John Cole's conservative cred is pretty well established in blogdom, as one look at his blogroll will tell you. But someone forgot to give him his Kool-Aid yesterday, because he weighs on the "Bloggers Are The Same as Armstrong Williams" story with clear-headedness and common sense (emphases mine):
A much as it pains me to say this, I think that Kos and company are not being treated fairly regarding this Dean payment nonsense, and that the Instapundit (*** Update *** I misinterpreted Glenn- his point was that Kos is being treated more favorably than kos et. al would treat conservative bloggers if they were in his position, something I tend to agree with) and others are not getting it right.
Let me first state that I would be the first to bash Kos if I thought he had done something unseemly, but in this case, he is simply getting a bad rap. Let's review:
- Armstrong Williams is secretly paid $240,000 to be an advocate for administration policies, informing no one of the payment.
- The DasvhlevThune blog is secretly paid by the Thune campaign, all the while representing itself as mere partisan supporters.
- Kos and his associate are paid to do political work for the Dean campaign, disclose their relationship repeatedly, and make sure that people know that they are working for Dean and support Dean.
How anyone can confuse this issue and think it is the same thing is simply beyond me. While the Armstrong Williams and DaschlevThune cases are clear conflicts of interest, with no disclosure, there is no such ethical issue or appearance of impropriety from the MArkos and the folks at the Daily Kos.
Kos was an early supporter for Dean, disclosed early and often that he was traveling to coordinate with Dean and other Democrat forces, and he was completely open about his relationship. In fact, the only thing Kos did not disclose was the amount that he was paid for his services, and, quite frankly, IMHO, that is none of our damned business anyway.
Kos has done nothing wrong here, has nothing to apologize for, and shouldn't have to put up with these false accusations, as he was open, honest, and operating under no false pretenses. You may, as I do, find his political positions abhorrent, as well as some of his anti-war anti-administration rhetoric, but to question his integrity on this account is nothing more than theatre of the absurd. Kos may be a lot of things, but he is not a paid shill who would sell himself to the highest bidder. You can question his sanity, as I often do, but I would never question his passion for his ideas.
That Zephyr Treachout and some cynical operators within the Dean campaign may believe they 'bought' Kos says a lot about them and their utter lack of integrity, but as far as I am concerned Kos was acting in good faith, providing services for a cause he believed in and being paid fairly for those services. If you have a problem with that, then your problem is not with ethics or conflicts of interest, but with people earning a living. Kos has done nothing wrong, and anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand what he/she is talking about.
Kudos to Cole for this post (which comes to us via Oliver Willis).
You see, THIS is the sort of thing that has gone by the wayside, the notion that "intelligent people of goodwill can disagree." When Cole says "You may, as I do, find his political positions abhorrent, as well as some of his anti-war anti-administration rhetoric, but to question his integrity on this account is nothing more than theatre of the absurd", he's showing that he's able to recognize that just because someone disagrees with him, that doesn't automatically make that person corrupt and traitorous. This is something that's been lost on most Bush partisans these days. As their Chosen Leader continues to unravel, as the impact of his disastrous policies becomes more clear, they are having to twist themselves into ever-tighter Gordian knots in an attempt to rationalize to themselves and others their decision to support this bozo.
Anyone can turn out to be wrong about a candidate. Anyone can be disappointed in a leader one supported. There's no disgrace in saying you're disappointed that the product was not as advertised. There isn't even disgrace in admitting that you wree lied to but you believed him because he was your leader. But Bush supporters aren't doing that. Instead of recognizing what they've done by supporting this man, they're digging in their heels, deciding that America = George W. Bush, and if you don't support everything Bush does in lockstep, you are somehow a traitor. I feel sorry for them, it must be exhausting trying to do this kind of rationalization every day.
It's not that I have any great adoration for Kos. I respect what he's done, but I don't know him, nor am I particularly active or known in blog circles. Nor am I putting myself in that league. What irks me about this particular story is that once again, the Mighty Wurlitzer has latched onto something that is utter horseshit, and is worrying it to death like a terrier with an old dishtowel. In a just world, it would come out of the maw of the LRWM a disgusting, soaked rag. But instead, because Americans are lazy and only listening to the electronic box with one ear, it becomes truth (and if it isn't, they don't care).
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire