Should DUers that work for 2008 candidates provide disclosure??

[NoodleyAppendage]

Poll question: Should DUers that work for 2008 candidates provide disclosure??

As we move towards the ramp up to 2008, invariably DU will become increasingly fractious as people fall behind supporting his/her favorite candidate. This is a given. However, I also suspect that DU is populated at times by political operatives or campaign workers for the major Dem candidates, who use DU as a tool to gain support in the grassroots for their candidate. While this use of DU is perfectly fine, this assumes that these efforts are not coordinated to skew DU opinion one way or the other. To protect the honest debate inherent to DU and to provide transparency, I pose the following:

Should DUers who work for any major political candidate seeking or considering the 2008 Dem. Presidential nomination be required to provide disclosure in their signature line of that candidate relationship?

[blm]

1. I would prefer that they do - but how can it be compelled? Not everyone

can put so much personal information out there without retaliation for them and their families.

[NoodleyAppendage]

2. I don't know, but I don't see why actual names would be needed.

I guess we would have to assume a honor system because I wouldn't want people to feel forced to reveal their actual name.

J

[Heywood J]

20. Huh?

I didn't see where personal information was called for. All I'd like to see is something like "I volunteer for ______ '06"

[blm]

39. Paid staff like the poster wants are a limited bunch - wouldn't take long

to track them down.

I have no problem with saying anyone is paid staff or a volunteer, but I also recognize that some people have alot more to be concerned about than just us - like freepers. I mentioned a while back about my husband working in a newsroom and someone pieced togather enough info from other posts to try and get him fired back in 2003.

[undeterred]

3. I do hereby disclose that I am working for Bryan Kennedy (WI-5)

and that we are going to dump James Sensenbrenner on his fat corrupt politically powerful rear end.

Its been in my signature line for months, and I do post about it, but I really care about other issues and candidates too. I hope we all do.

I am now getting emails from Dems who are running for state assembly for the first time. I am so excited about all the positive change that I think is going to happen this year.

[NoodleyAppendage]

5. Thank you. I only wish the Kerry ops around here would do the same.

America needs more involved citizens such as yourself. I hope your efforts help put an end to that fascist Sensenbrenner.

J

[blm]

6. Why on earth would you say that about Kerry supporters? We haven't had a

Kerry campaign worker on these forums since the election, and I think us folks in the Kerry forum would be the first to know if one did start posting at DU.

But, it's interesting that you are targeting Kerry supporters as somehow being duplicit, as if a man who has done so much for this country and effected the historic record in a positive way would not deserve the support that other lawmakers are allowed.

Why is that?

Do you prefer the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party that I am part of have no representation?

[NoodleyAppendage]

11. Knee-jerk reaction, as usual. All I ask is for there to be disclosure.

I said nothing about Kerry supporters being duplicit. I have no problems with posting whatever you like about your candidate of choice.

I only propose that ALL workers for candidates disclose their potential conflicts of interest in their signature line.

What's wrong with asking for some transparency around here?????

J

[saltpoint]

12. Very smarmy. You called one group out. Violation of the rules.

Mean-spirited, besides.

Poor sportsmanship.

[blm]

13. The original question is fine - it was your follow up reply that blew.

You stepped in a pile of your own making on that one.

[JanusAscending]

91. You "inferred" that exactly,

when you said, "I wish Kerry ops would do the same" like we are being less than forthcoming!!! Shame on you!!!

[saltpoint]

8. Have you been appointed the arbiter of conduct on DU?

I must have not gotten that memo.

Kerry ops -- your term -- have as much right to register and post here as you do. You aren't superior and you don't dictate the rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

15. We "friggin Kerry ops" didn't care to be singled out.

Your words, not ours.

Shame on you.

[saltpoint]

16. If a DUer is a short order cook in a diner should he or she disclose

that before posting in a food thread in the Lounge?

You may need to ask yourself the intent of your post.

I don't think "disclosure" was the intent at all.

[NoodleyAppendage]

18. Why do you have a problem with transparency? n/t

J

[saltpoint]

19. Your smarm is almost palpable. Address your decision to single

out Kerry group members.

That's the objection.

Do you have an objection to admitting to something you did in plain sight?

And why?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

23. The smarm is dripping off you like a torrent. You insinuate that

any one group or other has "a conflict of interest" because they are a volunteer or a paid worker for a given candidate?

That's complete bullshit.

This is a Democratic forum. If you aren't comfortable with that, you need to join that bowling league. They're a welcoming bunch and I'm sure they'd open their arms for you.

It's clear you can't handle opposing viewpoints. Good god. "Full disclosure?" What total bullshit.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

55. You need to tell posters here why you chose to single out one DU group.

You need to tell the Kerry group what transgression it has committed against anybody.

None is the answer, by the way.

Still, you persist.

You explosively condemned Kerry group people in a previous thread which you are making a point to hide here.

Admit your intent.

[blm]

26. The BEAUTY of supporting Kerry is that you can use his actual 35yr RECORD

of public service and heroic battles against corruption and closed book government.

So, we don't NEED propaganda to support him. We can use the National Security Archives and the congressional record filled with FACTS and real information.

Try it - use that standard for ALL lawmakers and see how they fare.

[saltpoint]

27. An excellent suggestion. Bravo.

[NoodleyAppendage]

49. Again. This is NOT ABOUT KERRY. It is about disclosure of paid staffers.

The same position and question would be staked out in the case of Hillary staff or any other potential 2008 candidate.

My personal opinions about Kerry are immaterial to this discussion.

All I asked was what would be the problem with disclosure of a paid relationship with any Dem 2008 candidate or hopeful???????

J

[saltpoint]

53. It's your second shot at Kerry today. It most certainly IS about

Kerry, and you have singled out the Kerry group, and you know it.

Have the stones to admit it.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robinlynne]

60. yes please answer.

[saltpoint]

63. Someone is going to have to present you with an Oscar

trophy for this thread and that last one which you have contributed sso much to.

Your responses have been a bit tepid in the substance department, but by god you have stood by the wrong side of the argument very enthusiastically.

Way to go.

[saltpoint]

61. Your failure to address the point is designed by your selfishiness in

your original post, that is, in the follow-up as has been indicated.

You don't order me around, chum. Not now, and not later.

Those are the two times you don't order me around for anything.

You have slammed a DU group here in broad daylight.

That would be you.

Not blm, not me, not anyone else.

You.

Own it.

[robinlynne]

62. attacking the question instead of answering it is something we all fight

against on a daily basis in this country. remember?

[saltpoint]

66. Your point was called to task. Your strategy was questioned.

You were asked to defend your violation of the board rules and you've failed at all three.

[blm]

70. NO HE ISN'T. And address YOUR implication against Kerry supporters and

Kerry, himself, as if he doesn't deserve support.

I can't think of ANY other Democrat who deserves MORE support than Kerry because no other Democrat has effected this nation's history and governance more positively than Kerry has the last 35 years.

You are welcome to try and name someone who has.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

87. You have no right to know it even if it were happening.

You need to brush up on the first amendment.

You don't set the limits here or anywhere else.

And that's a good thing because you seem to me to be a bit dictatorial in your approach to differing views.

There could be -- at this very hour -- a KERRY SUPPORTER in a museum someplace, speaking to someone in FAVOR of Senator Kerry!

What will you do?!?!

[blm]

68. Not in your bullshit FOLLOWUP REPLY where you singled Kerry supporters

out.

By singling Kerry out you implied he didn't deserve the natural support that others get.

I can't think of any Democratic leader who DESERVES more support than Kerry - but then, I'm from the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

[saltpoint]

72. Anybody who's seen your aggressive anti-kerry bashing on DU

earlier today for example will question your assertion there.

You singled out one DU group for some reason.

Care to say what it was?

[JanusAscending]

64. I challenge you to find one Kerry supporter on DU,

who doesn't either have JK on their avatar, or a signature, or "quote" in re to him!!! We have nothing to hide, or be ashamed of!! I wish the same could be said for other "pols" supporters! Many don't even have any information on their profiles! What is every one else "hiding"?? PUT UP YOUR CANDIDATES ON YOUR AVATARS, and then we will all be on an even playing field!! Dems want OPEN AND HONEST, right? Well,...everyone needs to "put up, or shut up"!! Rant over, DC

[robinlynne]

24. Why are you angry about a perfectly respectful question?

What's up?
Why would anyone want to hide what they do politically on a political forum? Especially if paid?
Why would we want to discuss politics with someone who has anything political which cannot be disclosed? I have enver heard of anyone (on the left) NOT disclosing who they work for if they work with a politician. We're talking basic honesty here. Why would you not want to?
I have many friends who work for candidates. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Everyone here is interested in politics and acts in some capacity, I hope.
Hiding it? Definitely sleazy. scary.

[saltpoint]

25. Singling out one group on DU is not RESPECTFUL, to use your

misplaced word.

Do you understand that?

Give it a try.

[robinlynne]

29. the group being people paid by a candidate?

Why on earth would you (meaning anyone) hide that? If I worked for a candidate I would be proud.

[saltpoint]

31. You missed very close to 100% of the post. You could, if you chose to,

read back through the thread and find with your own eyes which group the OP singled out.

Think real hard.

Who could it be?

Could it be.....the Kerry group?

Why, maybe it is the Kerry group!

You don't suppose that it could be found with your own eyes, do you?

Search again! And see if maybe that's the right answer!

Kazing!

[blm]

34. None of us DO work for JK, yet we are being TREATED as if we are hiding

it for some reason, as if Kerry doesn't deserve real supporters even though he has the best record of fighting government corruption of any lawmaker in DC today.

We don't NEED propaganda - we have the FACTS in the record - we don't need to SAY Kerry has balls or spine or other terminology because Kerry's record says it louder than anything else.

We use the congressional record - we use the National Security Archives - propaganda is for those lawmakers who have weak records and few accomplishments.

[blm]

30. The original question isn't the sore point - the attack on JKs supporters

as if we are being duplicit somehow is beyond proper. That was done in a follow up post. The poster knows he screwed up with that one.

[saltpoint]

33. And so does the poster you are responding to.

This is an attack on one group of DU people which is baseless and mean-spirited.

I call on the OP to apologize.

[robinlynne]

36. Is there in fact anyone here in this discussion receiving money from

any candidate?
and if so, is part of his/her job to post on blogs?
that really would make a difference.
I don't think kerry supporters need to feel victimized, anymore than the whole country/world was victimized.
but if someone is being paid to voice any opinion, I want to know.

[saltpoint]

37. Why don't you just photocopy the contents of your files and wallet

and post them right now?

If we're going to have full disclosure, let's by god start with the people screaming for it.

[robinlynne]

40. no problem. I am a photographer.

I am deleting this private information about where I work.
the person it was written to already read it.
The point was disclosure, and I think I made that point easily.

[saltpoint]

42. Sorry, you chose the wrong blue top to spin. The contents of YOUR

wallet. On the web. Credit cards, bank accounts, everything. We need to see it in the interests of full disclosure.

I would be frightful suspicious of conflict of interest, as the OP feels is so pertinent to our discussions on DU, unless you did that.

Do it right now. You aren't afraid of transparency are you?

[robinlynne]

44. This is a political forum and a political question.

I have nothing to hide. I stand by my beliefs.
Do you work for a candidate? It looks more and more as if you do.
and that for some reason that is supposed to be a secret here?
you should be proud of whatever it is you do politically.
or not do it.

[saltpoint]

48. You have had enough time to check out the passages in the thread

had you wished to.

Evidently you'd rather join with the OP.

You were certainly way off course in a previous thread regarding Kerry people, and it looks as if you just carried that over to this one.

Either follow the trajectory of the posts or bow out.

I'm not going to do your reading for you.

And again -- make sure you respond to the point about peaking in people's windows. You are the pro-transparency poster here also -- let's hear where you stand.

[JanusAscending]

88. OK baby, you got it!!

No , I am not employed by a candidate. Not Kerry , not anyone,....but I work for Sen. Kerry, with blood ,sweat and tears. I do it for my country, and that includes YOU!! The satisfaction of working for him, and knowing he appreciates it, is payment enough for me!! Are you satisfied now? or do each and every one of his supporters have to repeat what I just said to make us "legitimate in your eyes"???????????? DC

[robinlynne]

46. come on now. yes or no? simple question. not personal.

not invasive. a simple question. You asked me, I answered.
Do you receive money from a politican or candidate?
yes or no.

[NoodleyAppendage]

54. .......The silence is deafening.......

Well, I guess we have our answer. But, I still don't see the reason for reticence to disclosure unless there is a concerted effort to hide this sort of relationship.

J

[blm]

82. NONE OF US DO. Yet for some reason WE are the supporters who get targeted

for being REAL DEMOCRATS who support the best anti-corruption, open government Democrat of the last 35 years.

His detractors must resent that fact and are likely being paid by the same BushInc crowd who are angry about BushInc's crimes being investigated and exposed by Kerry.

Yes or no?

[robinlynne]

90. I think you may be mistaken, about none of us do.

I dont know, and we won't know the asnwer for now.
if the answer were just no, that would have been said by all a long time ago.
i'm going to go work for francine busby.
She needs help, by the way.
maybe we could all pitch in an hour of this sunday to make calls for her?
or for debra bowen.
both are not winning at this moment, and both are important candidates to support.

(my beliefs, obviously.)

[saltpoint]

94. Or, you know what? Perhaps you could be the party in error.

Yes.

A real possibility.

[blm]

95. The Kerry forum supporters would know if there was a paid staff member

here.

I think the more serious question is about the Kerry detractors here who are paid GOP operatives. Since Kerry has been the best investigative senator of the last 22 years, of course he would be a target for them. They want him discredited and to go away.

That way history can be hidden.

[saltpoint]

38. Do you peak in people's windows at night as well? I mean, you SHOULD.

How will you know if something is happening you should know about?

Hmmm?

How will you know?

[blm]

47. Then it should stay asked of ALL posters and Kerry supporters shouldn't be

singled out as the poster chose to do in a follow up reply.


The implication was that every other lawmaker deserves his supporters on DU but Kerry's must be paid for - HOGWASH - we support Kerry because there isn't a lawmaker alive who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has.

We are the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

I wonder why there aren't MORE who care about open government on DU the way we do.

[NoodleyAppendage]

51. If you are for disclosure of said relationships, then why are we fighting?

I appreciate your willingness to support disclosure.

J

[saltpoint]

57. Smarm alert on you. You singled out one group. Say why.

Give your intent.

Reveal your purpose.

[blm]

65. Your implication that Kerry supporters must be paid ops. He deserves

support - I wonder why anyone who calls themself a Democrat could possibly attack a Democratic lawmaker who has done more to effect this nation's real history and governance as much as Kerry has.

You can't NAME another lawmaker whose record even comes close to Kerry's in regard to the importance of the battles they all have chosen to take on while in office, yet he has become the biggest target here, hasn't he?


Maybe the real question is why are Kerry detractors not outing themselves as paid operatives for Rove and the GOPs who want BushInc crimes swept under the rug.

[robinlynne]

56. You have said clearly that you believe in kerry and are not paid to work

for him. That is what was asked.
you answered.
I answered.
Old crusoe, will you please answer? it had never even occurred to me before, but it looks like you are afraid to state who you are.
why?
It is a reasonable question.
You have every right to fight for kerry. I have every right to fight for gore or feingold.
And I have every right to be angry with kerry BECAUSE of all the work I did for him in 2004.

[saltpoint]

69. If you wish to do some ordering around, get some dogs.

When do we get full disclosure on your bank accounts?

Conflict of interests is a huge problem, you know.

[robinlynne]

75. what do you need to know?

I'm here to answer.
just keep it to politics please. this is not a sex forum, or money forum. or sports forum.

[saltpoint]

96. Dogs. The reference to dogs? Did you not get it?

The comment referred to your dismissive and dictatorial commands and barkings, so I suggested you get some dogs if you wished to do any ordering around.

Because dogs are more theoretically subserviant than humans.

I was myself disinclined to be ordered around by you, so I suggested the dogs.

But be careful! Big dogs bite!

[robinlynne]

59. anti-government anti-corruption... right on! so are we.

(we being gore supporters or whomever else is here.)

[saltpoint]

74. Are you Democrats first? Or are you defending a slam of the Kerry

voters here?

I'm curious to know which came first -- your decision to support "Gore or whomever else is here" or your decision to defend, vigorously if vacuously, a slam on Democrats who support Kerry.

Clear that up for us, wouldja?

[robinlynne]

77. As soon as you asnwer the question at hand. yes or no.

[saltpoint]

81. You know, it doesn't HAVE to be dogs. If you are intent on bossing

something around, you could probably line up some mannequins and PRETEND to order them.

You know -- the way you're speaking to me now.

Commands. Barking orders. Very -- how shall I say it delicately -- Reichian.

Authoritarian. 'Reichian' is an innocent word but it becomes a buzzword. And that's not my intent at all.

Perish the thought.

So skip the dogs, and try the mannequins.

I bet you can really tell them what's what!

[robinlynne]

93. Reich was a psychologist. Wilhelm.

[blm]

78. So you HAVEN'T read the records have you?

Because a number of Dems are NOT anti-corruption and most Dems in DC did NOT want IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning investigated and worked against Kerry to help protect BushInc.

You check the record and see who falls into that category.

[robinlynne]

4. why not? transparency/honesty are always good.

I am working for debra bowen, marcy winograd, francine busby. I'm proud of it.
i don't see any downside. Of course noone needs to say their real names.

[NoodleyAppendage]

17. Again. Thank you. Transparency and honesty are all that is being asked.

I appreciate your political efforts and willingness to see that "sunshine" never hurt anyone.

J

[Adelante]

7. I guess you mean paid staff?

Tons of people on DU work for candidates as volunteers.

[saltpoint]

9. Indeed they do. We suit up for the blue team.

Good point.

[NoodleyAppendage]

21. Paid staff is what I mean. Volunteers are a given.

The potential for conflict of interest is greatest with paid staff, so I would propose that the disclosure should be limited to these individuals.

J

[undeterred]

86. I am not paid staff, just a volunteer.

[upi402]

10. Great poll!

Thank you!!!

[saltpoint]

28. Great is the word. If anything, you may have understated it.

Greater than the Address at Gettysburg, greater than the Statue of Liberty, greataer than cherry pie and ice cream.

I'm talkin' GREAT.

[upi402]

32. Yeah, medicine is wonderful

:-)

[saltpoint]

35. Your diction is pale by degrees. The post, the poll, the smarminess,

the singling out -- all of it -- was TREMENDOUS.

Now come now.

Either stand up and scream your elation or git out of Dodge.

[upi402]

41. Alright, here goes; for Old Crusoe, the intent of the post, and the O/P

ahem...




yay
:bounce:

[saltpoint]

45. Intent of this poll: a reaction to another thread in which the

OP's angry post was deleted. And properly deleted at that.

Anti-Kerry Group sentiment: strong, and indicated plainly in the "I wish the Kerry ops" phrase.

This thread is a real low point in my opinion in DU. Smarmy to the core. I believe the OP should apologize to the Kerry group for singling them out and suggesting that they have in some way run afoul of accepted pracitce.

That's a lie.

The OP should apologize.

[robinlynne]

50. Are you now saying that working for a candidate and posting on DU are not

accepted (read acceptable) practice?

[saltpoint]

52. No I'm not. Are you now reading in a different language?

You seem not be entirely present when confronted with a point.

Maybe get some iced tea or something?

[robinlynne]

71. coffee is my drink, thanks.

"suggesting that they have in some way run afoul of accepted pracitce. "




You were asked if you receive money from a candidate.
period.
Noone said working for a candidate is illegal or immoral.

You are angered at the question. you are angered at the person who posed the question.

please answer. It is a legitimate question.

As air america just said "money and politics are not a good match.' I want to know who pays for poltiical ads, and I want to know if an opinion expressed here was paid for in any way. That does not invalidate the opinion. It just levels the playing field. And keeps the discussion honest.

[saltpoint]

76. I asked in response who appointed the OP arbiter of conduct on DU.

Did you miss that part?

Did you also miss the part about the OP singling out one group of Kerry supporters?

No. You did not miss it.

You have chosen deliberately to ignore it because you know it wounds others.

Very low-down stuff, there.

[NoodleyAppendage]

80. Jesus, I'm sorry to offend you. NOW, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Kerry is great. Kerry is a fine man. Kerry is a war hero. Kerry supporters are good people.

There...

Now, just address the question.

J

[saltpoint]

85. I don't believe you are in a position to tell me what to do, hon.

Are you?

HAS someone appointed you the arbiter of conduct here?

The rest of us didn't get that memo, as I indicated earlier.

You certainly appear to be awfully superior to others here.

I'm afraid I'm not buyin' that at all.

[blm]

89. The poster you're questioning posts positively about EVERY Democrat.

He's defending Kerry supporters here because YOU attach our support to money.

As if Kerry needed it with his unmatched record.

The poster has been on record for months supporting ANY Democrat and especially fond of Gore, Feingold, Edwards, Kerry, Clark, and others.

If you truly cared about other people's opinions and paid attention to their posts, you would know that by now.

[saltpoint]

92. It is most certainly not a legitimate question. It's intimidation.

And that's all it is.

Interesting how strongly you are cheering it on.

Two threads in a row, too.

Impressive.

[H2O Man]

67. I think it would

be more interesting if people did. I assume that you mean people who have paid positions. I would be interested in getting a feel for people who are volunteering with campaigns. Obviously there is no way that we could "require" people to do that, but I would hope people would feel comfortable in doing so.

[NoodleyAppendage]

73. Disclosure would be most important for paid persons, but you are right.

It would be nice to see how active and with whom DUers are volunteering for 2006 and 2008 elections.

J

[upi402]

84. I think that if I'm a delegate for someone again I would

change my sig line.
So when I warn against DINO's it would show me to be either a phony, or an interested party.

For now, I can't even stomach being a DCCM, too frustrating and sad.

[0rganism]

83. I don't think we'd gain anything from such a tenet

1. impossible to enforce
2. impossible to verify
3. easily abused via trollish false flag ops (i.e., a "disclosed supporter" behaves ultra-rudely, or misstates the candidate's position)

As an alternative, I'd prefer people learning to apply appropriate skepticism to EVERYTHING said on web forums and wikis. However, since this is unlikely to happen within my lifetime, I'd suggest we set our expectations somewhere between "really really low" and "nonexistent" for primary election season behavior.

[LeftCoast]

97. Locking

This thread has turned into a flaming mess.