<< PLASTIC FRANKEN ~ MAIN ~ FAIR WARNING >>

CASH FOR COMMENT

Via Instapundit, a revelation from Zephyr Teachout:

In this past election, at least a few prominent bloggers were paid as consultants by candidates and groups they regularly blogged about ...

On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.

While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime.

They should have paid Markos to shut up.

UPDATE. Full disclosure from Marko$:

For the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it’s technical, not message or strategy. I will also not discuss any of my other clients, including their identities ...

[cough] Halliburton [cough] 

Posted by Tim B. on 01/14/2005 at 02:14 AM
  1. That’s hillarious.

    Until names are named, we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House’s payola rolls.

    from Kos himself

    and also

    The consultant class’ role in the collapse of the Democratic Party is clearly a pet topic of mine—I’m co-writing a book on it—and it’s one that will get plenty of attention over the coming year as we, as a party, work on reforming the way we do business. And the first step toward reform is acknowledging and understanding the problem.

    kos

    Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 01 14 at 03:30 AM • permalink

  2. Are we sure that Karl Rove isn’t paying Markos as well, given Daily Kos’ propensity for speaking its version of liberal truth?

    Posted by Spear Shaker on 2005 01 14 at 04:33 AM • permalink

  3. Just goes to show that Markos has mastered the primary mode of leftist political action: Projection of one’s own failings onto the opposition.

    Anyway, what the Dean campaign bought wasn’t exactly air time…it was more like airhead time.

    Posted by PW on 2005 01 14 at 05:17 AM • permalink

  4. Charles at LGF has this little tidbit: Because he’s a paid hack, Markos also assumes everyone else is, too.

    Until names are named, we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House’s payola rolls.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/10/124045/880

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 01 14 at 05:23 AM • permalink

  5. Whoops, nevermind; already pointed out.

    Feel free to delete that, Andrea.

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 01 14 at 05:24 AM • permalink

  6. This actually improves my view of Dean.  Of course, after the scream it would have been tough for me to think much less of him, politically.

    I can just see the Deaniacs today wimpering into their fair trade, shade grown, soy lattes ‘It’s just that..sniffle.. well, I never thought ..wimper.. he was a ..sobbing.. captialist.’

    Posted by Publius Rex on 2005 01 14 at 05:47 AM • permalink

  7. “The consultant class’ role in the collapse of the Democratic Party is clearly a pet topic of mine”

    Priceless.

    Dean becoming DNC President (with ‘consultant’ sidekick Zuniga reporting for duty) would be Rove’s most delightful wet dream.

    Posted by Sergio on 2005 01 14 at 05:55 AM • permalink

  8. Quite Interesting. Didn’t recall who Markos was until I reviewed the LGF entry. My opinion of him can’t be any lower, even knowing what we know now.
    However, my opinion of Dean CAN be lowered and just has been. (My opinion of Dean wasn’t too high anyway.)

    I assumed that paid consultants were posting on various blogs and that blogs may have been started by paid consultants.  So I’m not shocked.

    Bloggers should disclose such information (that they are paid), but I’m not going to join a crusade or campaign to demand this.

    (Demanding such a disclosure can’t be enforced.  If it *could* be enforced I’d be against whatever measures that would be necessary to ensure this anyway.)

     

    Posted by CJosephson on 2005 01 14 at 06:05 AM • permalink

  9. Did Dean pay Markos with federal tax money?  No.  Did Markos make his affiliation with Dead clear in a disclaimer?  Yes.  Is Dean a sitting president?  No.  You people are funny—delusions and all.

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 14 at 06:07 AM • permalink

  10. Is anyone taking up a collection to pay Mr. Zúniga in the next election? If he is as helpful then as he was this time, I’ll contribute.

    Posted by basil on 2005 01 14 at 06:31 AM • permalink

  11. Great, next we’ll have lots of boring legal disclosures in fine print on every blog.

    Goddamned lefties fuck up everything they touch. The dishonest sacks of shit can’t keep themselves out of mischief. It’s pathetic.

    Posted by Butch on 2005 01 14 at 06:35 AM • permalink

  12. Did Markos make his affiliation with Dead clear in a disclaimer?

    Freudian slip of the month.

    Posted by PW on 2005 01 14 at 07:04 AM • permalink

  13. Basil got to it first. I’d be very interested in a detailed list of this “useful advice,” because I could do with a good laugh right now.

    Posted by Jim Treacher on 2005 01 14 at 07:11 AM • permalink

  14. Mr. Zuniga was PeaPod to Joel Trippi’s Webvan, and, in the end, President Bush’s Safeway ended up with all their delivery trucks.  When will these paradigm-shifters ever learn?

    Ms. Teachout’s statement above that the Dean campaign paid Zuniga largely to say positive things about the campaign largely contradicts the disclosure on Zuniga’s site that he was being paid to provide technical—not message—advice.

    —furious

    Posted by furious_a on 2005 01 14 at 07:48 AM • permalink

  15. Steve Dave, insulting people who post to this forum is a great way of getting your brand-new account shut right off.

    Posted by Andrea Harris on 2005 01 14 at 10:37 AM • permalink

  16. So, Kos say’s it alright for him to take money because he a “Fanboy” for the Democratic Party. How sad and pathetic.

    Bonus!

    Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2005 01 14 at 11:29 AM • permalink

  17. What I liked best about Kos’ “declaration” is that he doesn’t get how and why he was used, despite Zephyr explaining it in baby steps.

    Posted by Pauly on 2005 01 14 at 12:26 PM • permalink

  18. For me now two of the great Mysteries of 2004 is starting to become clear. How the “blank” did Dean become the front runner in the first place. & What happen to all that money raised on the internet ?  The campaign needed to keep a tighter grip on those payo…..Consulting fees

    Posted by Alien Grey on 2005 01 14 at 03:03 PM • permalink

  19. But isn’t it amusing, Andrea, that Steve can’t even figure out why it is that we are ridiculing Kos et al?

    To simplify matters for Steve, I’ll try to explain hypocrisy in words of few syllables: 

    Steve, Kos would say things that he did not intend to live up to himself.  And he would say those things very nasty.  And Kos would lie about what others were doing, and yet amusingly they were not lies if you thought he was describing himself instead.  So we don’t like him and we don’t think his thoughts are worth listening to.

    Was that simple enough for you, Steve?

    Posted by Roberts on 2005 01 14 at 03:58 PM • permalink

  20. dear “steve dave,”

    You people are funny
    thank you! [we] aim to please!

    delusions and all
    they’re the only thing that keeps [us] sane!

    Posted by guinsPen on 2005 01 14 at 04:13 PM • permalink

  21. [your name here], insulting people who post to this forum is a great way of getting your brand-new account shut right off

    ... 

    ...(!)

    ...

    please amplify “brand-new”

    Posted by guinsPen on 2005 01 14 at 04:27 PM • permalink

  22. dear andrea,

    please salutate (?) “dearest hammer,” to above post.

    thank you in advance,
    gP

    Posted by guinsPen on 2005 01 14 at 04:32 PM • permalink

  23. While I was still blogging, people used to ask me why it was that I ran no advertising and had no tip jar and didn’t even accept contributions which were offered via email.

    Now you know.

    Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 01 14 at 04:44 PM • permalink

  24. Actually, Steven, I’m sure that Kos would have sneered that you were “obviously” paid a fat sum by the RNC.  The evidence being that you did not bleg for penny ante amounts.

    QED.

    Test problem for liberals: prove that I am not really Karl Rove.

    Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2005 01 14 at 06:04 PM • permalink

  25. I’ve been receiving cheques from Rove for years…unlucky!

    Posted by Quentin George on 2005 01 14 at 06:29 PM • permalink

  26. Steven Den Beste,

    I, for one, never doubted your integrity. And I certainly miss your insight. I hope you are doing well.

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 01 14 at 07:35 PM • permalink

  27. Test problem for liberals: prove that I am not really Karl Rove.

    There’s a little bit of Karl Rove inside everyone of us. No wonder Kos and cohorts have been doing the headless chicken run since last year. Everytime they see a conservative, they’re reminded of The One Who Drives Them Batty.

    Posted by PW on 2005 01 14 at 09:11 PM • permalink

  28. Not one of you addressed my questions.  Did taxpayer funds go to Kos?  Did Kos dislose his affiliation with the Dean campaign?  Here’s a new question: since when can primary candidates propose legislation to Congress?

    Also… It’s JOE Trippi, and Markos MOULITSAS.

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 02:15 AM • permalink

  29. My my, someone’s quite the little scold. Well children, answer teacher’s question! And make sure you spell everything right! Especially the names of Our Betters.

    Posted by Andrea Harris on 2005 01 15 at 02:48 AM • permalink

  30. Do people actually find Kevin Smith’s films entertaining?

    Posted by Jim Treacher on 2005 01 15 at 03:30 AM • permalink

  31. Sorry Steve.  Assumed you could google those answers for yourself. 
    1.No
    2. Yes
    3.  you are refering to introducing a bill?  No.
    My questions for you:
    What is your name?
    What is your favorite color?
    What is the capital of Assyria?
    What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    Jim:  absolutely.  But maybe that’s just me.

