How Now Brown Cow
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As a followup to yesterday's post, let's say you're on the payroll of a candidate running for President in 2008 and you came to RedState yesterday and read this: "if you come to RedState to pimp a candidate or tear down a candidate because you are getting paid to do so, I will personally delete your account and make sure everyone knows about it."
How then do you come here and participate? Well, it's very simple.
First, though it is not required, we strongly suggest you use your real name.
Second, make sure you let us know that you are working for a candidate and, yes, be sure to give us a name.
Third, respect the site and our readers, and be honest and transparent about your loyalties. This helps Redstate's community evaluate your work fairly, and makes it a lot more likely that we'll listen to what you have to say. We're happy to have the dialogue, but if you're just coming to jump in, do a hit and run on the opponent and deify your guy, you probably want to consider other avenues.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Is Brownback "Bad on Immigration"? — Comments (77) »
How Now Brown Cow 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
to disclose your relationship with a particular candidate.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I run a political discussion free for all elsewhere and don't want some nutjob tracking down my real name but I have no problem with the above disclaimer. I use this moniker on about 20 sites.
Phew! I don't work for any candidate. Besides the best man for the job hasn't decided yet whether or not to run for POTUS in 2008. Of course the fact that he is the best man to have been Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999 might have something to do with it.
(chuckle)
Red Stater with Blue State Blues
I agree that a very strong case can be made that Newt is the best candidate.
Does he have any chance of winning? I think not. I would love to see him as President . . . but let's face reality.
Does anybody see a way he could win?
BRASSBAND77
Gingrich might make a very good president. I don't think he'd be a great candidate...
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Given that Sen. McCain just hired as his NH communications director someone who worked as Tom Kean's communications director in his Senate race and got caught in repeated efforts posting on NJ political blogs, claiming to be a Democrat and not disclosing her true affiliation.
I am not on the payroll of any candidate. But if someone wants to make me an offer, I can be bought.
and I will probably work cheaper than Jon. Don't believe for a second that "you get what you pay for..."
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'm neither smart enough, rich enough, or well connected enough to be paid to work for a candidate.
I think these rules could use some refinement. Are you trying to achieve accuracy and full disclosure in who is posting and why? Or are you trying to limit information and dicussion based on topic or content? In this post you seem to emphasize wanting to know who is posting and why, and to have honesty. That is great. But in the previous post you seem to want to eliminate all information from campaigns in blanket form. I would think that the most well-developed and interesting information -- including knowing what the candidates are arguing -- might come from the campaigns themselves. It would indeed by useful to know where posts are coming from. But I am not sure if your goal is to limit discussion only to those who -- one might argue -- know the least about the campaigns?
I thought that one of the hallmarks of the Republican side was one of fair disclosure but I think perhaps I've deluded myself. Then let me state that one of the hallmarks of Republicans OUGHT to be a sense of fair disclosure. In everything.
I am disappointed that people working for/against a candidate in a non-personal matter would have to be told this. If I were to discover someone was pumping up their "stock" for their own agenda would sour me on that candidate immediately. It's anti-democratic, and not ethical at all. And I won't vote for a candidate who abides low ethical standards on their campaign team. If I wanted low ethical standards I'd vote Democratic.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan