Moran's Selective Outrage

  • : Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/file.inc on line 895.
  • : Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/file.inc on line 895.
  • : Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/file.inc on line 895.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.
  • warning: Parameter 1 to profile_load_profile() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/dempac/bluecommonwealth.com/includes/module.inc on line 450.

This (Friday) morning, Brian Moran appeared on the Kojo WAMU Politics Hour Show with Kojo Nnamdi. The subject of Terry McAuliffe’s fundraiser last week with the bipartisan lobbying BGR came up. According to the McAuliffe campaign’s "Terry Facts":

… Out of 11 event chairs, 10 were Democrats, including Terry's longtime friend Jonathan Mantz, who has spent his career fighting for Democratic candidates and causes. Mantz was the principal host of the event. Throughout his career in Democratic politics, Terry has built relationships with many people, both Democrat and Republican. This ability to reach across the aisle is part of what will make Terry an effective governor.

Apparently, Brian Moran doesn’t see it that way, preferring to focus on the 1 event chair who happened to be a Republican and to bash Terry McAuliffe for sharing a room with him:

Moran: Well, fundraising ties, Republican fundraising ties and this particular gentleman, by the name Ed Rogers, used some very offensive language during last year’s election. Language, that was, um, that was offensive to me as a supporter of Barack Obama. You know, that’s what gives politicians and lobbyists a bad name. I mean, here he is, he’s willing to fundraise with people who do not, um, possess our values. There was a reason we were so supportive of Barack Obama: he was bringing change, he was making sure we were investing in people, once again, and bringing change to, um, to the culture of corruption. And here’s one of my Democratic opponents joining—jumping in bed with someone that supported that. So his fundraising with that particular individual condones what that person said. I find that offensive.

So, Brian Moran claims to be outraged that Terry McAuliffe would hold a fundraiser with 10 Democrats and 1 Republican named Ed Rogers. True, Rogers was obnoxious, but was he any more obnoxious than one of Brian Moran’s OWN EMPLOYEES? As it turns out, one of the top officials (new media director) on the Moran campaign was also one of the worst bashers of both Barack Obama and Obama supporters, which he referred to derogatorily as “Obamabots.” Here are a few classics from the Jerome Armstrong encyclopedia of anti-Obama rantings and ravings:

Here we have Armstrong, on March 15, 2009 - nearly 5 months after Obama was elected president, and while employed by Brian Moran – continuing to bash Obama, this time charging that “its hard to imagine Obama's economic leadership being any worse.”

Sadly, this was mild by Jerome Armstrong standards. Here is Armstrong from November 26, 2007, mocking Obama for “hopemongering” and claiming that Obama violated FEC regulations.

Here, on December 14, 2007, Armstrong charges the Obama campaign with “talking smack” and with “milking” Clinton campaign co-chair Billy Shaheen’s raising the subject of Obama’s youthful drug use.

Here, on March 17, 2008 Armstrong gives credence to the argument that the Reverend Wright controversy has all but destroyed Obama's candidacy and credibility.

Here is Armstrong on June 14, 2007, calling the enormous movement for Barack Obama “fake” and “vacuous.”

Here is Armstrong on January 9, 2009, again while working for Brian Moran, mocking Obama once again: “haha, Kumbaya... The Chicago Way has arrived in DC.”

Yet another gem from Jerome Armstrong, this time on February 11, 2008, mocking the concept that Barack Obama could possibly “put together a winning electoral advantage over John McCain.” (yeah, besides being an Obama hater, Jerome Armstrong missed that one by a mile).

Here is a classic from January 9, 2009, in which Armstrong screwed up and wrote a comment, in the second person, to himself! Not only that, but he managed to bash Obama again, writing, “Obama is showing us that he really listens to Rahm, I suppose he always has, I was just hoping for better!”

This is just a small selection from volumes of anti-Obama rhetoric from Brian Moran's new media director, Jerome Armstrong, a virulent, even vicious, critic of Barack Obama from early on in the primaries up to the present.

Also interesting, in the context of Brian Moran’s bashing of Terry McAuliffe for the sin of working on a rival campaign to Barack Obama’s, is the fact that his entire campaign is staffed with people who did NOT support Barack Obama. For instance, Moran campaign chair Mame Reiley was a superdelegate for Hillary Clinton. Moran’s media director, Joe Trippi, was a senior advisor on the Edwards campaign. Del. Lionell Spruill was a huge Hillary supporter (reportedly for larges sums of cash). And Brian Moran himself? He stayed heroically neutral in the primaries.

Sad to say, but it’s not just the Moran campaign itself that has been hostile to Barack Obama and/or Obama supporters. It’s also been some of his most active supporters. For instance, here’s Todd Smyth dissing 99% of Obama supporters:

Let's quantify an Obama volunteer worth a damn as having at the very minimum registered over 100 voters and knocked on at least 3000 doors or made 5000 phone calls.

Todd then proceeds to insult Obama supporters further, writing that “In Northern Virginia, every Obama grassroots volunteer worth a damn is supporting Brian Moran.” The arrogant and disrespectful attitude of the Moran supporters is incredible, claiming that people are only “worth a damn” if they performed Herculean tasks during 2008, and also if they currently support Brian Moran (not Creigh Deeds or Terry McAuliffe, god forbid) . Sadly, the Moran campaign supporters’ arrogance perfectly reflects the Moran campaign's bad attitude as a whole, including a consistent disrespect for Barack Obama and for Obama supporters.

In sum, the absurdity of Brian Moran’s campaign criticizing Terry McAuliffe – who campaigned hard for Barack Obama last fall after Obama defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination – as somehow opposing Barack Obama is beyond absurd. It’s the most base sort of hypocrisy from a campaign willing to say anything to gain some much-needed traction.

BC Disclosure: I have endorsed Terry McAuliffe for Governor

Excellent post, Josh. Well researched.

n/t

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed

There were quite a few people who performed "Herculean tasks" for Obama during 2008. You just don't seem to know any of them.

Focus on the Issues

Accusations, innuendo and outright attacks coming from the Moran campaign are looking increasingly lame. Each time they come out with a "scandalous" revelation, it gets debunked and handed right back to them, making them look petty, desperate and foolish. When will they get it? They don't seem to realize voters want to know what the new governor can and will do for them to help pull them out of a hole, and not that he breathed the same air as a Republican at a fundraiser.

Terry's long time friendship with the Clintons is the most absurd negative charge against him that has been put out so far. To have the loyalty and trust of a friend like Terry for so many years is a positive thing - not negative. Many of those who are using this red herring were mere children when Bill Clinton was president and don't know what a great president he was. I don't recall too many Democrats slashing the Clintons when they were in the WH, but some of those same people are demonizing them now. That should stop.

I love Obama

First: "Brian Moran's new media director"

Please correct that error. I am not on the staff, and never have been. I work with WebStrong Group, and am an outside consultant to the campaign.

*comment deleted*

Third: Its pretty pathetic that Mo Elleithee & Mike Henry are digging this sort of oppo on campaign consultants, and even more pathetic that Josh and Lowell are being the tools that spread this sort of personal attack on behalf of Terry McAuliffe.

Fourth: Have a great weekend.

since you raise issue of errors

you misspell a name, and again put out information that is not normally posted - the real name of someone who (1) choses to post under a pseudonym, and (2) did not put this on the front page.

Josh has full right to post on the front page. So does RenaRF, who is a strong supporter of Brian.

And you seem unnecessarily dismissive of Josh, as it he could not find the information cited on his own. Do you deny the accuracy of any of the quotes attributed to you? Do you deny that anyone competent with searching on a computer could find those and use them?

IF it is appropriate for the campaign for which you are laboring (and it is not particularly relevant to the issues being raised whether you are staff or paid consultant - after all, several others of the key people on Brian 's campaign are also not staff) to attack McAuliffe for allowing a well-known Republican to be one of co-hosts - and I happen to think that is a legitimate point to raise - it is also appropriate for someone supporting McAuliffe to point out how you or others supporting Brian were not necessarily supporters of Obama either.

You may find your comment edited or removed by other administrations for inappropriately attempting to use the real name of a person who posts behind a screen name. That is inappropriate, even if the person in question had been the one responsible for this post being frontpaged.

And I am still waiting to see whom in the campaign for which you labor assigning responsibility for the inappropriate release of emails by Josh in order to discredit him. Perhaps you should spend some time examining that, unless your attitude is that it really doesn't matter because you are happy they were posted at NLS.

It is appropriate to correct Josh on not getting your position correct. Given the attitude of bloggers on your behalf who are not on your payroll to attempt to destroy McAuliffe's campaign, are you sure you really want to be attacking in the way you do a blogger who is not on McAuliffe's payroll? Or do you think this is what Virginia needs right now, in which case why don't you be just as blunt in public about your attitude towards McAuliffe as the quotes offered by Josh show you were towards Obama during the primaries?

Hey

Dave Leichtman owns the blog, he runs BC, the site and the server. I'm not sure why he that has been deleted from the comment I wrote above, but if he is going to allow a frontpage post that personally attacks me, he should disclose that the company he works for, BlueStateDigital, is a competitor of the firm I work with, that's working for Brian Moran.

To censor that type of stuff from the comments I make here is really Orwellian. What exactly is going on here in this nook of the blogosphere that this type of censorship would be accepted?

I don't know whom gave the email to Ben, I didn't, but I did recommend that Josh get hired by the campaign.

Man, the thought that Josh would actually himself, stalk through all my previous posts to exhibit this sort of post-- that's sorta scary to think he would be so obsessed. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't work in the Presidential campaign, and I already have a ton of work to do without needing to blog more too!

As always

the voice of wisdom, research and unbiased. Keep up the good work!

How is a paid consultant different from a paid staffer ?

Many political candidates hire both paid staffers and paid consultants. I understand that staffers generally work full time (although not always) and some consultants don't usually work in the campaign office (some do) and most don't work full time. I do agree that if you are a paid consultant and not a paid staffer that should be corrected, since the specific job functions are different.

But my point is that consulants, like staffers, are paid employees of the campaign (not so for unpaid volunteers) whose public statements (I thought) represent the campaign. In that context, I believe the main difference between a volunteer and a paid consultant is that, unlike volunteers, the campaign is directly responsible for and can control public statements by a consultant. And if a consultant says something in conflict with the campaign intention isn't the campaign obligated to publicly correct the statement or ask the paid person, whether staff or consultant, to do so ?

That's what I mean by the subject line question. Is this incorrect; if so can you explain why ?
If Lowell and Josh were being paid by the McAuliffe campaign to provide consultation services wouldn't their statements represent the campaign ? Of course we know that Lowell and Josh are not paid by the campaign. They (nor Lee) were not paid to endorse and advocate for Terry - they made their decisions because they believe him to be the best candidate.

I look forward to your response.

T.C.

hey TC

I agree, it is all a bit of a blur at times, and think it should probably be looked at case by case. In this particular case, Moran is a client of WebStrong Group, and he gets technology services from our firm, and I've been over at their offices about 3 times the entire campaign. Other things arise from time to time, but in general, they are technical. The whole operation moves into the campaign.
For example, Brett Schenker, who is a staffer for Brian Moran, runs the new media.

I don't speak for the campaign. I'm not on their payroll as a blogger. From what I understand, Josh or Lowell were looking to be hired as a blogger, as they've done in the past. In general, I don't blog at all when I work with a campaign, because it does land you in murky waters. However, this is a personal attack laid out by Josh that's been approved by Dave, so I am responding personally.

McAuliffe's Racist Friend

Let me introduce you to Robert Stacy McCain, one of the most virulent white supremacists in America. And yes, this photo of McCain and McAuliffe spooning together was taken at McAuliffe's fund raiser held by Ed Rogers.

Terry McAuliffe and Me
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/25/terry-mcauliffe-and-me

The very same fund raiser Ben Tribbett was banned from attending but they invited this well known racist, who is a member of the white supremacist hate group, League of the South and who wrote "Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party"

This Guy Had A Fundraiser For T-Mac???
http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2009/03/this-guy-had-a-fundraiser-...

These are the types of people your friend Terry McAuliffe likes to hang out with. Since you are such a good researcher, here's a little more on Robert Stacy McCain to keep you busy:

"McCain has been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who called him a member of the white supremacist hate group, League of the South and "has often inserted excerpts of material written by hate groups" into the Times."

Stacy McCain on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stacy_McCain

The House Cleaning Continues at The Washington Times
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/01/17/the-house-cleaning-continues-at...

Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party - by Stacy McCain
http://www.amazon.com/Donkey-Cons-Crime-Corruption-Democratic/dp/1595550240

While you may not know much about this guy, the civil rights community knows him well and I don't think they are going to find this very amusing.

And yet MORE smears from the Moran campaign

FYI, I actually did some research on this, called the McAuliffe campaign (yeah, what a concept!) and found out what REALLY happened. The deal is, Terry was at a dinner on 3/23 at Morton's for minority business owners. Some (far-right-wing white) guy Terry didn't know/had never seen before comes up to him, asks to have his picture taken, and Terry - friendly to a fault - obliges. Well, it turns out, this guy is a racist scumbag. Needless to say, Terry is not pleased. On the other hand, if you're a political candidate, how can you prevent something like this? I'm amazed there weren't dozens of situations just like this one in the 2007/2008 presidential cycle.

That's it, end of story. The main question is, why does the Moran campaign and its supporters feel the need to "go there" like this? Isn't Moran a compelling enough candidate without totally smearing a good Democrat like Terry McAuliffe, someone who's fought for the Democratic Party his entire adult life?

Trying To Blame The Moran Campaign.....

for this total screw up by the MaCauliffe is so over the top - it's not like Brian himself was there and took the picture himself!!

But one question - did the guy contribute to the fundraiser, and if so, did the MaCauliffe return the contribution?

And on a personal note, Terry does have a great smile in this picture.

Todd, this is crap.

First, this wasn’t at the BGR event. It was at a minority business reception right afterward, which was organized by Terry’s longtime friends in the minority entrepreneurial community.

Terry had never seen this guy before in his life. If you know Terry, you know that he is an extremely friendly and outgoing man and he took a picture with the guy – just like he does with basically anyone who asks him to pose in a picture. McCain later wrote on his blog: “Moe Lane suggests a scandalous explanation, which I will neither confirm nor deny, since nobody has yet asked me to confirm or deny anything. All I know is that I have once again proved a great axiom of journalism: Nobody can resist a man with a pink camera.”

It is clear that McCain ambushed Terry – these kinds of low-ball political tactics are exactly why Terry is building a grassroots campaign and staying positive. Terry is focused on creating jobs and growing Virginia’s economy. Mr. McCain’s sleazy actions are simply a distraction from the real challenges that Virginia’s families are facing in this recession. Terry will continue to raise the bar and propose detailed and substantive solutions to put Virginia’s economy back on track.

[Disclaimer: I work for Friends of Terry McAuliffe]

Please excuse my mistake

In McCain's post at the American Spectator he talks about a campaign event hosted by McAuliffe at Mortons on the same night of the BGR fund raiser. He also points out: "We're old friends, Terry and me." If this was a different event from the same evening, I was wrong about that but this still doesn't excuse this as anything less than a major mistake. It also doesn't say much about Terry's long time friends you mention either.

Terry McAuliffe and Me
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/25/terry-mcauliffe-and-me

Please...

If your expectation is that every politician vets each person they ever take a picture with on the spot – and spends hours reading through every single thing that person has ever written before the photo is snapped – then you’ve got another thing coming.

Given the ludicrous things this guy McCain has written – which you yourself have pointed out – I don’t understand your desire to take this man at his word. For McCain to go out of his way to ambush Terry like this indicates that

1. he’s clearly scared that Terry has what it takes to win the primary and the general election and is trying to stop Terry’s momentum
2. he’s knows that Terry’s got a vision for Virginia that’s obviously antithetical to everything that this wacko McCain believes in.

That's a bit of a stretch

You're giving McCain way too much credit. I think, IF they really don't know each other, it indicates McCain knew he could reveal what a phony McAuliffe is.

There is something seriously wrong..

..with a person who can take such an intimate looking picture with someone they claim is a complete stranger and who turns out to be one of the worst people on earth. I mean they look like they are sharing a very special moment together in this picture? This is really disgusting.

Thank you!

Josh,

Thank you so much for all your research and writing efforts that went into this post. It definitely sheds a new perspective on the events of the past week's Democratic primary coverage.

Robert McCain

I hope y'all realize that most people don't care who Dems supported in the primary. I was originally an Edwards supporter, but then I performed "Herculean tasks" to get Obama elected. So what does that make me?

What most people will focus on is Robert McCain. I showed the WashPo article about the BGR fundraiser to my husband, a die hard republican, to get his reaction since I'm not exactly unbiased here and tend to take Democratic politics oh so seriously. He was incredulous. After hearing about McCain he was even more so, pointing out that McDonnell will have a f*cking field day with this. I say, I have to agree.

I don't like the tone so many of the blogs have been taking the last few weeks, but I have to agree that some of this stuff needs to be vetted before McDonnell gets his chance to air all the dirty Dem laundry in the middle of a crucial Gubernatorial race. Even if we think some of this stuff is trivial, it isn't.

And oh BTW

Ed Rogers' BGR group had already held a fund raiser for Bob McDonnell.

Rogers: "I Did Not Check With Haley"
http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/so-we-were-wonderin...

Here's the invitation

to the event where McCain ambushed Terry.
LawyerMama, please read the comments above. This attack is garbage.

This one is AMAZING

Wow. I didn't think the Josh&Lowell show could get any worse. Then I read this.

Are you guys serious? By this standard Terry McAuliffe now hates Gerry Connolly because he's employing you two. He even hates Tim Kaine. Wait till someone pulls together the list of things you've said about our GOVERNOR and DNC Chairman. I'm sure that will get frontpage attention here at Blue McAuliffe.

But this post makes a couple things VERY clear.

1) Jerome Armstrong opposed Hillary Clinton. You're right. So did Terry McAuliffe. After reading your post, I'm entirely convinced that Jerome Armstrong SHOULD NOT be running for Governor of Virginia. And I'm still convinced that Terry McAuliffe shouldn't either. Thanks for making the case!

2) Why does the McAuliffe campaign continue to attack staff members of the Moran campaign? Oh that's right, cause they work for an over grown political hack and that's the way he thinks.

3) "Henry also has the distinction of being the only campaign manager in the country who has twice been beaten by Obama."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2009/03/virginia_noteb...
..... uh oh! snap! Mike Henry hates Obama too. So does Mo. The difference is they supported him against John McCain. So did Jerome Armstrong. guess who didn't? ED ROGERS. He was a racist. Terry McAuliffe liked that.

4) I consider this post a test of Blue Commonwealth. And Blue Commonwealth failed. It's now a wholy owned subsidiary of McAuliffe for Governor.

5) Josh how do sleep at night? Have you totaly sold your soul?

Nice summary

n/t

gee, you must read front page selectively

to write as you do "I consider this post a test of Blue Commonwealth. And Blue Commonwealth failed. It's now a wholy owned subsidiary of McAuliffe for Governor." One of the thirteen who now have access to the frontpage on their own is Rena, a strong Brian Moran supporter. Others are supporters of Creigh. And code/Administrator has front-paged a piece by Eileen advocating for Moran based on his record on economic issues.

does this mean...

Does this mean that Rena can write a hit job about the scummy McAuliffe campaign staff who've made it their mission to stop Barack Obama at every turn? She can write about Ed Rogers, Mike Henry, Mo, and all the other band of Obama-haters. She can write that and you guys won't have to go into a meeting, have a conference call, and decide to pull it down? Ofcourse you will. Unless Moran pays like McAuliffe has.

Rena writes what she wants

and your description of how we operate is so far from reality as to be laughable.

Here's a diffrerence worth noting - Rena will write hard-hitting things using facts without having to resort to personal invective such as 'bag man" - an expression which you should note I criticized.

You have made it clear that you are willing to totally reject McAuliffe - that's your prerogative. Just as it is the prerogative of those disappointed by Moran campaign to choose to reject him - for now, although I would also note that those prominently supporting McAuliffe have made clear their willingness to actively support Brian should he get the nomination, something that as far as I can tell is not reciprocated by a number of prominent blogger-supporters of Moran, who seem more dedicated to destroying McAuliffe than to advocating on behalf of Moran. So be it.

So I wonder if people who act like that while launching accusations that McAuliffe as an advocate for Clinton did all he could in their eyes to destroy Obama's candidacy are not projecting upon Terry's supporters some of how they are acting towards McAuliffe and his campaign, which seems remarkably similar to the accusations they launch?

Oh, and by the way, I was probably the last of the Raising Kaine frontpagers to come to support of Obama. Perhaps some should remember that Josh and Lowell were strong early supporters of his candidacy, while I was still exploring and supporting other candidates. Because we may choose to sp[lit in our support of a candidate in one cycle makes us no more idiotic or "scummy' than when we agreed on support of a candidate that those now launching attacks against some hap[pen to agree upon.

Let me note also the following. I have heard from ranking figures in Virginia Democratic politics and from a number of important figures on Capitol Hill (including several members of the House who were strong and early Obama supporters) about the professionalism they see from the McAuliffe campaign, and what they perceive as the lack of same from Moran's campaign. At least one who very much wants Moran to get the nomination lamented about what s/he described as the keystone cops quality of what was coming out of the Moran team, including but not limited to the leaking of Josh's emails seeking a job.

I think any of the three is vastly superior to McDonnell. I will actively work on the nominee's behalf in the general. In the meantime, I want to assure that I do all I can to ensure that regardless of the nominee he will have as strong an educational policy as possible.

In the meantime, when I think supporters, campaign or candidates are correct I will affirm them, and when I think they are wrong or over-the-top I will also point that out. I want a Democratic governor, I want a Dem LT. Gov (I am supporting Signer for now, but would willingly support whoever gets the nomination) and AG (and for now Steve Shannon has no opposition). And I want to take back the House of Delegates.

Every campaign will have its bumps and bruises. To treat every toe stub by an opponent and his campaign as Armageddo nwould legitimize a denigration of the primary process to little more than name-calling and screaming of "so's your candidate" to a degree that will turn off the independents whose support is essential in November. Whether or not you are willing to grant it towards one particular candidate is irrelevant - all of them deserve better than that from their own campaigns, and all ought to remember that the party will have to pull together after the June primary. Throwing up rhetorical obstacles that will make such healing exceedingly difficult does no one any good.

There have been excesses by the supporters of all three gubernatorial campaigns. So far it is largely not people who are on campaign payrolls. There are some issues with some paid consultants. I am not going to ascribe blame more to one campaign than another. I am going to say that to some degree when an advocate on your behalf goes too far, methinks the campaign needs to disavow such statements/actions. Here I remember 1988 when Al Gore was campaigning wit Ed Koch in NYC and the mayor made a fairly scurrilous statement about Jesse Jackson and Gore immediately said - with the cameras rolling - that on this the mayor did not speak for him. I hope that all three of the candidates will be willing to step up in a similar fashion, lest the primary battle run the risk of diminishing the party's chances in November.

Rena would never

post something like this to the front page. I have too much respect for the medium, this blog, and its owners to endanger it in such a way.

Ken, I'm surprised at you. You may not like what Jerome has posted here - but you are a man of logic and intelligence. Yet you don't acknowledge once in your lengthy comment the fact that Jerome was directly attacked on the front page and therefore quite likely to pop in and defend himself. You don't seem to condemn the calling out that occurred in the post itself, only condemn the calling out that occurred in the comments.

That's just downright odd.

Tell you what.

I have written about the McAuliffe campaign and I do have problems with the vast majority of it. I front-paged those earlier posts. But since this whole issue has heated up and the BC front-pagers have agreed to respect BC generally, I will not front page my own post if it's partisan in nature. Period.

We all signed an agreement here a week ago. And for the life of me - I can't understand why Josh would post this to the front page after signing wholeheartedly onto that agreement (which this post violates in my opinion) nor can I understand why ANYONE would be surprised that Jerome would feel the need to defend himself in response.

None of the front-pagers have been paid anything

by the McAuliffe campaign. What are you talking about?

[Disclaimer: I work for Friends of Terry McAuliffe]

Hey Eli

Can you confirm or deny that this oppo-hit came from McAuliffe's campaign, and was emailed to Josh?

I'd just like to know if he's actually doing the stalking himself (I sorta doubt it), as that would be kinda bizarre behavior. But this sorta thing coming from inside McAuliffe's camp attacking those associated with Moran would be more par for the course here, so I'm giving Josh the benefit of the doubt that he's not this obsessed with me.

Thanks bud.

PS, a non-denial or non-response will settle for me knowing that Josh isn't doing the stalking himself.

I'll ask the painfully obvious question.

WTF does a fundraiser hosted, in part, by Ed Rogers for McAuliffe have to do with paid consultant work by Jerome Armstrong? How do you compare the two? And since WHEN is it APPROPRIATE to front page a post (please remind yourself of the pledge you ENTHUSIASTICALLY signed onto) that directly attacks a person who is NOT the candidate?

This is total crap. Ever since the agreement of the BC front-pagers, Josh, I don't FP my own partisan posts. Period. You opened this Pandora's box. I realize that there's controversy over some specific, named call-outs made by Jerome. But you and the named party co-founded this blog and its ownership is not in question. That leaves you BOTH vulnerable to criticism for what you allow to appear on the front page.

You should absolutely step forward, Josh, and assume your portion of the blame for what went down here. And FWIW, I think that your post is a hit-piece that has nothing to do with the relative merits of Moran, McAuliffe, or Deeds (for that matter). Instead, you single out someone TOTALLY ancillary on an issue that NO ONE in the free western world outside of the microcosm of this blog gives a crap about. You have an issue with Jerome? Settle OFF the freakin' front page. Man up, for God's sake.