    Posted by jeff mccabe on 2005 01 15 at 03:46 AM • permalink

  32. Just answer the questions, Andrea.  They’re very simple.  Or are you afraid to admit that the charges against Kos have little or no correlation with the charges against Williams and the White House?

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 03:47 AM • permalink

  33. Jeff… Thank you.  Do you recognize now the point that the accusations against Kos/Dean bears little resemblance to the charges against the administration and Williams?

    If you guys thought this stuff through instead of knee-jerking, then you’d have a stronger case. Instead of investigating Dean, why not investigate a politician with an elected position who is using taxpayer money to pay journalists to promote their agendas.  But Kos and Dean?  Come on.

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 03:53 AM • permalink

  34. Steve:  Why one or the other?  Why can’t I have a problem with both?  And where are the answers to my questions?

    Posted by jeff mccabe on 2005 01 15 at 04:09 AM • permalink

  35. Oh, and who said there was a resemblance to the two events?  I dont see anything here other than your comments comparing the two.  Bit of a strawman don’t you think?

    Posted by jeff mccabe on 2005 01 15 at 04:12 AM • permalink

  36. Steve Dave,

    Are you two people?

    Posted by ushie on 2005 01 15 at 04:23 AM • permalink

  37. Kos supported Dean. Dean lost every single primary. Kos also supported 12 Democrats by placing ads on his blog. Not a single one of them won a seat.

    Having said that, I strongly believe there were indeed two operatives being paid by a major party. Markos Zuniga and Michael Moore, both being shills for the Republicans.

    I’m being serious. Both said incredibly dumb things that could only help swing over undecided Democrats. But I do know Kos and Moore are not stupid.

    Hugh Hewitt got it right. Every time we got another tidbit from Moore he posted stuff like, “Thanks for keeping things clear, Michael.” If only he knew.

    Posted by Niko K on 2005 01 15 at 04:24 AM • permalink

  38. Steven den Beste,

    I didn’t get time to thank you on the thank you thingamajig, but I’d like to thank you here, if tim and Andrea don’t mind.

    Your discourses on physics, politics, and such always amazed and intrigued me, even though I don’t really understand physics.  And your forays into Japanese anime made anime slightly less confuddling for me.  I miss reading your stuff!  No pressure, though—you write what you like.

    Posted by ushie on 2005 01 15 at 04:26 AM • permalink

  39. Oh please, Jeff.  The Dean/Kos thing was a story that broke a year ago and the only reason it’s being brought up again is to deflect charges against Bush/Williams.  Hence, the “resemblance”. 

    But if you want to reduce the discourse to “things that happened a while ago” vs. “things that are happening now”, we can get into it.  For example, Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair, yet Bush WON’T be impeached despite the fact that he’s lied about WMD and torture.  I don’t mean to go down that road here, but you see my point?

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 04:27 AM • permalink

  40. “Steve Dave, Are you two people?”

    Um.  Is your name really “ushie”?

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 04:30 AM • permalink

  41. Steve,

    no, the Clinton impeachment was not for lying about an affair, but for lying under oath. Also, please provide evidence that Bush lied about WMD and torture. I’d say 10.000+ journalists and attorneys would like to know, too.

    Posted by Niko K on 2005 01 15 at 04:37 AM • permalink

  42. (Oh, and it might earn you a Pulitzer, too, because you’d establish something our press corps failed to do so far.)

    (Come to think of it, if you got a degree in Law a Supreme Court seat might also be secure due to your groundbreaking research, having discovered the final nail in Bush’s political coffin that myriads of liberal court hacks could not find.)

    Posted by Niko K on 2005 01 15 at 04:40 AM • permalink

  43. Hey, guys, who wants to vote on whether to keep little Stevie Davy’s account unsuspended? I’m feeling all democratic today. Cast your votes!

