Should DU have a policy that PAID employees of a campaign must acknowledge so?

[mod mom]

With the prominence of the internet in the upcoming election cycle, should those taking funds from a campaign or any related pac of a candidate let others here know that they have a vested interest in that candidate?

This is not meant to be flame bait but a serious discussion.

BTW...I do not receive any income from any candidate or associated pac, nor have I ever. I am a member of several election reform groups AS A VOLUNTEER, but again I have never received any income from my work. I do sit on the board of a non profit journalism organization (If you are interested in which one PM me) that frequently has articles posted here, but again I receive no monetary benefit from that or any organization I am affiliated with.

[book_worm]

1. but how would they know?

[bryant69]

2. Good question

I mean if they are using an IP of a campaign computer i guess that would be a sign. But beyond that. I suppose they could request those supporting a campaign to voluntarily acknowledge their allegiance.

Bryant

[MonkeyFunk]

50. how would the admins know the IP addresses

of a campaign computer?

[mod mom]

4. I guess it would have to be a request from skinner et al and some sort of

punishment-(tombstoning?) if found out and not acknowledged.

[karynnj]

49. That sounds great - if it were the policy

Also, I think there would be a positive side to publicly being identified here. By encouraging paid campaign people to be here, you could then encourage using those people to get information to their peers or to get valid campaign stuff out quickly - that they could say was the real position. It would make those people the campaigns eyes, ears and mouth. It would show that they are willing to hear from us.

I also think nothing is lost. A person who always posts positively about one candidate and against the others, paid of unpaid, will have their comments interpreted through that frame anyway. (Anyone here often knows people who are alligned with a candidate. The only different if they were known to work for the campaign is that could come is that it might make them have to behave better.

If the campaigns knew that we wanted people to self identify themselves if working for a candidate and that if people were found to break this they would be gone, I assume they would ask people to comply.

Note: I do not, nor have I ever been a paid campaign worker for anyone.

[xultar]

3. Well I'll go first. I'm a paid member of a campaign. I get paid to come here

and ask people to stop posting vile about Democratic candidates and to post vile about republics.

I'm getting fired effective COB Friday. I wasn't good enough to get vile posted about republics on a dem board.

That is some sad muthafuckin shit.

[mod mom]

10. I don't understand why you're pissed at me.

I admit that I am against HRC as our candidate but have always stuck to the issues (free trade, IWR, divisive, too tied to corporate interest, triangulating) in my comments. This is the primary season. Some of us, (including me) feel that HRC is extremely bad for our party and wish to express this point to others. I would support every other Dem contender. I post information linked to reliable sites (such as TPM + Huff Po) to make points. It is the Clinton allies who use personal attacks. Just last night I was called stupid and insecure (the post was deleted although I did not alert mods.)

I don't understand how you read my OP as "some sad muthafuckin shit"

I really believe an honor system clearing one's connection to any candidate would benefit DU. I would hope that any Dem would have the integrity to comply if it was implemented.

[xultar]

13. That wasn't a message @ you. Didn't you read it. How did you think it applied to you?...

Don't you ever read a reply that isn't to you but to the readers? Don't take shit so personally.

When you read my posts think of it as a person in the background just blurting out shit for the sake of being funny or sarcastic?

GEEZ-Louise!

[zabet]

5. Maybe..

it does disturb me the unwarranted bashing of other Dem
candidates by supporters of another Dem candidate. I would
think that regardless of who you favor as a candidate, any
bashing efforts would be better spent on tearing down the
repukes. Just my opinion.

[Donnachaidh]

6. with the anonymity factor of the net, that would be impossible.

No offense, but it's naive to think that these people would volunteer the information. Our reps are dishonest -- do you think their minions to be honest?

[RainDog]

7. yes, honor system

via Skinner request.

with a sig. line to indicate.

if someone is a republican operative, they should have the same requirements, tho I doubt they would have any honor.

that might stop some of the trashing of various candidates. it is also in the spirit of open source information here. Just say no to Karl Roves.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[wtmusic]

8. Yes.

Even given the difficulty of enforcing, this should be a rule.

Excellent suggestions. :thumbsup:

[porphyrian]

9. Yeah, we need another subclass to discriminate against here.

I mean, I don't care if people get paid to come here or not. If an idea is good, I don't care if someone else paid for it. But, especially at a polarizing time like the primary campaign, do we really need another label to use to demonize each other with?

And, no, I don't get paid to post here. I do it for my own obnoxious reasons.

[UTUSN]

11. That "paid" allegation is made against anybody the accuser disagrees with

Frequently with the supposed rationale, "I cannot CONCEIVE that anybody would support so&so UNLESS they are being PAID!!1"

[Boojatta]

16. Where would the money to pay them come from?

If a candidate can't even get words of support, then how would the candidate get monetary donations? I suppose the candidate could spend his or her own money, but it might not last long.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. ???

Even the poorest of campaigns are bringing in tens of thousands of dollars, and the wealthy campaigns have millions. You think there's a difficulty for a candidate with millions to pay $8/hr for 4 hrs/day to someone to get on line and boost for them? For a thousand dollars a day they could cover all the democratic/progressive sites with two or three boosters each, reaching hundreds of thousands of readers. You think they might think that to be cost effective, particularly as they know they're talking to the most informed, most activist audience?

[Boojatta]

21. Consider two scenarios:

#1. X likes candidate Y and would like to spend time online boosting candidate Y. However, X's various responsibilities prevent X from having time to boost candidate Y online. Suddenly it becomes possible for X to get paid for boosting Y. Now X can work fewer hours at the job that X was doing full-time before the new opportunity arose.

#2. X is indifferent to candidate Y or dislikes candidate Y. X gets offered $8/hr to boost candidate Y.

To me, #2 sounds ineffective rather than sinister.

[sandnsea]

28. #2 is cut/paste TP's

That's how you can recognize #2, and I think there are definitely right wingers who do this. I've only been suspicious of a few supporters, and I don't know any personlly who have been paid to specifically promote a candidate. There are staff who post, and they all tend to identify themselves. I've never received a penny for anything, although I'm accused of being an operative for everybody from the wacky left to Rove himself. :crazy:

[MonkeyFunk]

51. to what purpose?

I've never seen any indication of the slightest change of mind by any member here because of what somebody said about a candidate.

It would be wasted money.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Not necessarily. There are some, however, who post quite

vociferously for particular candidates and who cannot be found posting about any other issues. That, to me, makes them suspect. Highly partisan voices are not uncommon here, but generally they are equally partisan for other issues than just a particular candidate, and they back candidates who support their issues - not blindly support candidates regardless of the issues.

I do believe the paid operatives exist. And they don't do DU or their candidate any good.

[jobycom]

12. That's not how it works.

You've heard of the whisper campaigns the Republicans are so fond of running? These are some of their tactics:

1) they distribute flyers to churches and clubs revealing "secrets" about their oponents, so that the people who receive these flyers thing they are privy to information the media is trying to keep quiet. I used to collect these, some were hilarious, about Bill Clinton turning America over to the New World Order, and allowing us to be occupied by NATO troops. You remember the ones from McCain's primary challenge in 2000, where they printed flyers claiming McCain had lost his mind in POW camps, had fathered a child with a black woman, etc? Also in 2000, they had flyers about Gore's plans to take everyone's guns. These were big in Tennessee.
2) They get local leaders to spread rumors, so no one can see where the rumors come from. There was a big stink a couple of years ago in east Texas, where a couple of black ministers were caught taking money from the RNC or a pac or something connected to the party to encourage their congregations to vote against Ron Kirk. No conspiracy, this was documented, and the Republicans involved made public statements that they hadn't broken any laws, etc.
3) They hire actors to negatively influence voters. One classic example in Texas, for instance, dates to the 60s, when they were trying to defeat a Civil Rights senator in Texas. They hired a black man to drive an expensive Cadillac around east Texas, with pro-Yarborough bumper stickers all over his car. He would stop at gas stations and loudly tell everyone how he never had to work for the car, he bought it with welfare checks. Hit every racist nerve in each community he stopped in.

What they have been doing since the Internet spread:

1) They actively train volunteers to go to bulletin boards and spread their message. Sometimes this is just their ideology--I remember in 96 and 98 running into people on these older bulletin boards who all had the exact same wording to their posts. When you engaged these posters in actual conversation, they didn't write nearly well enough to have written their posts. They were spreading propaganda, making is seem like it was a grass-roots thing.

