Jim Treacher: We are the vermin we’ve been waiting for.
As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don’t think even he ever put out a “LaRouche Action Wire.” Probably because he didn’t think of it first. Not to mention that he’s never had a chance in hell of winning.
Where is the outrage?
Jonah looks smarter and smarter every week. You can’t call this anything but fascism, LIBERAL fascism.
It’s not just that they want to silence a particular critic. There’s a real danger that Obama’s supporters plan to use brownshirt tactics to seize control of the political process. Consider:
1. A recent form letter sent out to a list of donors to conservative causes, stating, in effect, if you contribute to organizations we don’t like, we will investigate you and expose all of your dirty little secrets to the world.
2. Democrats plan to reimpose the so-called Fairness Doctrine, thus effectively pulling the plug on conservative talk radio.
3. The flagrant resort to criminal acts directed against political opponents, such as the hacking of Sarah Palin’s private email account or the Congresswoman’s son who slashed the tires of buses the local GOP was planning to use in 2004 to get Republican voters to the polls.
4. Increasingly violent and extreme rhetoric from the previously “post-partisan” Obama camp, saying they are “taking off the gloves,” that Obama supporters need to confront independents and Republicans and “get in their faces”, and the demonizing of McCain as a “dishonorable” racist, etc.
5. Suggestions emanating from liberal circles implying that Obama’s defeat in November would unleash civil unrest.
I’m sincerely worried that these people are trying to destroy our civic traditions and turn this into some kind of third world dictatorship.
This is not free speech. This is not “people expressing their opinion.” This is people expressing Obama’s opinion.
Jim Treacher expresses a willful misinterpretation of the First Amendment that, unfortunately, also arose in some recent aggressive judicial activism on the part of the Supreme Court. The First Amendment gives you the right to express any opinion that you want to express, whether it’s your opinion or Obama’s opinion or anyone else’s. The only action that the Obama Action Wires have taken or planned is to rebut criticism. Rebuttal isn’t censorship. If you conflate them, then you are on the road to turning the First Amendment upside-down and using it as an instrument of censorship.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this direction was its strike-down of the Millionaire’s Amendment in campaign finance law. Their decision in Davis v Federal Election Commission said that it’s censorship for the government to “diminish the effectiveness” of one person’s free speech by financing opposing speech.
The judicial activists who wrote this opinion have no real respect for precedent or consistency, so they may well ignore their own reasoning in future free speech cases. But if they, Congress, or the President did pursue the “diminish the effectiveness” theory, they could use it to nullify the First Amendment outright. They could declare that anything that they don’t want said diminishes the effectiveness of someone else’s protected speech.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-320.ZO.html
Leave it to Jim Harris to defend fascists.
Leave it to Jim Harris to defend fascists.
That remark leads to an important unintended point. It’s obvious in the West that Putin, for instance, has crushed political opposition and media independence in Russia. He is a classic anti-democratic strongman and almost a dictator. Did he accomplish this by declaring outright that he is a fascist who hates democracy? No, he is more cunning than that. Instead, his anti-democratic measures are cast as a campaign against fascism and oppression. That Russian journalist who was ambushed and beaten the other day? The police will look for his attacker in their own sweet time, but it’s no big deal, his journalism was biased and he was a fascist. He was looking for trouble.
Since the day that you saw Goldberg’s unaccountable book, or rather after you learned its title, you have used the word “fascist” about a thousand times on this blog. If everyone called people fascist at the drop of a hat like you do, it would open the door to actual state repression. And no, I’m not accusing you of repression. Not all that many Americans (at least) follow your example, so that your “liberal fascism” shtick isn’t fascist, just stupid.
I didn’t say they were liberal fascists. Just the common garden variety.
Jim, as they say, when the facts are against you, argue the law. That’s what you’re doing, defending a narrow nitpicky legalistic point of view on what — if, for example, George Bush was doing it — you would otherwise view as outrageous thuggish behaviour.
