The Trouble With Pragmatism
Further elaborating on Mark Warner, Mickey Kaus wonders:
Indeed, isn't Warner a Democratic Leadership Council type of the sort the Kossacks ordinarily loathe? (The one time I've seen Warner in person was at a DLC event during the 2004 Democratic Convention, where he was proudly presented by DLC chief Al From). You don't think that Warner's popularity with Markos Moulitsas ("Governor Mark Warner in Virginia has delivered") could have anything to do with Warner's hiring of Moulitsas' buddy, Jerome Armstrong, do you?I think the allegation of corruption here is unwarranted. Would Jerome have agreed to work for Warner if he didn't believe in Warner's candidacy? I highly doubt it.
Rather, the dirty little secret here is that for all the mutual loathing between Kossacks and DLCers, the tensions are overwhelmingly personal, the substantive worldview is very similar. Sometimes they take wildly divergent views of a politicians (see, e.g., Joe Lieberman) but oftentimes share enthusiasm for the same person. It's certainly not true that "the netroots" is unideological, but people ought to believe Markos when he says that he's a partisan rather than an ideologue. Like Max Sawicky, I think this is more bug than feature, but it's definitely true. If you're looking for substantive leftiness, especially on economics, Daily Kos isn't the place to turn.
Advertisement
I think that the Iraq war has distorted things through oversimplification.
Basically anyone who opposed the war early was considered "a far left looney" and that shorhand has stuck. The reality is support for the war ranged from left to moderate and opposition did the same. Since Kos supported Dean and opposed the war from day 1 he must be a "looney leftist" when in reality he is pretty far to the right end of the Democratic spectrum on most issues. (as is Dean for that matter)
Or put another way, how people view domestic policy and foriegn policy are often completely distict.
June 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think the allegation of corruption here is unwarranted. Would Jerome have agreed to work for Warner if he didn't believe in Warner's candidacy? I highly doubt it"
While one can't peer into Jerome's soul and determine if he's in it for the love or the money, that's not where the corruption lies. And that's pretty obviously not what Kaus is hinting at.
-----
The problem is that Warner is giving Jerome money to get favorable coverage from Markos on his blog and in his role as a talking head. The problem is that Warner is giving Jerome money to get a special platform at Markos's convention.
I don't think there is much doubt that the arrangement is clear to all three men.
I'm not a lawyer, but I assume no laws are being broken. Markos has been clear that he doesn't want to be considered a journalist, so no journalistic ethics are being violated.
But it's still corrupt as all hell.
If folks want to be fine about it, that's their business. But it should be a clear signal for folks of what Markos actually is, rather than the blogger he plays on TV.
June 15, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unwarranted? It's revolting. "I don't know what I'm talking but I'll just allege corruption for the hell of it." We're supposed to think that Kos is not on the level because he has a FRIEND who works for Warner?
Whenever a pundit makes an allegation in the form of a snarky question, turn it around into a statement: "Warner's popularity with Markos Moulitsas ("Governor Mark Warner in Virginia has delivered") has something to do with Warner's hiring of Moulitsas' buddy, Jerome Armstrong." Then you'll see how lame the allegation is. The power of these insinuating questions is that they invite the reader to feel superior to the person under discussion ("me and kaus, we know the score.") It's a cheap move, but it's very effective.
June 15, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We're supposed to think that Kos is not on the level because he has a FRIEND who works for Warner?"
His FRIEND also used to be partners with Markos in a consulting firm where they took money from candidates to hype them on the internet.
His FRIEND isn't just working for Warner, he's being paid big bucks to head up Warner's netroots publicity campaign.
Markos's deep interest in Warner developed right after Jerome started getting paid.
There is a pattern of this stuff, most recently with Jerome getting paid by the Sherrod Brown campaign and Markos immediately cooling off his ardor for Paul Hackett.
June 15, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Since Kos supported Dean and opposed the war from day 1"
From day 1, Markos was indeed anti-war. But at first he supported both Clark and Dean.
Then Markos started getting paid by Dean, which Dean's blog chief said was intended to pry Markos away from Clark.
After that point, Markos started running hit pieces on Clark.
June 15, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found this description of the Warner party & speech at the Kos conclave extremely interesting.
