Dem Spokespeople Should Demand That Repub Commentators Disclose Payments

[Beetwasher]

In other words, when they debate on news shows from now on, the Dems should demand the commentators reveal how much they are being paid to peddle Repub propoganda.

I think from now on it should be assumed that any one peddling Repub propoganda in the media is paid agent and should be treated as such by Dems.

From now on, whenever there's a debate about, oh say, social security reform, the Dem should start off with "First I demand that so and so reveal exactly how much he is being paid by the admin. to push their point of view". Notice that the assumption is that he is being paid and it's only a question of how much?

[dmkinsey]

1. Yeah, that should be the first question

on the talking head shows.
Kinda like "Are you a cop?"

[naryaquid]

2. Good strategy...smart....Let's see

if our mainstream Dems have the cajones to take that kind of initiative.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. cojones.

cajones are boxes or dresser drawers.

[naryaquid]

20. So sorry..

[naryaquid]

21. Thanks....My spanish aside, I have a feeling you "got my drift"

[naryaquid]

24. ..apparently this thread has more than spelling problems..LOL!

[havocmom]

3. The IRS should demand disclosure too!

Is there a special line on the income tax return form for including bribe $$, hush $$ and other income from media whoring?

The IRS had a habit of disproportionate audits of poor people who claimed the Earned Income Credit. Maybe they should switch some of that manpower to auditing media pundits

IRS Audits for Pundits
would make great bumper sticker! Am guessing Randi Rhodes would stand for audit if the RW whores would have to!

[BanzaiBonnie]

4. Excellent idea

Good way of framing this issue. A type of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

If they would actually do that, the association would plant firmly in the public's mind.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. You'll have to ask Conyers to ask them.

I think all the other Dems have been castrated. I'm just sayin...

[K-W]

7. You do realize that most of them dont recieve any payment.

And thus would say "nothing" and make the democrats look pretty foolish.

[Beetwasher]

8. How Do You Know?

How do you know how many are getting paid? You have no idea. For all you know most ARE getting payments. Make them deny it...It wouldn't make them look foolish, it would get the idea out there that the Admin. is paying commentators to push their propoganda...

[K-W]

9. Last time I checked it was the right who used rumors and lies, not us.

The idea that all conservatives are guilty until proven innocent of taking government money is the kind of dirty politics we shouldnt play.

[Beetwasher]

11. LOL!

Yes, because playing nice has gotten us so far...LOL!

Yeah, whatever you say Chester...

It's not a rumor and a lie to demand that a commentator reveal how much he got paid. If he got nothing, he could say, I received no funds. There's no rumor and no lie involved.

Only a chump would take your attitude, or someone who's ok with the status quo.

[K-W]

12. Since when is ethical behavior funny?

If we act like the right, we are no better than they are. I have no interest in replacing disreputable right wingers with disreputable left wingers.

Republicans and conservatives are not guilty by association.

What on earth are we fighting for if we do it in a way that cheapens political debate?

[Beetwasher]

13. Ethics? It's Unethical To Ask Questions?

What utter bullshit. It's not a dirty trick, it's a fair question considering the climate.

So, according to you it's much better to allow these lowlife commentators who ARE taking funds to just get away with it without them being identified??? Yeah, that's ethical. How much are YOU getting paid?

It's unethical for the admin. to be paying commentators to peddle their propoganda. Since the admin. certainly won't tell us who they are paying, and since I'm sure the one's being paid won't volunterr that infor, it's a fair game to assume they all are and to ask about it. The public has a right to know, THAT'S ethics.

[K-W]

14. No, it isnt ethical. It isnt ethical when Bill O'Reilly does it either.

Asking someone to defend themselves from an accusation that has no support is not ethical.

What you are suggesting is that we consider all conservatives guilty by association and then publically confront them as if they have all been implicated.

The problem is they havent all been implicated. So you want democrats to be intellectually dishonest in an attempt to unfairly discredit all conservatives.

Our party should stand for ending these stupid rhetorical games, not trying to play them better than the right.

I mean really I would think you would see the obvious problems with generalizing entire ideologies. The American left has been tragically destroyed by these tactics and now you want to employ them. The difference between us and them is that we want to elevate the standard of discourse in this country.

[Beetwasher]

15. The Entire Media IS Corrupt

And should be assumed so at this point, or haven't you noticed?

What planet do you live on? An accusation that has no support??? WTF are you talking about? The WH essentially owns an entire News organization. That's all I need to know and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Should all Fox news commentators be considered fair and balanced unless proven otherwise? What a load of horseshit.

You want to elevate the standard of discourse??? Then we need to identify the paid lackeys. Unless the whitehouse tells us who they are paying, or the those on the payroll volunteer that they ARE paid, then everyone in the media pushing WH propoganda can be assumed to be guilty. It's stupid to think otherwise and it's NOT unethical, it's pragmatic.

The mainstream media IS guilty. They are ALL guilty for participating in that corrupt medium. And unless they prove otherwise, they should be assumed to be paid WH lackeys. To play nice with whores is stupid, unless you have something to gain from it. To cry that it's unethical means you are naive or worse.

It's not a dirty trick to demand that the public gets unbiased information. It's not a dirty trick to draw the publics attention to the fact that no one can now assume that commentators are neutral. The public needs to know that commentators are available to the highest bidder and if that means asking every single one of them if they've been bought (or for how much) then it should be done. It's NOT unethical to demand responsibility and hold the media and the commentators accountable.

Or maybe your ok w/ propoganda? Seems that way to me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Read up on David Brock.

Remember "The House that Monica built?" There's a point where a journalist will act like a Pavlov dog. If he gets rewarded by saying certain things, it just encourages him or her to slant his opinion pieces so that he can keep the good times rolling.

I've often wondered what is really behind many a commentator's motivations. High on my list of suspects, is Andrew Sullivan. He made a nice living tearing down Clinton. It was his speciality. But his reasons for doing it, I suspect, were different than, let's say, Barbara Olsen's.

[K-W]

17. So the ends justify the means?

It is ok to unfairly implicate conservative pundits in payola because they deserve it because of other issues?

What kind of aweful nonsense is that. You are playing the same dirty game as the media you claim to despise.

Stop trying to make this about the overall media, stop trying to spin my posts to being about the overall media.

We have a real fact based criticism of these people. Levelling unfair attacks on them based on the actions of other conservatives only hurts our real fact based criticisms.

Yes we should find out all the facts through a thourough investigation. Implicating conservative pundits on talk shows is not an investigation method so please stop pretending you are asking for the truth here. You are asking that we use this scandal to smear all conservative pundits. And while I understand that conservative pundits are aweful and do much worse to us every day, it still isnt right.

[Beetwasher]

18. Fuck That, It IS About The Entire Media

You don't make the rules. Who the fuck are you to tell me to stop making it about this or that. That's the whole fucking point that it IS about the corruption of the media. It's rotted, fetid beast through and through. It's vile and putrid to it's very core. It's not YOUR post, it's MY original post and that IS what it's about. The whole media is totally corrupted by scum pimping for the WH and it's essential to root them all out.

Nice strawman you're trying to perpetrate though. If they're not pushing WH propoganda, I've got no problem w/ conservative commentators. If they are, then they need to be confronted about being on the payroll. Too fucking bad for them. Maybe they should be allowed to just police themselves??? Fuck that. There is a responsibility when you are given the priveledge of using the PUBLIC's airwaves or when you present yourself as objective.

Unfair attacks??? BULLSHIT!! What's unfair is that propoganda is being peddled as legitimate news.

A thorough investiagation???? LOL! You're serious???? You must be on some heavy drugs. Yes, let's get Rupert Murdoch right on it.

It is right, it is ethical and it's not a smear to ask every single mouth spouting WH propoganda what they are personally getting out of it. If you are peddling the WH point of view, then you ARE automatically unders suspicion. Too fucking bad. Don't blame me, blame the WH for paying assholes to peddle propoganda. It's THEIR fault for being unethical. It's not unethical to now suspect every asshole spouting WH propoganda as being on the payroll, it's common sense pragmatism.

[K-W]

22. You are misrepresenting my position, please cease doing so.

You are making a simple argument that the end of hurting conservative pundits, justifies the means of baseless accusations. Sorry, but they dont.

Contrary to your myopic view both our baseless accusations and thier lies can be unfair. Just because they are unfair doesnt mean anything the left does is fair.

I dont think I suggested fox do the investigation. What on earth are you talking about?

Common sense pragmatism? Yah, people who think the ends justify the means often site pragmatism. The ends dont justify the means and no amount of riteous anger about the conservative media will make it ok to stoop to thier level.

This isnt about anything other than whether or not it is ok to implicate all conservatives as government agents because one of them is. It isnt ok, and no amount of your rambling on about the evils of the media will make it ok. Fight the good fight, but dont think you can fight the good fight with evil tactics.

And to clear it up for you, I dont like the conservative media and I advocate stopping them. I just dont advocate selling our positions short by engaging them on their dispicable level.

The same logic that makes all conservatives guilty by association of payola makes all DU'rs guilty by association when one person says something bad on this site. Only those individuals who we have reason to suspect should be implicated, period. We do things the right way.

[Beetwasher]

23. Bullshit, You Are Misrpepresenting My Position, There's No "Means"

to justify. What means am I trying to justify? Asking a question needs to be justified??? Bullshit. I'm not saying we should start paying people to push propoganda, that would be the ends justifying the means. I'm merely saying we should put everyone who is pushing a WH position on the spot to clarify that they are not on the payroll.

The WH has already implicated every single moron who peddles their bullshit. I didn't pay assholes to peddle their propoganda, they did. If you got a problem w/ putting all adovcates of the admins positions on the spot, take it up w/ the WH. They tarred every single one of their supporters now as possible paid hacks. That's their fault and their problem. It is now legitimate to put every WH proponent in the category of paid hack. Let them deny it. Too fucking bad.

There is no means to justify here, it's called clearing the air. If I find one tainted package of meat, do I give the rest the benefit of the doubt? No fucking way.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. We don't have to ask ALL of them. But, I wouldn't be surprised to

find out that money got to the following people in creative ways:

Novak
Hannity (Who is more than a t.v. persona)
Limbaugh (How much of his 23 million was filtered to him by outside sources?)

And for icing, I'd like to find out the same question about:
Chris Matthews who just bought himself a nice home in Nantuckett.

We're allowed to ask and question. It's our yob, mon.

[ChairOne]

19. LOL - only if they know for a fact that we Dems aren't guilty of the same

thing.

Otherwise, as far as PR goes, it would just be a case of Pot, meet Kettle; Kettle, Pot.

lol

[Beetwasher]

25. Irrelevant

The Repubs get away w/ tarring us w/ shit they're guilty of all the time, time to turn the tables and take the offensive.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the Dems are doing this anyway, or being this stupid and blatant about it. If they were, you can be damn sure the Repubs would already have been screaming about it.