The point Treacher was making by saying “this is not free speech” is hardly that what happened is without any kind of legal protection under the First Amendment. (Although, in fact, I suspect it is not protected. Harassment is not protected by the First Amendment, and I think any reasonable jury would conclude that this is harassment, from the fact that its purpose is expressly to shut down open discussion, and the fact that what is being said is not original, but merely the mass chanting of slogans.)
The point Treacher was making is that this is not the kind of speech the Founders meant to protect by the First Amendment, and it’s not what most Americans would like to see legally protected. This isn’t a minority viewpoint struggling to get itself heard. This is about a would-be majority trying to stifle dissent. It’s ugly. The fact that it may technically enjoy some protection under the First Amendment is more a sign of the difficulty of designing a legal framework that protects liberty while discouraging license and verbal terrorism. (If you defend college “hate speech” codes, a clear restriction on free speech, you’ll understand the difficulty.)
Decent Democrats should be ashamed of this — especially because they’re all about preventing “hate speech” and making sure minority viewpoints are comfortable expressing themselves, and there’s very little that’s more minority than a Republican opinion in Chicago. Decent Democrats should disown it, not defend it. It can only be defended if you take a cynical “ends justify the means” point of view, and think anything at all is reasonable if its goal is electing Barack Obama. Is that how you feel?
Four legs good! Two legs bad! Four legs good! Two legs bad!
I can’t believe anyone is defending this. Ok, let me put this simply:
This is a DDOS on conservative media.
A distributed denial of service, using email based communication to robots. If they did this to a web site (say, Amazon) they would be arrested as hackers.
It really seems to me that something we are missing in the US is a publicly condoned response to rudeness. Humans have evolved a very intricate social interaction mechanism where doing something that advances your own interests yet harms others (for example, drowning out all speech that you don’t agree with) – it’s called beating them up (or anger). It is a good response, because it allows society to move forward – some things must be sacrificed for the good of society.
Think about this – if conservative respond the same way, the result is speech gridlock. No one can talk, we vote at random with no information. Is that good? We need to be able to harm these people sufficiently to keep them from doing that harm to society. If not, our society will fail – any society that cannot defend itself does.
I don’t know what is wrong with these people. I was actually wondering about Obama last night, considering if his presidency would really be that bad – this answers that question. Liberals think they are so much smarter than you that they shouldn’t bother to let you speak – I mean what could you possibly bring to the conversation…
If, for example, George Bush was doing it — you would otherwise view as outrageous thuggish behaviour.
For instance, CBS was flooded with protest calls about “The Reagans” before it even aired, but no, it was not outrageous thuggish behavior. The protest calls were closed-minded and stupid, but they were still protected speech. CBS was also spineless for backing down, but that was its own mistake and not the fault of the protesters.
I think any reasonable jury would conclude that this is harassment
That is a cheap hypothetical until and unless a prosecutor files actual criminal charges. You could just as well declare that the calls were death threats.
The point Treacher was making is that this is not the kind of speech the Founders meant to protect by the First Amendment
If that was his point, he should have said so, but in any case it’s your point. Well, that’s another way to pervert the entire Bill of Rights: Hold a ouija seance for the Founding Fathers. The truth is that none of us speak for the dead; that’s really a terrible way to defend individual rights. And the truth is that the Obama Action Wires people are only saying what they want to say.
A distributed denial of service, using email based communication to robots. If they did this to a web site (say, Amazon) they would be arrested as hackers.
Actually, e-mail DDOS is just as illegal as any other kind; it has nothing to do with whether the target is a web site. If WGN Radio wants to claim DDOS, they should take their case to the police. Short of that, they are just pretending that Obama Action Wires broke the law. This is a very common form of calumny: “You didn’t actually punch me in the face, but I’m going to talk as if you did.”
To annoy Simberg further, here’s what 538 has to say:
Sarah Palin now has the worst net scores among the four principals in the race:
Palin’s average favorability score is now a +7 — about 10 points behind Joe Biden’s numbers. Perhaps more importantly, these numbers are 10-15 points Perhaps more importantly, these numbers are 10-15 points behind where Palin’s numbers were just a week or so ago. If voters come in not knowing very much about a candidate — and the more they see of the candidate, the less they like of the candidate — this is a major concern.
I just love it. The LIAR is seen as such by the American people. It’s going to get even worse from here for this woman and the hero who picked her.
Any more predictions from you Simberg?
There is something about all this that I don’t understand: wouldn’t it make the advertisers and the radio show itself really happy? Wait, wait, don’t answer yet. Here’s my point: If the audience for one of these shows spiked “naturally”, in a disorganized fashion, you’d get lots more people calling in, at least half of whom would disagree with whatever was being said (maybe more than half, because people might be more likely to call if something makes them angry). The radio shows would respond by setting up bigger call centers with more vetters. The advertisers would be thrilled, and the radio shows would be able to make more money on advertising.
In this case, a political campaign is encouraging people to pay attention the radio show. Yes, yes, it is all terribly rude. But isn’t it a big money maker? And this controversy can only raise awareness of the radio shows, creating free advertising which will make even more money?
Seems to me that the only problem here is that transitional situations are difficult, and temporary situations are hard to take advantage of. But if the radio shows had known in advance that this would happen, and could have hired more vetters in advanace, or, alternatively, if Obama wins and his supporters continue to behave in the same organized way so that the radio shows can hire vetters accordingly, then no problem. And lots of profit. Right?
This is America. We invented the telephone network. We can handle any number of calls, given sufficient planning!
ZDNET is reporting that Sarah Palin’s email was hacked and messages stolen.
An “activist group” calling itself “anonymous” claims responsibility.
Sound familiar?
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
A follow up: I just reread the Tribune article, and I realized that people could call to complain without listening to the radio show.
I should think that the solution would be that the radio show could place an advertisement for something at the beginning of the call. They could probably target the demographic calling to make it palatable. “Do the conservatives infuriate you too? Then you’ll want to tune in to Kieth Olbermann tonight for “‘Liar, Liar’, a shocking expose!”
Blatant. These are mobsters and Obama is an organized crime boss.
Shutting down a radio station with a DOS attack is not the worst of it. They could screen the calls and have an in studio guest to get past all the calls that they don’t take. If it ends up nobody gets to make a call it will be the idiots own fault, but at least they don’t get to spam the airwaves.
If nothing is done, it’s only going to get worse.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Ed, you don’t need to lie on the floor and kick and pound in terror over this. Yes, guessing the password to a Yahoo account is a crime. The FBI should find the perpetrators and throw the book at them. But it’s also true that “gov.palin@yahoo.com” is a bad place for state business, that subpoena loopholing is an even worse reason, and that choosing an easy password takes you from bad judgment to really bad judgment.
Is this what passes for executive experience these days? Palin might well make it to Washington one day, and the next time someone guesses her password, it could expose classified information. Now, I’m not remotely scared at any personal level, because the government doesn’t run my life. But it feels unpatriotic not to be disappointed.
For instance, CBS was flooded with protest calls about “The Reagans” before it even aired, but no, it was not outrageous thuggish behavior.
Ah yes, Jim, but those were spontaneous calls by people who were individually outraged. They were not requested and centrally directed by a politician. That makes all the difference in the world, mate. It’s the difference between a spontaneous grassroots uprising and astroturfing.
We already know Axelrod (Obama’s campaign manager) is a master of blogosphere astroturfing — should it surprise us that he deploys the same cynical and juvenile tactics here? No it should not. These people are disgusting, although, honestly, pretty much par for the course in Chicago politics. (When I lived there, a guy ran for alderman from prison on the platform that gang members, since they were a serious force in the community, ought to have a representative in government. It tells you what Chicago, particularly South-side politics are like, that he was taken seriously. This is Obama’s training ground, and it shows.)
That is a cheap hypothetical until and unless a prosecutor files actual criminal charges.
Mmm, no, Jim, it’s not. I understand a little bit of what First Amendment law is like, probably from reading Eugene Volokh all the time, who’s a nut on the subject and an experienced FA law professor. I’m also tolerably aware of how juries work, having been called from time to time, and I understand something of what my neighbors are like. If a jury were called from my community to decide whether this behaviour was harassment or protected political speech, I think there’s a decent chance they’d vote for the former. It’s a close call, to be sure, but if I were running this sordid Obama show, I’d be nervous about my chances in front of 12 solid citizens, unless they were from the South side of Chicago, of course.
If that was his point, he should have said so
He did say so, Jim. Everyone else got it, except for you. Maybe you should read more carefully? Without the Obama Must Be Elected Or The World Will End glasses on?
The truth is that none of us speak for the dead; that’s really a terrible way to defend individual rights.
Oh good grief, Jim. How do you suppose the Supreme Court decides their FA cases? They have to begin by figuring out what was meant by the FA, how Madison or Marshall (say) would have ruled had he had the exact same facts in front of him. And they don’t need to commune with the dead to do this, Jim, because we have this amazing invention called the written word which preserves what people think long after they are dead. You can look up what Madison said and thought in thousands of pages of discourse written in his own hand, and infer from there what he would think about a slightly different set of facts. It’s not perfect, but it’s not usually very wrong, and it’s not rocket science. I dare say even you, from time to time, infer what people would think about a new situation from what they wrote about an old one.
And the truth is that the Obama Action Wires people are only saying what they want to say.
Of course. And if the McCain campaign recruited a bunch of six-foot tattoed weight-lifting skinhead volunteers to go down to a meeting between Obama and some undecided elderly nurses, where he was explaining his positions, and have them barge into the meeting hall and chant so loudly they drown Obama out Don’t listen to that no-good nigger! He’s fathered four children out of wedlock and has gay butt sex with domestic terrorists! why, those grassroots protesters would also only be “saying what they want to say.” Would you be cool with that?
You need a little intellectual consistency if you want respect from anyone other than your fellow travelers. What’s sauce for the goose needs to be sauce for the gander. If it’s wrong when McCain and Bush do it, it’s wrong when Obama does it. You’ve seen, for example, Rand berate McCain for being an economic idiot when he is. That gives him credibility when he berates Obama for the same thing. It’s called principle, putting what’s right and true before what’s most helpful to your side in acquiring power.
But it’s also true that “gov.palin@yahoo.com” is a bad place for state business
Jim, first of all, what’s your evidence that the Governor transacted state business from her private e-mail account? E-mailing her secretary to confirm an appointment next day doesn’t count, of course. Anything important go out over that wire?
Secondly, what’s up with this fanatical bright line between “personal” and “official,” hmm? You ever originate or take business calls from your personal cell phone, home phone? Ever log in to the business network from your own laptop, on vacation? Ever — gasp! outrage! — actually send an e-mail about some low-level but business-related subject from your gmail or Yahoo account? Unless you’re not a very busy businessman, or maybe not in private industry at all, just some sheltered academic, or you’re a very strange obsessive-compulsive, then, yes, you have.
Granted, once you reach the levels of the White House, you’ve got to do stuff differently. George Bush used e-mail quite a bit as Governor of Texas, but he has not sent or received a single e-mail for any purpose whatsoever since becoming President. You need to be much, much more careful.
And not, by the way, because the evil Iranians are going to hack into the White House e-mail system and sniff out the order to bomb Tehran, but because some shitheads in the opposition and media are going to get your idle speculation about military options in Iran leaked to them, blow it all out of proportion in a media firestorm, and cripple your ability to get real stuff done.
Is this what passes for executive experience these days?
Yeah. What would you know about it? I know the CEO of my company personally, and he sends e-mail from “home” all the time, doesn’t think twice. He needs to be in touch with people all the time, be on top of stuff. If he spent intellectual energy fussing about keeping some bright wall between official and personal, we wouldn’t be beating the pants off our competition, like we are.
It’s a typical obsession of the Left that things be Done Right rather than Done Well. This explains their bizarre fussing over whether the Iraq War was pursued In The Right Way rather than, say, whether it was won or not. In this case, the focus is not on whether Governor Palin governed Alaska well but on whether she did it in the approved manner. The concerns of academic dreamers, obsessive-compulsive sufferers without the ability to zero in on what’s really important.
Ah yes, Jim, but those were spontaneous calls by people who were individually outraged. They were not requested and centrally directed by a politician.
“The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs. … [RNC Chair Ed] Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program’s presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate. ”
Yeah, that’s real spontaneous, Carl. That’s about as spontaneous as a brothel. But don’t get me wrong, even Ed Gillespie’s tricks were protected speech. And I’m also in favor of legalized prostitution.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/reagans/
Yes, what Obama is doing is promulgating DDOS attacks. Unfortunately Obama’s opponents allow themselves to be distracted by “free speech” arguments. This has nothing to do with free speech. Obama already has abundantly free speech via a web site, books and full media cooperation. What Obama is doing here is shouting down other speakers. It is no different from sending out hecklers to disrupt his opponents’ speeches. It is thuggery.
Anything important go out over that wire?
—-
From: [Chief of Staff] Michael Nizich
To: sarah.palin@yahoo.gov
Subject: Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans
From: Michael Nizich
To: sarah.palin@yahoo.gov
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter
—-
Nope, nothing important.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html
Carl,
The NYT described, at length, Palin’s obsession with using private email for anything important, so that, IIRC, all important email would be secret. If you (currently) type the following keywords into Google (palin, new york times, email), you get the following as the first hit:
Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes – NYTimes.com
The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show …
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html
Hey, Carl, please don’t be offended, as I’m asking in the spirit of good fun, but in one comment, you extoll the value of being principled, and in your very next comment, you criticize the left for obsessing over doing things “right” rather than “well”. You also place a lot of stock in being intellectually consistent! What is gong on? But don’t stress out – this should be a fun conversation.
you extoll the value of being principled, and in your very next comment, you criticize the left for obsessing over doing things “right” rather than “well”.
Perhaps Bob, you could explain your logic in trying to contrast Carl’s first comment with his third?
My understanding of what Carl wrote is:
“Right” = Defending Obama on the basis that the action is speech and therefore “protected” by the first amendment.
“Well” = Disowning the action to squelch debate and other people’s voices, because such action limits others first amendment protections.
“Right” = Conducting business using business assets only.
“Well” = Using the tools available to conduct business.
Perhaps you think freedom means the ability to drown out other peoples voices, and that’s principled. Perhaps you think freedom doesn’t mean using personal assets to conduct business.
Please Bob, tell us what is unprincipled about using yahoo email for business? I want to know what you think is wrong about that.
Leland,
It looks to me like Gov. Palin was using private email to make the citizens of Alaska’s business unavailable to judicial review. I don’t know if this is legal, but it certainly is unprincipled.
The New York Times article cited above contains this passage:
While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”
Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”
On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin�s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor�s personal account.”
Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”
So, Palin uses private email in an attempt to avoid subpoenas. Regardless of whether this is legal or not, it seems unprincipled to make the people’s business unavailable in the event of a lawsuit.
—
Of course I don’t think it is ok to drown out other people’s voices! Even on this thread, where I was discussing the business aspects (I think it is a boon for the so-called victim), I said it was rude (rude to the listeners, not to the radio station).
An Obama action wire, properly done, would ideally regulate the flow of people offering rebuttals to keep the conversation orderly and informative. The mechanics of this would be difficult. On the other hand, the radio station is quite capable providing orderly regulation, although I acknowledged that they might be swamped if a deluge came without warning.
It looks to me like Gov. Palin was using private email to make the citizens of Alaska’s business unavailable to judicial review. I don’t know if this is legal, but it certainly is unprincipled.
Does that also mean that it is “unprincipled” to not record every conversation she has concerning state business and storing the tapes for later “judicial review”? What is special about her emails?
At the federal level, the courts recognize something called “executive privilege,” that allows free-ranging discussion without fear of having it exposed to the public, which might reduce frankness. Why should not a governor have the same thing?
Also, I was contrasting the last paragraph of Carl’s second post with the last paragraph of Carl’s third post. I have zero interest in attacking Carl – I always enjoy reading his comments. I just thought the lines of argument in his two successive posts were oddly juxtaposed. Palin’s ethics are actually irrelevant to this observation.
Rand,
I agree with you. I can’t imaging being the executive of anything if I couldn’t have free conversations without worrying about an unseen future audience (ObSF: Asimov’s The Dead Past; Clarke and Baxter’s The Light Of Other Days). And I agree that there is nothing special about email.
That said, to be ethical and principled, one should play by the rules, and observe their spirit as well their technicalities. Palin could certainly have lobbied to make all of her email to be private, regardless of email address. But if the rules stated that email containing state business needed to be public, she would be unprincipled to deliberately subvert those rules. Her spokesperson apparently agrees, and offered the “untruth” in Palin’s defense that all substantial business was copied to her public email.
Is this what passes for executive experience these days?
Well, Jim, if you had any experience other than spamming boards that disagree with your ideology, I might take your comments seriously.
No, they’re saying what Obama wants them to say. And if the calls that went through to Rosenberg’s show are any indication, very few of them gave any thought to it beyond those talking points. Yes, they want to say “Obama must win.” Yes, they want to say “Obama’s critics should not be allowed to disagree.” Yes, they want to say whatever else is written down on Obama’s official site. If you want to call that “free speech,” I’d hate to see your idea of thuggish cult tactics.
But you’d know this if you’d listened to the show in question, which is available on their website and which I’ve linked to several times.
If you want to call that “free speech,” I’d hate to see your idea of thuggish cult tactics.
Don’t mind Jim Harris, Jim. He’s my pet troll. We keep him around to prove that no one is completely worthless–they can always serve as a bad example.
Thanks for stopping by.
That said, to be ethical and principled, one should play by the rules, and observe their spirit as well their technicalities. Palin could certainly have lobbied to make all of her email to be private, regardless of email address. But if the rules stated that email containing state business needed to be public, she would be unprincipled to deliberately subvert those rules.
So, Bob, when do we get to read all of Obama’s emails? Or do these “rules” only apply to other people?
It’s amazing how easily you turn a burglarly into an attack on the burgled. If Nixon was as good as you guys, he could have claimed that he was acting in the public interest. After all, those Democrats were discussing politics and government business on private phone lines so they must be trying to hide something!
Gateway Pundit is saying that the punk who broke into Palin’s email account is the son of a Tennessee state senator. If true, that’s hardly a surprise. The punk said he did it trying to find something incriminating about Palin but in his own words:
I read though the emails
Why should not a governor have the same thing?
You’re right, Rand. The official e-mail accounts of governors’ offices should be and are protected by limited executive privilege. But Governor Palin wanted more than official protection. And in her quest to subpoena-proof herself, computer security didn’t matter.
Edward,
The New York Times piece containing the revelation that she used private email for public business (to avoid subpoenas) came out well before her private email was hacked. Look at the quote from the NYT article excerpt I quoted above – it was clear what was going on just by looking at the “whoops” email in the public record. No burglary ws needed.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this
revelation is what put the idea in the hacker’s head, but that’s just speculation.
Larry J, the clerical stuff is the stuff of interest – see the Wired link that Jim posted above.
Jim,
If you don’t believe sending a mass email with contact information and an exhortation to mass call a radio show in an effort to stop someone else’s free speech TWICE, to be anything other than fascist tactics you’re being disingenuous. The more you try to defend it, the worse you look. His campaign calls the information lies and smears but doesn’t explain why. They can’t refute it so this is the only option left. But, if you want to keep defending the indefensible, go right ahead. It is humorous.
The New York Times piece containing the revelation that she used private email for public business (to avoid subpoenas)
The New York Times also revealed that man would never reach the Moon because rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
We should believe the New York Times because…?
it was clear what was going on just by looking at the “whoops” email in the public record
It may be “clear” to a partisan apparatchik. It’s not at all clear to someone who isn’t on a witch hunt.
Anyone familar with government knows that ethics rules *require* certain types of business to be conducted outside of office channels. You may not know that, but a political reporter for The New York Times certainly ought to.
So, I repeat: When do we get to read all of Obama’s emails? Or do you have one set of “rules” for your political enemies and another for your friends?
If you won’t answer my questions, does that give me the right to defame you and burgle your email?
Edward, the comment by Palin’s spokesperson makes it clear that the business Palin was conducting was, at the very least, appropriate for government email.
The rest of your post is a non sequitur, but yes, hacking is bad; denial of service is also bad; while a bit tardy, the New York Times printed the retraction quoted below shortly after Apollo 11’s liftoff; and no, you may not burgle or even defame me, to the extent that a pseudonymous commenter on Rand’s blog can be defamed.
“Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in the atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.”
Edward, the comment by Palin’s spokesperson makes it clear that the business Palin was conducting was, at the very least, appropriate for government email.
As I said, it’s “clear” only to a partisan zealot.
No fair impartial observer would interpret a statement telling someone not to email a government account as proof that it *was* appropriate to email a government government account.
no, you may not burgle or even defame me
Yet, it’s fine for you to defame anyone who doesn’t share your political views — and whatever crimes your side commits are unimportant compared to whatever smear you come up with up?
Why is that, Bob? I keep asking and you keep refusing to answer. I wonder why.
“Quod Licet Jovi, Non Licet Bovi”?
Edward, you’re not understanding what I’m writing.
I was not referring to Palin’s aide, Frank Bailey who wrote “whoops”, and I was not referring to the aide chastised Bailey. I was referring to spokeman described in this excerpt of the NYT article, also quoted above: A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”
Edward, I don’t know why you think I smeared Palin. I don’t know why you think I’m associated with anyone who committed a crime, against Palin or anyone else. Smears are bad. Crimes are very bad. Everyone should play fair. I don’t know what in the world you want me to say beyond that. I hope you won’t think this is too rude, but lets stop talking to each other. Thanks.
If Obama gets elected expect a lot more ‘Chicago Way’ thug politics and with the full power of the Federal government to back him up. And since the Democrats hold majority control of Congress you can forget about any oversight or checks and balances to get in Obama’s way.
Excuse me, but I’m puzzled what sort of subpoena protection having a Yahoo account provides Palin. It’s simple to subpoena Yahoo to get whatever is in that account and the fact that Palin uses the account seems reason enough, assuming there’s sufficient legal reason present to subpoena any of her email communications in the first place.
A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”
Gasp! She copied state business to your state account?
How awful! So, now you want her strung up because she used her *state account* for state business? Funny, that’s just the opposite of what you accused her of previously.
If you want to make slurs and accusations, then show some guts. Come out in the open and tell us your real name. A man who attacks women should at least show his face while he’s doing it.
Edward, I don’t know why you think I smeared Palin
It’s very simple, “Bob.” I’ve read your posts. Every one has been a hatchet job on Sarah Palin, starting with your demands that she be disenfranchised because of your wild accusations about alleged connections to the Alaskan Independence Party.
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question about Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, by the way. Should they have been disenfranchised because they were associated with an independence movement?
Even hiding your identity, you still don’t have the guts to answer questions about your statements?
Everyone should play fair.
So, you think making secret accusations and declaring people guilty until proven innocent is fair? At least when Republicans are the target, I’m sure you wouldn’t sanction such hits on your guy.
If you want to play fair, come out of the bushes. The Constitution says a person has the right to confront their accusers. Show your face and produce evidence to support your charges instead of just maligning people. If you have evidence.
No, “anonymous” witnesses are not proof of anything.
I hope you won’t think this is too rude, but lets stop talking to each other. Thanks.
Sorry, Bob, but you haven’t repealed the First Amendment yet. I have as much right to respond to your anonymous slurs as you have to make them. Your permission is not necessary.
Excuse me, but I’m puzzled what sort of subpoena protection having a Yahoo account provides Palin.
Because they would argue in court that their personal e-mail is not part of the public record. This is what the Times said on this point:
At a bare minimum, the next governor will inherit the e-mail archives of all “state.ak.us” accounts. Even when state correspondence is protected by limited executive privilege, there is no ethical or legal rationale for Palin or her staff to confiscate it into retirement.
That was what Palin planned to do with gov.palin@yahoo.com, given that the account had no state registration, and that it had personal hockey-mom e-mail mixed in with everything else. Although now that there is direct proof that she put state business there, that should change the legal landscape.
The situation resembles what has happened to Alberto Gonzales. He was caught with classified papers in his briefcase, and his excuse was that he forgot the combination to his safe in his house. Neither his safe nor his briefcase were cleared for classified information. Maybe Gonzales is just a hockey mom.
I hope you won’t think this is too rude, but lets stop talking to each other.
That’s pretty funny. Bob gets the debate he wanted, and then runs off the stage. I’m still waiting for him to answer Karl’s question. Indeed, I still haven’t figured out how Yahoo email protects her legally? If Yahoo offerred protection from subpoenas, then every company would be using it.
And as Edward asked, what is unethical about copying personal email stuff into ones business account email? Half the emails I received from my business account this week is how to take care of my home in the aftermath of a hurricane. What’s wrong with that Bob? Please, tell us.
When you are done explaining the evils of Palin, perhaps you can tell us the virtues of Obama’s Action Wires? Indeed, that’s the original topic of this thread. Or were you on topic by trying to claim Palin shouldn’t be using Yahoo email? Wouldn’t want a Rethuglican to be able to voice their opinion or send email, particularly with public means? Was that your point?
Karl,
The point is that Palin and her aides had the intent of avoiding subpoenas, not that it was necessarily going to be a successful strategy. I’m basing this claim on the New York Times article cited above. In ethics, intent matters.
If they thought this was a good strategy and in fact it is not a good strategy, that shows incompetence — they should have talked to a good lawyer.
Leland,
I hope your home and neighborhood are ok.
There is nothing unethical about copying the state business from personal email back into the government email system. That’s why the campaign spokesman claimed that this was what happened. I thought the spokesman’s claim was notable because this confirms the NYT article claim that personal email was used for state business, while various commenters above questioned whether there was proof that it even happened at all.
Now you have to figure out what to conclude from the New York Times article, from the Wired link posted above, and the rest of the news coverage on the issue. If the New York Times article is to be believed, Palin was acting with unethical intent by using personal email for state business.
Regarding the original thread topic: I posted two on-topic comments above, as well as a bunch of asides about orderly conversation in other comments, and they got no response. You can still respond to them. Yes, the conversation about Palin’s email is off-topic. Look upthread, and you can see when the topic changed.
I’m basing this claim on the New York Times article cited above.
Bob, is that the same New York Times that claimed that Sarah Palin was a member of AIP?
It’s been quite a while since the Gray Lady has been considered a credible source around here.
What is a credible source around here? No source is perfect.
No source is perfect.
Not seeking perfection. Just one that hasn’t been on a non-stop Jihad against Sarah Palin since the day her name was announced.
This article covers the same subject using different sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903044.html