Birch society you are just attacking the messengers instead of their message.

The whole thing is both very curious and ought to be expected. 

Josh, You are a great writer.  You need to push that.  You should be heading editorials on some big paper, rather than many of the hacks out there.  Having said that, I do disagree with some of your points.  But I do feel you made those points well.

It's all curious because so many entities are bringing out their long knives wrt Markos & DKos right now.  It seems to be coordinated on one level and bandwagon jumping by others on another level.

It's all expected because of the nature of those who like to think they hold power at this point in our nations life.  Not surprisingly, both party machines, democrat & republican, feel threatened by this "new" (it isn't) force in play.  Unfortunately, it's unmatured nature to try to eliminate what one can't control.  Neither machine can control this & is threatened by it.  I say unmatured, because it is very similar to a schoolyard bully.  Sure, they can ride roughshod over their peers for a while, but at some point they lose their power to do so.  A matured perspective views the entity without feeling threatened.

I read DKos daily.  I don't participate much because it's too chaotic, too crowded.  I read Redstate daily.  I don't participate there because I'm a proud member of The Pile.  But I like the points of view I get from both.  Do either represent the greater majority of Americans?  No, they represent subsets of subsets of Americans. 

But I read 'em.

See the comment below - but I will also note that there's a fundamental difference between trying to get all the contributors from a single blog on the same page, especially in reference to one of its founders, and sending out an email to other bloggers asking them to follow our lead. This, we never did.

Oh for Heaven's sake. . .

Now, McCarthy was dead before I was born, so for all I know, he really *was* an overbearing donkey?s rear

Not one of ours, please!

Hi Leon,

Thanks for the response.  I don't think either your comment to Charles or Markos' e-mail to the Townhouse group were in any way wrong or inappropriate.  IMO, both were examples of how a group of like minded people gets its message out.  It doesn't matter that Markos has a bigger group to e-mail than Krempasky does, they were both doing the same thing, getting the troops in line for an oncoming attack. 

The question I would like to ask is this:  Is it right for a group of like minded people to get their story/defense/counter-attack straight if they are going to be attacked as a group?

While I'm actually sympathetic to some of Leon's points -- I do think trying to supress discussion of Jerome Armstrong's SEC trouble was silly and ill advised, for instance -- I think that this type of post and the general fascination the Right seems to have with non-Right bloggers compounds the issues Leon is talking about.

Unlike personalities in the "real" media, having a blog (even a very popular one) doesn't imply any broad based acceptance by any political or societal structures.  To quote Douglass Adams: "Markos?  He's just a guy, you know?".  His blog is popular, agree or disagree (I often disagree) because Markos is outspoken, because the blog is easy to use, because it allows participants to reach a readership of their own, and because Markos is a fighter (something long absent from the left, except for people who want internal fights).

Why people are so concerned about scoring points against Markos puzzles me.  I do think Markos takes himself and the whole netroots thing a bit too seriously but so do people who devote a non-trivial part of their attention to attacking him personally.  In fact, those attacks probably help to increase both Markos' sense of his own importance as well as his real, genuine political importance.

On the whole, I hope SwordsCrossed will stay off the blog beat and stay focused on actual political and social issues.  I come here to talk about politics, not to talk about talking about politics.

My apologies... I meant, of course, to say "horse's rear," but it didn't bear enough etymological similarity to "jackass," which was the word I originally had in that place.

Unless there is a lack of discussion among other posters as well I don't see how that would be any of your business.

Unless this is just an impolite way of asking for elaboration.

This is not your best work because you fail to show sufficient objectivity.  There is not enough discussion of the differences between the two time frames.  Your narrow focus on the similarities, which seems to come out of a desire (evident elsewhere in your work) to paint Markos in a bad light, makes this particular piece amateurish.  A student who turned in a term paper like this for an undergraduate history or journalism class should not expect a passing grade.  It shows flashes of brilliance but academic/journalistic laziness, the latter of which is coincidentally the same critique Markos made of most of those his anger was targeted at.

Thanks again for the response Leon.

In one case, you have an email/message going out to a bunch of people who all have supposedly independent blogs, and in the other, an email/message going out to the writers for a single collaborative blog. 

All those independent bloggers had a stake in the Jerome issue because one of the key issues involved was revenue sharing from "Advertising Liberally".  As a result each of those bloggers would have had to defend him/herself if the Jerome's issue blew up.  It isn't like KOS told that group what they could or couldn't write, he suggested a course of action that was beneficial to all of them. 

By the same token the RNC, the DNC, the AARP, and the VFW each send out talking/agenda points when they wish to speak to an issue that affects their organizations.

If the lefties are willing to concede that they?re really just subsidiaries of Kos, I?ll drop the point.

I can't believe you or anyone else actually thinks the Lefty blogosphere is ruled by Markos.  That is just plain silly.

For me the bottom line is this issue is a way to damage Markos' credibility.  I don't like being so dismissive about it but Makos didn't do anything wrong and for his enemies to accuse him of being a blogger kingpin is just as dismissive.

Er... We sent out emails to other bloggers asking them to keep silent until Ben could respond? Care to provide any evidence of this, or did the words "patently false" just sound like something intelligent to say at the time?

Blue,

  I believe it's called Swiftboating. Getting so confabulated in the details as to confuse the issue entirely. The end result being to discredit and slander your opponent, by taking something that has a grain of truth and twisting into all configurations of conspiracy and king making.

Chose the analogy, of the engorged file of details and accusations that went along with a white stain on a blue dress.

Of course we  would have been better off if there had been a concerted, behind the scenes effort to conceal the evidence.  Townhouse style.

  We would have been spared the salicious reems of files at tax payer cost. The pounding on the morality card by the right and the media's obsesive coverage. The end result is Clinton is still a popular and influential political leader, welcomed round the world.

And for those that suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, the infection seems to have spread to Markos and friends.

Only Markos is rocking the whole boat, not just one side.

But she doesn't write Wonkette anymore.  Now she writes for Time.  Since making the change, Wonkette isn't nearly as funny and daily required reading as it had been, and Anna Marie is MUCH less controversial in her statements and her opinions.  Can't mess with the meal ticket now, can she?

That kind of jibes with this thread.  "Some" out there are actively trying to undermine the power of the independent citizen voices out there and throw a monkey wrentch into the money generated by claiming all sorts of underhanded things with reguard to Markos & DKos.

Me, I liked the Billimon/firedoglake take on it (sorry I'm using them Josh, I know how much firedoglake sticks in your craw, but as a referance for this subject, they were good).  Here's Billimon's Star Crossed and here's firedoglake's (Trex's actually) Don't Cry for Me NR .

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

My point, and I do have one, is considering the sheer size of the blogosphere (and skippy coined that term), saying Dailykos has some infernal control over what liberals do and do not write about in their blogs is just ludicrous.

If you want to see where this is really true, just look at the major rightwing blogs.  Not only do they all seem to get their talking points from the White House, they use much the same wording in their posts.