    Posted by Andrea Harris on 2005 01 15 at 04:40 AM • permalink

  44. where did I say I want to “reduce the discourse to “things that happened a while ago” vs. “things that are happening now”?  The topic on this thread is Kos and his possible hypocrisy.  Rather than discuss that, your arguement is that someone else did something worse, AND you tell us why we are discussing this particular topic, giving no possibility that perhaps we disagree with both the Kos AND the Williams situation.  As far as impeachment goes and “lying” I think we could disagree all day on that, but that isnt the topic here, nor is it connected to this topic, so why bring it up?  Rather than reading my mind or introducing unconnected topics, why not address the issue?  If you dont have any problem with Kos, tell us why, rather than going with the “the other side does worse” arguement.  As far as the reason this story is being brought up now, I think it is because of the Teachout statement and the differences between that and what Kos said a year ago.  But if it will make you happy, I fully agree that the Williams thing is bad, stupid, etc etc etc. 

    Posted by jeff mccabe on 2005 01 15 at 04:45 AM • permalink

  45. Steve Dave,

    We find humor in Kos defense that it was alright for him to take the twenty left on the nightstand because he would have blown Dean for free.

    At least with true whores they don’t rationalize their actions afterwards.

    Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2005 01 15 at 04:46 AM • permalink

  46. Andrea… I think the appropriate line is: “Shut his mic off!”  You guys are good at that.

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 04:49 AM • permalink

  47. Nickpicker:

    “But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” 
    George W. Bush, President
    Interview with TVP Poland
    5/30/2003

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 05:05 AM • permalink

  48. Sure they did. Like the anti-aircraft missiles the Iraqi said they didn’t have but deployed during operation Iraqi freedom. Or the checmical plants which could be used to produce Sarin. Both banned under provisio of several UN resolutions.

    (As it happens to be, even Kerry and his folks dare not accuse Bush of lying, only failing to show the smoking gun. Think about it.)

    Posted by Niko K on 2005 01 15 at 05:10 AM • permalink

  49. Steve Dave,

    Then Clinton is a liar, too, because he also believed in those WMD that Bush did, too.  And the WMD, or lack thereof, was not the sole reason for invading Iraq.  But please don’t let facts get in your way.

    “ushie” is a long-term nickname.  I was just wondering why two first names?  I mean, most people content themselves with one.  And not shortened ones, at that.

    Posted by ushie on 2005 01 15 at 05:13 AM • permalink

  50. Nick… Sarin gas?  You mean the pesticide facility in Najaf, right?  Where’s the evidence that showed Saddam planned to stop making bug spray and convert to sarin?  Assumptions, but no “imminent” evidence.

    Let’s be clear… You don’t actually believe Iraq had WMD, do you?

    Posted by Steve Dave on 2005 01 15 at 05:30 AM • permalink

  51. This is getting interesting. Whatever bone one throws at you you always bring us the “let’s talk about the sins of Republicans” back.

    Posted by Niko K on 2005 01 15 at 05:47 AM • permalink

  52. “Where’s the evidence that showed Saddam planned to stop making bug spray and convert to sarin? Assumptions, but no “imminent” evidence.”
    The evidence would be Saddam’s past actions, his at that time current statements, that his army believed they had wmd as did the rest of the world.  I believe that is why President Bush stated in his state of the union address that waiting until the threat was “imminent” would be a bad idea.  Perhaps you missed the speech.  It was in all the papers.

    Posted by jeff mccabe on 2005 01 15 at 06:53 AM • permalink

  53. Troll.  Getting boring.
    Sic him Rex.  Urghh,  Andrea.

    (I loved that advert with Rex the spiny ant eater)

    Posted by Aussie Old Fart on 2005 01 15 at 07:07 AM • permalink

  54. O’Reilly is going to do a story on Koz tonight on his television show. This should be interesting.

    Posted by jooly on 2005 01 15 at 08:22 AM • permalink

  55. Now I’m confused but the story was about a blogger shilling for Dean. That would be markos. Or, maybe O’Reilly is confused. Anyway, it’s hard to keep the lying leftys straight.

    Posted by jooly on 2005 01 15 at 08:24 AM • permalink

  56. I give up. I heard the Dean part and I thought I heard him say atrios. 

    Posted by jooly on 2005 01 15 at 08:26 AM • permalink

  57. “Hey, guys, who wants to vote on whether to keep little Stevie Davy’s account unsuspended?”

    Aw, he’s not bothering anybody. Besides, maybe Silent Bob and Jay will show up.

    Posted by Jim Treacher on 2005 01 15 at 09:27 AM • permalink

  58. Jim:  If silent bob and Jay were to show up, that would rock.Would appreciate it if they left Afleck at home though.

    Posted by jeff mccabe on 2005 01 15 at 10:48 AM • permalink

  59. “You mean the pesticide facility in Najaf, right? Where’s the evidence that showed Saddam planned to stop making bug spray and convert to sarin? Assumptions, but no “imminent” evidence.”

    Saddam and Co. were prohibited from having the *capability* of producing Sarin and the like. Intent to do so was not an issue. The same goes for certain other toys.

    “Let’s be clear… You don’t actually believe Iraq had WMD, do you?”

    They used to have them, and used them.

    They have been shown to have been in the process of asssuring that they could start up production within a short time after deciding to blow off the U.N. and its inspectors.

    Again, they were not just prohibited from having/using WMDs, but also prohibited from having the capability of doing either or both.

    Posted by steveH on 2005 01 15 at 11:49 AM • permalink

  60. For that matter, there seems to be some confusion over who exactly bloggers are annoyed with.  (On the original subject.)

    The Kos/Dean situation and Bush/Williams situation are comparable because we’re not “charging” Dean; politicians are more or less expected to pay people to get their message out; it’s part of BEING a politician.  You are correct, Dean is dead and done as a Thanksgiving turkey and we don’t really care about him anymore.  We’re annoyed with Kos (and Williams) for failing to disclose upfront that they were paid political shills.  Kos disclosed affiliation with the Dean campaign, but went to some pains to give the impression that it had nothing to do with what he wrote- and then had the balls to go the moral-outrage route on the Bush/Williams story when he hadn’t a leg to stand on.

    Incidentally, could you give me a source on the allegation that Bush used taxpayer dollars rather than campaign funds to pay Williams?  I hadn’t heard that part.

    Posted by LabRat on 2005 01 15 at 12:37 PM • permalink

  61. Andrea, I vote to spare Steve Dave and let him keep his privileges.

    What good is being Her Serene Highness, Empress of the Blog-o-Sphere if you can’t make a big show of being whimsically magnanimous once in a while?

    Posted by Butch on 2005 01 15 at 01:51 PM • permalink

  62. OK, that’s two in favor, one against—it might be SteveDaveSteve’s lucky day!

    Posted by Andrea Harris on 2005 01 15 at 02:28 PM • permalink

  63. I say let him stay, but change his account name to Strawman Dave.  Or Strawman Steve.  Or Strawman Steve Dave Larry.

    Or Gladys.

    Posted by Sortelli on 2005 01 15 at 03:54 PM • permalink

  64. Besides, think of the fun you’ll have banning him again… as the old Irish joke goes, “you don’t eat a pig like that all at once!”

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 01 15 at 03:55 PM • permalink

  65. Andrea. that’s three in favor and two against, so it would seem it’s still Steve and Dave’s lucky day.

    SteveDave, do you realize quite how lucky you are? You are the beneficiary of a spontaneous ejaculation of goodwill on the part of Andrea and, in this rare case, several concerned posters. I have no doubt that an intellectual wanker such as yourself can fully grasp the implications of such good fortune.

    Posted by Butch on 2005 01 15 at 04:20 PM • permalink

  66. a spontaneous ejaculation

    Er, I’m not that goodwilled. Ew.

    Posted by Andrea Harris on 2005 01 15 at 04:43 PM • permalink

  67. “SteveDave, do you realize quite how lucky you are?”

    Er, you DO realize that this is just an attempt to draw attention away from the REAL issue, that Bush is SATANHITLERBAD.  You people make me sick! /SteveHarryBarryDaveJohn


    This guy feels like a warmed over Nemesis!

    Posted by Sortelli on 2005 01 15 at 05:04 PM • permalink

  68. let me be perfectly clear.
    i voted against unsuspending “steve dave” before i voted for his remaining unsuspended.

    Posted by guinsPen on 2005 01 15 at 05:44 PM • permalink

  69. Please forgive me, but why are the liberals upset that Bush reached across the aisle to Ted Kennedy to create another entitlement program, and then spent taxpayer dollars to promote said program?

    What is their real gripe here, that the money wasn’t spent to hire a liberal talking head instead of a conservative one?

    The most interesting thing I’ve noted about these dueling stories in the blogosphere at large is that liberals seem only upset about the conservative guy taking money, while the conservatives are irritated at both sides, and if possible, more irritated at the conservative for compromising morals we expected him to have.

    One would almost be tempted to opine that conservatives care more about integrity than liberals.

    Who knew?

    Posted by Confederate Yankee on 2005 01 15 at 06:08 PM • permalink

  70. Is your financial outlook less than rosy?
    Be like the DailyKos - get nice and cozy
    With someone running for president.
    Three thousand a month will pay the rent!

    Posted by rhymepundit on 2005 01 16 at 05:04 AM • permalink

  71. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.