2) In addition to spreading their ideology, they spread lies and rumors to influence voters. They have web rings of their own sites, sometimes political, sometimes religious, sometimes seemingly unrelated, like guns or car or knitting sites, and they use these rings to spread rumors and lies about our candidates, or some glurge about their candidates, or something about their ideology that supposedly comes from a celebrity. The whole idea is to create a "grassroots" feel, like all of these people getting these messages (always written in a chatty, colloguial format) are just common folk seeing the idiocy of the elitist liberals and their wicked government, and hoping that the man of the people (Bush, Reagan, whoever is in charge then) will save them.

3) They come to boards like DU and they pretend to be liberals. They have gotten much better at this. They used to be easy to spot, because they would say stuff like "Hey, I hate Bushitler! Can you believe the sh&t this man says? And he's so F*cking stupid!!!111 But have any of you heard that Clinton kills kittens? Yeah, I know, maybe it's bullshit, but I'm really concerned that she's going to bring our party down!" These posts were so easy to spot that we would all goad the poster into saying something Freeperish and he'd get TSed pretty quickly.

Now, however, they've gotten very smooth at it. They don't act like concern trolls anymore, they just blatantly attack candidates, spreading lies over and over, but, just like in the old paper days, they make people believe that the "wisdom" is really coming from our side, instead of theirs.

That's what's happened to Clinton. They got people shouting "Hey, she's not really a liberal! She supports a ban on flag burning! (a complete lie). She wants to ban video games! (another lie) She voted for war!! (a lie)" The newest meme is "She was hawnkish on Iraq and never opposed Bush! (both lies)"

The problem with this last strategy, and why it is so damned successful, is that many Democrats think it's true, and spread the message as though it's a Democratic message, as though it came from us. They don't check facts, they don't provide examples (or when they do the examples are related to what they are saying, or are just someone else's opinion). So soon, the Republican activists don't even have to work hard, because they've got their army of dupes to do their work. They just pop in, say "God Damn Hillary she's at it again!" and post their current meme, and the Dem Dupes pick it up and spread it. It must be true, you know, because it sounds just like Hillary, doesn't it?

Then, every day the Latest page, and sadly now the Greatest page, is full of slams against Hillary.

I'm singling her out as the most obvious target, but they do it to Pelosi, to Reid, to the Democrats in Congress. They will do it to Obama or Edwards if either pulls ahead--maybe that's where all the house and haircuts stories about Edwards came from. It's Reagan's "Divide and Conquer strategy." Lee Atwater did it for Reagan, he taught Rove, Rove does it for Bush. Gingrich used to brag about it, that the easiest way to defeat Democrats was to get the left arguing with the less-left.

And yeah, a lot of the posters who post the negative crap about Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Edwards, whatever are genuine Democrats who believe what they are saying, and of course their are many, many legitimate complaints to be made about those candidates, and they should be made, and made hard.

But still, the Republican strategy (and it's a deliberate strategy, not just some common Republican impulse) is not so much to make people believe every outlandish claim. It is to generate so many negative feelings that it becomes conventional wisdom to bash a candidate, to consider her (yes, mostly Clinton now) a Republican, or whatever.

And those who doubt the Republicans do this, think of Jeff Gannon, think of the reporters planted in the Press Corp, think of Karen Hughes's "job" overseas--it's exactly what they do. And it works, even on us. People who believe never believe they have been fooled. (Watch the replies to this post, of there are any, for proof of that).

So forcing paid ops to announce who they are would be meaningless. Many are volunteers, the ones who are paid wouldn't admit it, and after a while, many of the people spreading the Republican message sincerely believe they are spreading the Democratic message. That's why it works.

[xultar]

15. This lil diddy you typed deserves its own thread.

[Karenina]

62. I second that!

:toast: You GO, Joby!

[cgrindley]

17. That's all crap

The people out to get Hillary are exactly the same ones who were recently out to get Pelosi. These asshats are all proper democrats, they just represent a different wing of the democratic party than the people who do support Hillary and Pelosi. They'll all either leave or shut the fuck up when Hillary wins the nomination. They'll magically become Hillary's biggest supporters and will never say sorry for their rampant assmunchery.

There are no paid operatives and the only concern trolls I ever see around here are the absolute goofy left wing ones who want this or that guilty person freed from prison or some other idiocy raised to singular national importance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. While I disagree with Joby on a number of things, I do think that

he's right in the general principle here. I also think that some of these rovian operatives, whether paid or unpaid, also log in to pretend to be 'moderate' dems so as to bash the left wing of the party - you know, Wellstone's democratic wing of the democratic party. Nothing good ever came from the left, despite the fact that every major societal advance in American came from the left and was ridiculed by the right until it became a mainstream position. Divide and conquer.

Some on the left have very serious concerns about positions taken by DLC candidates; positions that make them intrinsically weaker that those who actually oppose the republicans - right now it's mostly about Hillary, but if Richardson or Biden was leading you'd hear about issues with them. It's not "Hillary bashing"; it's position bashing. And I promise, though I will shut up if she is nominated, should she be elected (which I seriously doubt) I will start up again, warning about the problems with america's corporatocracy. And I will never "magically become Hillary's biggest supporter(s)". Neither will most of the left - unlike the the DLC democrats, we tend to stand on issues, not on polls.

[jobycom]

29. No, they like the left. They build it up.

This isn't a comment on the left, where I consider myself to be, this is a comment on tactics. The point of the strategy is to split the left from the center. By riling up the left, convincing them they have been betrayed by whatever candidate, they cause a split. Either the left stays home, or they get so vocal they get one of their candidates nominated. Either way helps the Republicans.

Basic math--elections are won in the middle. I did NOT say by the middle. The secret is to make your candidate appeal to the core of your party (right or left) but to make them appear the more centrist of the two candidates running. That's because votes in the middle count twice. If I decide not to vote for the Democratic candidate, I'll vote third party, or stay home. That costs the Dems one vote. If I'm a centrist and I decide not to vote for the Dem, I'll vote for the Republican (that wasn't easy to type even in hypothetical). That costs the Dems two votes, meaning it takes two votes to overcome that deficit. So, campaigns aim at the middle.

Again, that doesn't mean the candidate has to be a centrist to win, it means they have to convince the middle to vote for them.

The more leftie they can make the candidate, the more middle votes they gain (Republicans, I mean). So during the primary they pump up the left, convince them the frontrunner isn't left enough, and try to drive the candidate to the left, or else to get the party to nominate a leftie. Either way, the winning candidate is less appealing to the middle, so they go Republican.

That's why Clinton is running on name more than position so far. She's holding off being categorized as long as possible. Might be a mistake, might not be, we'll see. Obama was doing that, but Clinton was beating him, so he's now trying to position himself between left and center. So far it's not working, but he's not been at it long. It's a good place for him to be, with his personality and strengths. Edwards, of course, is going for the leftie vote.

But it's not the Republicans who bash the left--there's no gain in that for them. It's the moderate Dems who bash the left. THAT one you can blame on Clinton and Obama. But it's not close to the biggest problem on DU.

[jobycom]

23. No, it's not.

None of what I said is speculation.

As for there being attacks on Hillary from "proper" Democrats, sure, there are some. Some might even be volunteers or employees of other campaigns. But that's not the biggest problem.

One example, using Clinton and flag burning: The story broke here on DU that Clinton was supporting a ban on flag burning. A post showed up, and there was a link to Drudge saying that Hillary supported a ban on flag burning. Soon, a Newsmax version of the story emerged, and to this day you'll run into DUers who believe Clinton was triangulating by supporting flag burning.

The truth was very different. The bill Clinton co-sponsored was an attempt to stop the flag burning amendment, which you may recall failed by one vote. Her bill answered several of the complaints by Republicans, that flag burning should be banned on private property, or as an expression of intimidation, like cross burning. The bill had many co-sponsors, including Barbara Boxer, Byrd, Dorgan... hardly a right wing cabal. Every sponsor and co-sponsor of the bill was a firm opponent of the flag burning amendment. The bill was clearly an option to allow conservatives to oppose the amendment without being taken to task for it.

Nevermind all that. Clinton was a Republican triangulating DLC DINO boogieman type person. Not Boxer, who also co-signed the bill. Just Clinton.

And it all came from Matt Drudge and Newsmax, who wrote a highly slanted story, got someone to break it on DU, and had it become conventional wisdom before the facts were explained. They did the same thing with Clinton over the IWR, over her positions on the troops, etc.

Most of the liberals who are spouting anti-Hillary bullshit got it straight from Drudge and Newsmax, but they don't even realize it, because of how it's been laundered through DU.

That's how it all works. A poster who pops up and says "I have a friend who says Hillary smells like skunk" would be laughed off. But a poster who says "Look what she is up to now!" and links a story that SEEMS to have sources gets dittoed until the cows come home.

That's a Republican tactic, that's the Republican Party at work. That's how it works. No crap. Just shit. Sure, there are Democrats who pimp their candidates, and might be paid to do so (so what, they are still saying what they believe). But that's not a tenth of the problem.

[sandnsea]

25. Wow. So no one can criticize Hillary at all

Or in your book, they're a Rovian operative. That about sums it up for you, doesn't it?

[jobycom]

30. I said exactly the opposite. nt

[HeraldSquare212]

27. Clinton and Flag-bruning?

You suggest that most if not all of the people who object to positions taken by some Dems, and Clinton in particular, are naive victims of RW spin. That's a bit dismissive of other people and seems to ignore the actual debate around particular issues. See, for example, the below link re: flag burning. You'll note it's not to the Drudge Report. And note, I haven't accused you of being the naive victim of HRC spin.




http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/07wed2.html?ex=1291611600&en=e5c9fcd13aa51895&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[jobycom]

34. That's not what I said, but on the flag burning issue I'll stick to it.

I said there are many reasons for honest debate over policy, and said that wasn't what I was talking about.

On flag burning, though, her purpose was clear, and if you are one of the ones using that to smear her, you're just flat wrong, for the reasons I've explained. Someone on the OP Ed page of the NYTimes might have been fooled into buying it, but look up the actual bill, read it thoroughly, and look at the co-sponsors. You'll get it, even if the OP ED piece you cited misses it--or more likely wanted to miss it.

[sandnsea]

36. I disagree with it entirely

I don't think there is any purpose in any flag burning amendment except to pander to the right. That's what I think. Or am I an operative.

How are we to know.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

37. So was Obama pandering to the right when he signaled support and voted for Durbin's addendum?

Which was identical to the bill co-sponsore3d by Hillary in 2005 (she also cosponsored Durbin's addendum).

[sandnsea]

40. Yep

I don't think there is any purpose in flag burning amendments except to pander to the right.

[rinsd]

41. Credit for consistency then.

[jobycom]

42. And Clinton agrees with you 100 percent. 1000 percent, even. You prove my point.

They have spread the lies around so people don't even know what they are talking about.

Clinton opposed the flag burning amendment vigorously. She was one of the leaders in its defeat. So you agree with her, and in fact should consider her a champion of your cause.

The confusion comes because of a bill she co-sponsored with several other opponents of the amendment. That's where Drudge and Newsmax did a tag team on her. The bill did not ban flag burning. Period. End of story. End of discussion. Exactly the opposite of what Drudge, Newsmax, and many Clinton bashers reported. This is the essence of the opinions against her, too. If you believe she's for a flag burning amendment or banning flag burning in any form, you have been tricked by right wing propaganda, and there's no way to pull a punch on that.

Now, here's what the bill did. It made it a crime to burn a public flag that was on federal property. Get that? It's a crime against vandalism--something that is already illegal. Not your flag, a government flag. Now, do you know why such a bill was needed? You can figure it out. The Republicans were screaming that the liberals and SCOTUS made it impossible to protect flags on public monuments, and therefore they had to vote for the anti-desecration amendment.

A word about the amendment. The amendment itself doesn't ban flag burning, it simply says that laws can be passed banning flag burning. That's a Republican gimmick. That way they can say "we are just trying to ban burning of flags on monuments and stuff, because SCOTUS won't allow that."

So what Clinton and Byrd and Barbara Boxer and the rest did was cut that argument out from under them. Here's a bill banning destroying public property that happens to be a flag? Satisfied?

The other part of the bill Clinton and the other opponents of the flag burning amendment co-sponsored made it illegal to burn a flag to intimidate an individual, the way cross burning is banned. Again, this counters a specific Republican talking points--"we couldn't even ban flag burning if it was done to intimidate people like cross burning was." Bam, the amendment opponents cut that argument out, too. And of course you understand that it would have already been illegal to do so--intimidation, hate crimes, etc, would not have exempted the flag, even though Republicans were using that argument.

That's a perfect example. Clinton uses her political skills to help head off an attack by conservatives on the Constitution, and because of the spin put on the story originally, she gets attacked by liberals for it. As with Iraq, as with much else she has done.

[sandnsea]

55. I disagree with all of it - it's pandering

Stand Up and say 'Oh Fuck You you full of shit phony patriots'. Honestly, I'm sick of their crap.

[jobycom]

57. As I pointed out, you can disagree with the strategy, but not the facts.

The facts are plain. She doesn't support a ban on flag burning, and played a major role in defeating the amendment on flag burning.

If your opinion is that she should have just done like the wimps, voted "NO!" and let the amendment pass, that's your opinion. I can't say an opinion is wrong. But your facts were wrong, and it sounds like at least you are beginning to see that. Congo-rats. The deprogramming has begun. When it is finished, and your mind is once again your own, you will have an additional liberal ally you were unaware of before. You don't have to vote for her--not sure I am either--but at least defend her from the slanders of the right--and that includes the slander that she's a conservative.

[HeraldSquare212]

45. You have the met the enemy....

You're insisting that unless I agree with your interpretation of the bill I am mistaken and a dupe of those who would purposefully misrepresent the bill. I haven't suggested that you a dupe of HRC's misrepresentation of the bill. I've engaged in debate, you've engaged in character assasination, exactly what you accuse the RWers of.

[jobycom]

46. I guess so.

If I tell you water is wet and you deny it, you are wrong. It's not that I'm a dupe of Calypso, it's that water is wet.

The bill was exactly as I described it. That's not an interpretation, that's the bill. If you are saying different on the contents of the bill, you are wrong. Pretty simple, and easily provable. And it's not character assassination, it's just fact.

Now, if you want to claim the tactic was wrong, that's an opinion, so there's no right and wrong. You can argue that. I don't really care one way or the other, since the amendment and the bill both failed. I'm just talking about the contents of the bill, and what purpose it was meant to serve.

[yodermon]

61. The epitome of triangulation:

"The bill was clearly an option to allow conservatives to oppose the amendment without being taken to task for it."

Heaven knows we can't allow the conservatives to be "taken to task" for wanting to ban flag burning. How polite. :eyes:

[KoKo]

26. Oh MY! What you said is very interesting......

:eyes:

[mod mom]

43. "the absolute goofy left wing ones" were right about the war, about * stealing elections,

about the bad effects of free trade and the WTO, the corporate influence in the MSM. "Asshats" are those you don't agree with? I think not.

[Richard Steele]

54. Your "no paid operatives" claim is just simply wrong. There are COMPANIES that do just that.

And if you've never seen any RW "concern trolls" at DU,
then you must not be paying very close attention. They
get TS'd all the time here, and everyone knows it.

[KoKo]

24. Good Points, Joby...and, you explain the conundrum we face...

The problem is that Democrats would be forced to go into lock step to counter the Repug Ops. And, that would mean we couldn't sort out the differences we have in our own house without being attacked. We couldn't get into deep discussions. The Repugs are very good at taking one small whif of smoke and yelling "FIRE! FIRE!.... They are good because they can pick out an item and their Mighty Echo Chamber of Paid and Volunteers carries it.

We would have to give up our freedoms to notice things about our candidates to keep the Repugs from infiltrating us. We would be boxed in. What good would that do? How can we change this?

Here's what you say:

And yeah, a lot of the posters who post the negative crap about Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Edwards, whatever are genuine Democrats who believe what they are saying, and of course their are many, many legitimate complaints to be made about those candidates, and they should be made, and made hard.

But still, the Republican strategy (and it's a deliberate strategy, not just some common Republican impulse) is not so much to make people believe every outlandish claim. It is to generate so many negative feelings that it becomes conventional wisdom to bash a candidate, to consider her (yes, mostly Clinton now) a Republican, or whatever.

[jobycom]

39. Yes, that's very true.

The solution, as with most things, is awareness and critical thinking, which goes against everything politics is about. :)

[sampsonblk]

32. That was mostly bullshit

[jobycom]

35. Not one word of it was. nt

[blondeatlast]

22. From a decidedly UNDECIDED DUer--don't sweat it--it isn't helping, and in fact, might

be hurting the candidates. If people are getting paid (and I can believe that they are), then the campaign honchos had better rein the stuff in or their candidate may be off my list for good (before anyione starts in, I repeat--I have no candidate and I am referring to ALL--and I mean ALL--of the Dem contenders' minions).

I avoid GD/P like I avoid rattlesnakes and cockroaches. If those who want to engage in it find it good sport and it stays within DU rules, have at it. But I think I can speak for the vast majority of undecided DUers--and probably Democrats in general as well--in telling you that if it has any influence at all, it is a negative one about whatever candidate is being trashed.

Yes, I see it as trashing, since the issues are never that simple.

Just let me add, yes, I was here before the '04 primaries and I see little difference aside from the fact that it's more drawn out due to the lead time now.

If we could talk about policy and issues and what the platform ought to be, I might venture a step into the mud--but for personality culting, no thank you.

[Catherine Vincent]

31. I don't think so.

It's none of anyone's business.

[BlooInBloo]

33. And this would be enforced HOW?

[rinsd]

38. Sure, though I don't know how you would enforce such a thing.

People in nasty primary fights will still try and smear their opponents as paid operatives anyway.

[murloc]

44. Sure, but how do you enforce it?

Theres really no way to know.

[supernova]

47. Fantasitic idea, but how?

It would basically have to work on the honor system that you are who you say you are, in toto.

Most of us mention, just in casual conversation, when we are volunteering for different campaigns, but paid consultants? they would have every reason to not say that they were paid by a candidate or group.

[seriousstan]

48. I confess.....

You may not know it but I am a spy.
I'm a undercover agent for the FBI
And I've been sent down here to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan
I'm friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko fags!
I betchya I've even got a commie flag
tacked up on the wall inside of my garage
i"m a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys.
I may look dumb but that's just a disguise,
I'm a mastermind in the ways of espionage
Would you believe I have gone as far
As tearing Wallace stickers off the bumpers of cars.
And I voted for George McGovern for President

It feels sooo good to finally get that out in the open.

[BeHereNow]

52. I think they are fairly obvious to those of us who have been around a while.

Put them on ignore when you spot them.
It makes life ever so much pleasant.
:evilgrin:
BHN

[MonkeyFunk]

53. No

it's unenforceable, and unnecessary.

If any candidate is stupid enough to spend money trying to convince people here to change their minds, then they deserve to have to that money wasted. Have you ever seen a single person express a change in opinion here because of something posted by someone? I haven't.

I think a better rule would be to ban people who accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a paid shill.

[Vidar]

56. Lovely idea, but difficult to enforce without definitive knowledge.

[Alexander]

58. There are some obvious paid shills here...

You can tell from their inflammatory and hostile nature, their multiple posts and threads propping up one candidate and trashing all the rest, their inability to get involved in discussions unrelated to their candidate, and their admittance of belonging to a PAC but refusal to say which one.

I'd say, let the paid shills keep posting - they are, in reality, hurting their candidate more than helping, and whenever this is pointed out to them, they tend to slink away for a few days before coming back with fresh smears.

[yurbud]

59. put this up as a poll

[Cameron27]

60. I wish DU had a policy like that ,

but I also don't see how it could be implemented.

(FWIW, I'm not being paid by anyone to post here)

[ComerPerro]

63. paid employees of campaigns, listen up and listen good:

Can you get me a job on the campaign?

[GliderGuider]

64. Yes, and go by the honour system

I think DU should highly recommend that people disclose their paid affiliations.

Without being to corny, let's try to remember Ghandi's advice: we have to be the change we want to see in the world.

As for enforcement, just use the honour system. Let's make honour fashionable again.
And besides, it's bad juju if you don't.
O8)

[MilesColtrane]

65. If the Monty Python 'Argument Clinic' sketch taught me anything...

...it's that paid shills may still be arguing in their spare time.