That's all at this point, just interesting. We'll see how different "kossacks" are from other dem groups as time goes on. No need to guess.
June 15, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaus is always wrong, and Petey is always wrong, but Petey is right this time.
As a "hairshirt left-liberal" (copyright BOP news) I still do watch what's going on, even though I am completely ineffectual.
If the Kos neo-centrists defeat the DLC paleo-centrists, I'll be somewhat happy. If the Kos neo-centrists defeat the ravening Republican zombies, I'll be even more happy.
I do remember this thing called liberalism, but that was before most people were born.
June 15, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why Kos has embraced Warner & company but it is interesting. Kos has said many times that he is about partisanship & pugilism, not idealogy. Fair enough, and embracing a candidate from the centrist wing of the Democratic party like Warner certainly gives credence to that. But is there anything about Warner that's especially pugilisitc or combative? Has he taken a bold stand on some issue and called the opposition a bunch of army boot wearing ninnies?
Even if you accept the narrative that Kos & Company are about picking fighters, not idealogues, that doesen't explain rushing to prop up a guy like Warner, who is not especially combative and who's mealy mouthings about Iraq, platitudes about education & infrastructure, & championing of retraining & the EITC are almost an absurd parody of the model Centrist DLC Democrat(I consider myself Centrist btw).
Markos generally apporaches DLC affiliation with a McCarthyist zeal. He doesen't hesitate to trash candidates for no other reason than that the DLC supposedly "likes" them, even if they have no actual ties to the organization itself. When you consider that, his rather favorable position, (enough to tie a candidate's party to his annual shindig) regarding a candidate who actually HAS rubbed elbows with Al From & Company on several occasions & seems to endorse their world view should give others pause.
I'm not alleging there is some racket here, but I would say the fact that Markos' friend Jerome actually works for Mark Warner may have something to do with Markos' particular treatment of him.
June 15, 2006 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Markos generally apporaches DLC affiliation with a McCarthyist zeal. He doesen't hesitate to trash candidates for no other reason than that the DLC supposedly "likes" them, even if they have no actual ties to the organization itself. When you consider that, his rather favorable position, (enough to tie a candidate's party to his annual shindig) regarding a candidate who actually HAS rubbed elbows with Al From & Company on several occasions & seems to endorse their world view should give others pause.
Or, more likely, the first half of your paragraph isn't correct. Perhaps there's some larger principle going on than "the DLC likes them"?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 16, 2006 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ut oh. This piece from the New York Times by Chris Suellentrop,
"Some people . . . compare the blog boomlet they helped create for Dean to the work of online bulletin-board posters who touted dodgy Internet stocks during the boom market without disclosing that they were being paid for their words.
Which, interestingly, is precisely what the Securities and Exchange Commission, in court documents filed last August, alleges that Jerome Armstrong did in 2000. (The original S.E.C. complaint is here.) In a subsequent filing, the S.E.C. alleges that "there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting efforts" on the financial Web site Raging Bull.
Without admitting or denying anything, Armstrong has agreed to a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future. The S.E.C. remains in litigation with him over the subject of potential monetary penalties."
June 16, 2006 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen the quotes you provide at this Plank post, but the Sullentrop piece is longer, and includes some Joe Trippi connection that I'd love to read about.
Unfortunately, it's behind the TimesSelect wall right here.
If anyone pays for TimesSelect, I'd be greatly appreciated if they post the full piece. I'm curious what dirt Sullentrop has.
June 16, 2006 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Commenter "Petey" makes a serious allegation when he writes: "The problem is that Warner is giving Jerome money to get a special platform at Markos's convention."
The YearlyKos Convention did not provide a "special platform" for Gov Warner. In fact, we invited all prospective presidential candidates to speak during that time slot and Gov Warner was the only one who accepted our invitation. Others participated during other Convention panels - including Gov Vilsack, Gov Richardson and Gen Clark.
The YearlyKos Convention was not "Markos's convention" (sic) but an independent event organized by a team of volunteers from a variety of blogs. While Markos offered the use of his brand to support the effort and was a featured speaker, he did not plan the convention, the agenda nor control who was invited to speak or when.
Perhaps "petey" would like to check his facts in future before making such allegations.
June 18, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink