DU & Campaign Ethics

[OzarkDem]

I know this issue has come up with some bloggers and political discussion boards and it seems fair, reasonable and ethical

Should DU require posters who are employees of elected officials, candidates or consultants for candidates be required to reveal their affiliation?

It only seems fair and should not preclude them from speaking their mind or advancing the interests of their candidate. Its only fair that at least other posters be aware of this.

On edit: of course it would be an honor system, but would say something about those who don't agree to act responsibly.

As info, I think its a good idea. It certainly won't hurt a candidate and may help them.

[againes654]

1. IMO, yes

[aikoaiko]

2. Nope, most everyone's got an agenda anyway.

[OzarkDem]

3. But isn't there a difference

between advancing an agenda that's about issues that are important to you as an average citizen and pushing an agenda that is part of getting your candidate elected.

Those are very different things. I think average voters like myself have the right to know when people are posting who feel passionately about a person or issue are speaking for themselves or are being paid to do so.

[aikoaiko]

9. Not enough to make a difference to me .

[bigtree]

4. why do you think information presented from operatives would be any different from any other poster?

I really doubt all of the other's motivations and intentions are as pure as you might expect. And just because some operative is spinning something doesn't mean it can't be adequately confronted.

In most cases, I personally don't see what difference it makes at all where the queries here originate from. Bullshit needs to be addressed directly, and DU is quite capable of giving as good as we get from disruptors and their propaganda. I generally don't care who is spouting the spin, unless it's Rove himself or something.

[OzarkDem]

5. That's not the issue

The issue is knowing who is saying what.

If you're trying to have an honest discussion about a policy issue on the forum don't you and others on the forum have a right to know if the 3 or 4 people taking shots at you are average voters like yourself or employees of a candidate?

Its not censorship, its providing the public with information they have a right to know about your identity.

[OzarkDem]

6. Here's an example

If you're watching television and see three or four commercials in a row bashing Dems, for example, over their opposition to Iraq, wouldn't you think the public has a right to know who put those commercials on the air?

[H2O Man]

31. Good point.

Follow the money, so to speak.

[bigtree]

38. but, this is a discussion board, not a commercial

even if some here chose to treat it as one. I think we deal with ideas here, and it satisfies me that we are free to respond and refute them if we choose (in the same space). Not so with a commercial.

I prefer to focus on those ideas presented rather than some inferred motivation of the poster.

[bigtree]

7. what I don't understand is why an operative's propaganda is any more pernicious

than any other motivation here. I can think of quite a few other classifications that I would think could be considered compromised by their job or their interest. Why not just force everyone to provide a full certified bio before posting so we can judge all of those aspects of their life and involvement to determine their bias?

[OzarkDem]

8. No one is passing judgement

just advocating for a fair and open process.

Why do you have a problem with it? If you were being paid by a candidate, how would providing that information harm you?

[bigtree]

20. 'no one is passing judgment'

sure you are.

I personally don't care at all where the bull comes from. I'm perfectly comfortable knocking it down, regardless of the source, as sport for my unceasing, cluttered intellect.

[OzarkDem]

23. Are you employed

by a candidate, officeholder or political organization?

I'm not, and I'm not afraid to admit it, are you?

[bigtree]

36. I don't respond well to demands about my personal life from strangers on the net.

If the administrators of the board want that info, I would gladly provide it. I've provided most of my life history and occupation here on many occasions.

But, I'm not going to give you or anyone else here the satisfaction of having me respond directly to your unaffiliated demands. Who the heck are you, anyway?

[OzarkDem]

40. Just pulling your chain

Relax a little. I didn't make the OP to discuss you.

[bigtree]

49. well then, I'd be more than happy to have a *short* PM discussion w/you

if you really are curious.

[OzarkDem]

52. Please do

you can PM me any time, but no I'm not curious or wanting to call you out, seriesly!!!

[Dr Fate]

43. If it's about doing good work for DEMS- I for one am GLAD to tell everyone about it...

If you work for Democrats, I would think that is something to brag about- but hide that fact if you must.

I never felt the need to be ashmaed of doing work for DEMS-and never worried about being "judged" for it- LOL!- and since I have nothing to hide, I agree with a rule that at least suggests some limited disclosure.

[BlooInBloo]

13. It's not. Some people just like telling others what to do.

[OzarkDem]

18. What do you think?

If you admitted that you were a paid employee of a candidate or political group posting on their behalf, do you think it would harm others opinion of you and why?

[Dr Fate]

26. It could increase their credibility. "Inside knowledge" as it were.

I'm with you- I cant fathom why anyone would want to hide the fact that they are trying to do good work for the goals of their candidate and party...

It could also serve as an inspiration to others- example:

"Gosh, all thse DUers are working or volunteering for the party or a candidate all day- maybe I should do more for my candidate & issues too..."

For me, I would always come home after campaigning and fundraising all day and brag on DU about what we did that day- and I would challenge other DUers to get out there and work just as hard.

Again, I honestly cant fathom why this would be something to hide or be ashamed of...

[OzarkDem]

15. It isn't

people are just entitled to know the source if the person trying to change their opinion is being paid to do so or is speaking from their own personal commitment. It has an impact on how people's opinions are influenced and if the person influencing their opinion is being paid to do so instead of speaking from their own personal, unbiased belief, then posters are allowed to know that.

Here's a question for you:

Why do you think revealing your identity as an employee of a candidate or officeholder is unfair to you? How do you think that will influence someone's opinion of you? Do you think it will be a negative influence or a postive one and why?

Thanks!

[bigtree]

29. I'll tell you what. My private life is none of your business unless I choose to make it so.

Not disclosing some public persona may be less defensible here.

But, your query is leading at best; slanderous at worst. You've posed your questions as if you've already made up your mind about some affiliation I may have. Was that intentional?

If you feel you know something about me or my life then you are free, I suppose, to express that here. I'm just as free to tell you to bug off. It's pretty much the same attitude I take with folks who've wondered aloud in the past whether I'm gay. It's really none of their business and of no consequence to them . . . or you.

Anyone who feels they have such an obligation to you is, of course, free to speak for themselves.

[Dr Fate]

39. You could always just hide your true beliefs & affiliations then-but why would you want to?

I just cant seem to grasp your concerns...

Me? I was always proud of the work I did- and I hope I inspired one or two people at DU to work just as hard.

[H2O Man]

32. I agree.

If someone on DU were advocating that we all invest in McDonald's, and s/he were employed by McDonald's, it would be nice to know. But I don't think we can expect those peddling the delicious Big Macs here to be honest about it.

[bigtree]

47. what I think is destructive are the inferences of such bias without ground truth

and the demands that one prove their disassociations before being allowed to express themselves.

What I've noticed here is a tendency to equate folks who share a concern or another with a candidate and are satisfied to parrot the campaign rhetoric of that candidate with the candidate themselves. At some point we have to allow citizens to adopt whatever rhetoric they please without herding them into our little ideological boxes if we expect to appreciate any measure of participation from the public.

Support for the troops is an example I'll use. One word about accepting that troops need funding while in the field from posters here and the charge comes that they are parroting some right-wing talking point. But concern for the welfare of our troops isn't the sole possession and dominion of the right-wing. You may want to draw wide inferences about whatever you perceive are the depths of that person's support for the organization you associate them with, but you would miss the benefit of that citizen's heartfelt expression by latching on all sorts of other right-wing nonsense to their argument because of that initial labeling. DLC is the shorthand smear used here at DU to denigrate arguments by merely suggesting the association.

Can you think of any other examples in history of attempts to discredit someone's argument by merely associating them with one influence or the other? I think these demands are a slippery slope. I also believe that if such an effort is undertaken here to require such affiliations revealed, I'd personally like to see ALL political and monetary influences disclosed - past and present - for my own discrimination, if I so chose.

[Dr Fate]

54. Defend yourself, your beliefs and your associations then. It shouldnt be that hard.

In fact, it is what a message board like this is really all about: activism.

Hopefully some PROUD activism outside an obscure chat board!!!

I prefer to proudly DEFEND my associations and beliefs- nothing to hide here.

If people attack your organization, be it the DNC, the DLC, Moveon, a Vets group or even PETA- then DEFEND it-tell us why you are right- dont hide it.

[H2O Man]

58. There was no "demand"

Of course, one problem with asking people is that there are people who, for whatever reason, have claimed that they were someone they weren't, or knew someone "back when." So I would agree that even the request made in the OP would not always result in people being honest. Know what I mean?

[bigtree]

67. "Should DU require"

no. I don't see any value in DU requiring this. I think it would unnecessarily focus attention on motivations rather than on the ideas themselves. I believe that tendency has resulted in a great deal of the flaming here, many times to the exclusion of substantive debate on the subject.

[OzarkDem]

Context

The word "require" was used because I referenced the practice of quite a few other political boards who make it a requirement. Apparently, somewhere in blogger-forum management world, this has been discussed.

My own personal opinion would be that it should be voluntary, but encouraged.

[H2O Man]

97. "should" = key

Certainly you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine -- and more, with only a few exceptions, such as Ms. Edwards, few people seem to volunteer any direct connection to a campaign.

I'm curious what topics you believe have been prevented from being discussed on DU, due to flame wars? Again, this is a question of opinion, and there is no right or wrong. I am aware that many DUers have very different opinions and values, and I think that may be more of a stumbling block, at times, to open and frank discussions.

[bigtree]

104. prevented from being discussed? none. Subjects disregarded in favor of a focus on motivations?

plenty. Flames on the motivations of the poster and their defenses against those flames to the exclusion of a discussion of the topic. I don't know why you haven't seen this, but I find that many here are satisfied in just characterizing the motivations of the poster instead of actually arguing about the merits of the post or query.

[Dr Fate]

17. We dont need to know all of that- just a simple acknowledgement of who you work for.

The OP does not ask for

"a full certified bio before posting" -he says it would be an honor system.

The OP doesnt say anything about revealing "all of those aspects of their life and involvement"

Is it so hard to just honestly say "I work for the DLC" or "I work for Dennis Kusinich"- what is so difficult or shameful about this?

[OzarkDem]

19. Agree

You don't have to include your bio, but a simple acknowledgement of who you work for.

[blondeatlast]

27. They are awfully transparent as it is. anyone who was that transparent and DIDN'T acknowledge

it would lose a tremendous amount of cred with me.

[bigtree]

30. why should anyone be allowed to judge someone by one affiliation and not another?

Is it just the money which might change hands, or is it something else that concerns you? I can imagine all sorts of influences more pernicious than a job you might hold.

Do you 'work' for the candidate you support? Is that really so unusual?

[Dr Fate]

34. I glady let people challenge or "judge" me as a Kerry & DNC supporter.

All you have to do is honestly lay all your cards on the table- if people want to "judge" you for it, then that just gives you yet another opportunity to defend your postions- and to challenge THEM to get to work.

My response to people trying to judge would always be:

"Who do YOU work for? What are YOU doing? If you are not working or volunteering for a DEM or progressive cause, then WHY NOT? Seems like you should be getting work instead of attacking me...etc"

There is nothing to judge, and there should be absolutely zero shame in doing good, hard work, either as a paid employee or volunteer for DEM or progressive causes.

[H2O Man]

33. No urine samples needed.

Just honesty.

[bigtree]

68. who judges the 'honesty'?

honor system? Then why bother?

[H2O Man]

98. I hear you.

I suppose that we all judge for ourselves. Yet, as I think you are noting, some of us have very different honor systems. And that is a fact.

[Dr Fate]

99. You could lie about being a DEM at all and post on DU- so why have that rule either?

Just because rules are made to be broken by a few miscreants doesnt mean they dont do some good.

having the rule in the 1st palce might discourage some misrepresentation by omission- even just a little- and that is a good thing.

Maybe the rule would promote a lot more honest & consistant debate than what exists right now...I think it's worth a try.

Most honest campaigners shouldnt have a problem with saying that is what they are.

I'm still straining to figure out who these people are who are so frightened of saying who they support- it just doesnt make sense.

[bigtree]

102. you call it 'fright'

and you wonder why someone wouldn't want to be forthcoming with you. You reek of judgment, and I'm not obligated to you at all. I'm almost sorry now that you know my DU handle. I really don't want to get to know you, and I certainly have absolutely NO interest in sharing ANY personal detail of my life with you.

[Dr Fate]

116. You could always defend yourself in deabte against my awful, judgemental accusations. LOL!

I did it for months when DLCers accused me of being "far left" (I'm actually a moderate- and not frightened to tell you so) just because I disagreed with wars based on lies.

Guess what- I handily proved them wrong in debate- and used the discussion to further my own, ACTUAL beliefs.

If I accused you of being "for the war" for instance (and I wouldnt do that unless I hade seen otherwise), then it would be your job to correct me and tell me how you oppose the war.

It's good to know where the people one is debating stands ahead of time-or at least have a general clue- any politcal candidate outside of DU will tell you it's true.

Defending your positions against others comes with the territory- I cant beleive that you think this is not part of American politics and good old fashoined Democracy...

[bigtree]

120. but, I don't want to. I'm not even certain I would just submit to any requirement from the board

It's my choice whether to give you private, personal info. You have to measure up to MY expectations for me to submit. Frankly, many of the personal attacks on me here have completely disregarded my attempts to disclose my personal history and gone on and defined me and affiliated me with whatever they believed anyway.

I'll 'defend' myself on my own terms, not yours. I'll submit myself to those attacks at my own discretion, not others'.

[Dr Fate]

125. What candidate you boost is "private info" on a POLITICAL discussion board? Strange.

This is "private, personal info" in the context of a POLITCAL discussion board where one might very well be on the clock????

LOL!- I dont think so. You act like we are asking you whether you wear boxers or briefs. Teh OP just wants to know what candidate you are boosting.

And you will suffer from "personal attacks" for supporting one candidate or the other? LOL! Join the club. It's called DU- it's called the U.S. election process.

DU and public partisan politics in any forum- is clearly not for you.

[bigtree]

131. knowing 'what candidate we support' is not what you've been arguing

or what the OP was arguing. Now you're digressing into this dishonesty.

It is my decision to make what information I will provide to the public here, including my candidate of choice. Until it becomes a requirement of posting here, you shouldn't expect anyone to involuntarily submit to your biased inquiry, basing their compliance on your own interpretation of what's relevant or proper.

Nor is it your decision to make what level of participation is proper for me on this or any other board. I'm amazed that you believe you have the ultimate wisdom on how I should be expected to participate in these discussions. From what I understand, you have absolutely no authority to require any disclosures. I seriously doubt you could organize a board with the fraction of participation this one has by following through with the recommendations you've made here.

[Dr Fate]

140. Some are arguing that if you work for a candidate, it should be a secret. I disagree with that.

If you are working for a candidate or DEM org, it's something to be PROUD of- I've said that over & over on this thread. I've agreed with the OP from the start.

In any event, unless they are undecided or soemthing, I fail to see why anyone would you want to hide which candidate they merely support as well-whether they lift a finger for them or not...

Decisions? Wisdom? I'm just stating my opinions, throwing out some ideas, and arguing against opinions that I disagree with.

The ultimate "wisdom" -whether they adress this thread or ignore it-lays with Admin on this one.

[Dr Fate]

14. I would think that operatives shouldnt have anything to hide.

When I was working for a candidate, I was proud of it and bragged about ti all the time on DU.

I think it's good to know who is working for camapgins- if anything they should use their postion as an example to others...

Example:

"When I'm not at DU, I'm out working hard for my candidate- why dont you do the same and tell us all about it after work" kind of thing...

[bigtree]

35. Most of us here 'work' for our candidates in some form or fashion.

Having a conversation about that work isn't the same as the type of inference by association that I think the op is getting at. I really don't value those types of judgments. They tend to be biased, like all of the 'DLC' shorthand references which suppose to reveal something more than what the poster is saying.

In short, I think this query is just an attempt by the op to extend and codify her own bias against ideas presented here which she may find objectionable by forcing folks to label themselves. I think if the *purpose for such labeling is to determine some bias, then ALL influences should be revealed and hung around posters necks for us to judge them,

[Dr Fate]

37. If you show up to work for DEMS outside of DU, that is something to be proud of...

...and it should be an example to other DUers who maybe havent thought to take the plunge themselves..

I hope I'm not being off-base here, but the only people at DU who seem to try to hide where they work are the DLCers- most everyone else seems perfectly fine with being honest.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've noticed that the people who work for Kerry, Dean & the DNC at DU seem pretty open about it to me- with or without a rule.

I love the poeple who brag about their work at their local parties too- very inspiring...

[OzarkDem]

41. You're distorting the OP

I and others here have been very careful to not mention individuals or candidates, nor to make value judgements.

And no one is forcing anyone to do anything. We're just trying to have a healthy,productive discussion about ethics.

[bigtree]

53. but you're actually implying there's some judgment to be made behind the revelations

otherwise, what's the point. Don't try and tell me that this post (along with the many similar others I've seen over the years here) is just an innocent how-dee-do.

I think the value of those judgments isn't worth any more than your own personal bias. Why is work for a particular candidate so critical to judging a query, post or a response? I can think of many other pernicious or revealing influences which have nothing at all to do with being paid by someone. But I don't think knowledge of those would necessarily enhance, clarify, define, or explain a point of view presented here. Besides, the responses accompany the query. How much balance do you really need?

[Dr Fate]

57. Then defend yourself against the false judgements of others. It shouldnt be hard.

I do it everyday.

If you truly believe in what you are saying and who you work for, it should be soemthing you actually enjoy doing.

I'll defend Kerry and the DNC to all attackers-and believe me, I was attacked for it.

I think I did it quite well, and maybe I even convinced others to share a few of my views. That is what DU is all about...

[cynatnite]

10. No n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. Anonymity for me, not for thee! What great Democratic values...

EDIT: What bullshit - refusing privacy to someone BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. These are the Democrats we have to work with today.

[OzarkDem]

21. Ok, here's my disclosure

I'm an average citizen who does not receive any compensation from a candidate, officeholder or political party.

We could consider that the "default" disclosure.

[BlooInBloo]

48. The *choice* of anonymity for me! Not for thee!

Sheesh.

[Dr Fate]

69. Folks can hide their true views & secret political affiliations then. By why would one want to?

It just doesnt seem to make sense- I thought people on message boards were supposed to talk about their politics and defend thier beliefs-

What is the point in shrouding everything in secrecy?

It seems counter to waht this site is all about: discussing & defending your true views.

[BlooInBloo]

72. (shrug) That's THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS if they want to keep their political views secret..

... Sheesh - what is it with this authoritarian McCarthyism? Let a person's political affiliation on a non-fundraising issue be fucking private. Sheesh - what more NON-American idea could there be?

Wanna take away secret ballots too? Since "hat is the point in shrouding everything in secrecy?"

Christ.

[Dr Fate]

77. Hide your true views then. Dont discuss them. But why would you? I'm proud of my views.

Some folks are not proud of their views, I guess- or they feel they are unable to defend their views.

Seems like these folks are on the wrong message board if they choose to HIDE their opinions as opposed to discussing them honestly.

This is a political discussion & advocacy board- not a "hide your political views & advocacy" discussion board. That concept makes no sense.

So now I'm McCarthy becuase I think you should freely & honestly discuss your views & activism?

It's how Democracy & honest deabte works, and it's certainly not akin to McCarthism.LOL!!!

[BlooInBloo]

82. Fine. THAT'S YOU. Maybe not everyone is LIKE you. It's ok to not be like you, ya know?

[Dr Fate]

117. It's not about being like me. It's about being honest about which candidate you support.

Some dont mind being fully honest & up front about it, some wish to hide and keep secrets about it...

I find it strange.

[Dr Fate]

12. Yes. Agree 100%. When I was a DNC & Kerry employee- I proudly admitted it and even bragged about it.

I dont see why people would want to hide that fact- activism SHOULD be something to be proud of...

Please submit this idea to Admin- I think you have got something here.

[OzarkDem]

16. Exactly!

It shouldn't be considered a negative thing.

[LSK]

22. how would you enforce this??

[OzarkDem]

25. Ask Skinner

its his forum and I'm just putting the suggestion out there. I don't pretend to speak for him.

Most sites rely on an honor system, I believe.

[blondeatlast]

24. Yes--and I would say the same about volunteers for candidates as well.

Candidates lose cred with me when their supporters are too rabid.

[Dr Fate]

28. I agree 100%. Volunteers should be BRAGGING about their hard work.

Volunteers should be GLAD to come on DU and SAY they are volunteers- and challenge others to get out their & volunteer as well.

That's what I did and plan on doing again.

[DaveJ]

42. Yes, paid opinions are not as genuine

But then people probably will no give as much consideration to those who acknowledge they are being paid. I know I wouldn't.

[Dr Fate]

46. I think DEM employees & volunteers can hold valid , passionate opinions.

In fact, their opinions may even be MORE valid & passionate- since they have choosen to put some sweat & tears behind their beliefs-something beyond a few DU posts... they choose to actually spend hours out of the day, outside of DU, backing up their beliefs.

As I said on the other posts, I agree 100% with the OP- disclosure & honesty is HELPFUL, not hurtful.

[DaveJ]

56. Either way, it would be helpful

Regardless of how they are perceived.

Another benefit to creating this rule would be that those who are paid to post without disclosure may spend more time promoting Democratic candidates elsewhere.

[alarimer]

127. I wouldn't give as much consideration to paid shills either

I generally think that is what they are. Volunteers are one thing; they genuinely believe in their candidate but paid operatives are another story. I do not trust them at all.

[porphyrian]

44. If it's an honor system, only the honorable would reveal their affiliation.

That isn't likely to happen if they are already being deceptive, so what's the point?

I'm not a paid employee (of anyone, currently - I'm completely unemployed), but my saying it won't convince some of the people here.

The bottom line is that people need to think for themselves. Don't take anyone's word for anything. Investigate the facts. Be intellectually curious, not intellectually lazy.

[Dr Fate]

50. In my opinion, everyone here should be working for someone or some issue any way.

I have a much bigger problem with DUers who claim to be working for NO ONE- apparently just posting at DU and that is it.

The people who claim to be just sitting at home and not volunteering or working for ANYONE-be it an advocacy group, local party, GOTV org., candidate, or some group or another will not be the most credible DUers either way- as it should be.

I'm just thinking out loud here about how it might work-Let the "secret" Duers lie or claim to be for no one at all- refusing to say who you do back-or claiming to back no one-that in itself will be telling enough to make the rule work...

[porphyrian]

55. So you're saying you have a problem with me?

I'm here to voice my opinion and to read the opinions of others. Why are my opinions less valid than yours for not volunteering or otherwise working for some kind of advocacy group?

I mean, I don't care if you take me seriously or not, but you don't get to define what makes a DUer credible any more than I do, and I don't agree with your definition.

[Dr Fate]

61. I just think DEMS who actually do work for their issues are just a little more legit...

And I include working for charities, advocacy groups or local parties in this. I certainly include volunteerism in many forms as well. Hell- a neighborhood meeting here & there- or letter writing campaign is better than sole DU posts and nothing else...

This opinion of mine came about in -'02-'04 when people were bashing Kerry or the party- my response would always be "Here is what I am doing to change that...outside of DU, what are YOU doing?"

I think it's a valid point-sure, you can post at DU, and that can be the full extent of what you do for DEMS or progressives- but I would think you would want to do a little more...time & health permitting, of course...

Just my opinion- and I think you would feel pretty good if you left DU for a few hours and talked to some voters, or spent some time helping a group that helps on issues you care about- try it- you might like it!!!

In all honesty, I need to get back to doing a lot more of what I used to do. As always, I'll be sure to keep you all posted...

[porphyrian]

62. I think people do what they think they can do.

That isn't necessarily all they can or will do, it's just what they do. However, saying that a person's opinion is somehow less legitimate because they can't or don't do something you value is a bullshit expectation. I think it's great that you do what you do, but not so much that you require it from everyone to consider what they have to say legitimate.

[Dr Fate]

64. True-but posting at DU and only posting at DU isnt enough.

I suppose that people can have valid opinions and not lift a finger to promote those valid opinions- but I honestly just dont get that.

We will agree that those who have poor health or those who work too hard supporting themselves or others at their real jobs are exempt. I agree that not everyone has the time or health to do it.

Here is where we disagree-I think that if someone says "The DEMS are not working hard enough"- and yet they dont lift a finger, their lack of activities actually DOES invalidate their opinion to an extent...

My opinion that DEMS were not working hard enough was more valid because I actually worked for them!!! LOL!!!

[bigtree]

71. it does if that's the extent of what you are able to do

disabled, obligated elsewhere . . . I appreciate ALL advocacy and activism.

[Dr Fate]

75. We come to an agreement. n/t

n/t

[porphyrian]

101. Who are you to judge? Why do you get to say what is enough?

Just because you don't understand another position doesn't make it wrong.

[Dr Fate]

111. It's just my honest opinion. For one thing, swing-voters dont read DU.

This is a sub topic- but yeah, it's my mere opinion that posting at DU is the bare minimum...

As we agreed, those with poor health or in an economic bind, of course we dont expect them to bust tail for DEMS...they have enought o worry about.

It's not for me to judge, but what if that is what we all did, merely post on DU? Wouldnt even be a DU or a need for one if that was the case...

[porphyrian]

113. Your mind is made up, I just don't agree.

I don't know what DU would be like, because that isn't the case, nor is there much of a chance that it will be. You don't know either, you've just decided you're right.

[Dr Fate]

119. Yes, we have an honest disagreement. I think all who can should go beyond DU.

I must say your position baffles me-that merely posting at DU is sufficient to practice Democratic politics- unless you are just talking about folks who truly just cant work.

Any way, my best wishes to you.

[porphyrian]

121. What I'm saying is that you don't decide for others what is of value.

It doesn't matter if you don't understand it.

[Dr Fate]

128. I agree- It is my honest opinion. Whether we win elections based on DU posts will decide the value.

I cant see it, but we agree, it is my opinion.

[OzarkDem]

59. Sorry to hear that

about your unemployment, that is. Hope you find something soon! Good luck!

Very good advice about people thinking for themselves.

[porphyrian]

60. Thanks, I'm working on it. - n/t

[H2O Man]

45. Gosh, I agree.

I thought it was pretty nice to have Ms. Edwards, and the son and step-son of some other former candidates on DU.I think that Mr. Pitt once worked for a candidate, and was very open about it. I think it's important that us common folk know that candidates and their campaign staff want to participate in open discussions with us. That's a bonus.

[depakid]

51. It's just a message board

I don't really care whether someone's being paid- or whether they're just blindly partisan.

In most cases, our bullshit detectors are pretty good around here.

[DaveJ]

63. Come to think of it, maybe that would be unfair

If we ask moles and paid operatives to reveal their employment, might as well ask everyone.

There are already Hobby and Comments fields in the profile, and there could also be an Employment field added, although it's unlikely anyone will fill that out....

Strange how few people ever want to talk about what they spend their time doing and even keep it secretive.

[Dr Fate]

65. That's just it- people who dont think of themsleves as "moles" shouldnt have a problem with it.

n/t

[DaveJ]

66. I didn't intend to have an attitude using those terms

But my point was that anyone's employment is going to effect their views. Might as well ask everyone to reveal their employers.

Edit: If someone is proud of their volunteer work, there is a comments field where they can mention it.

[Dr Fate]

73. Attitude? I'm just saying DUers should be proud of their views rather than secretive.

It seems to me that the only people who benefit from secrets are either "moles" (your term, not mine), or folks who are inept at defending their DEM affiliations. For the latter, to bad, so sad. Learn to debate and defend your opinions.

For the life of me, I dont see the point in being ashamed of one's good political work or volunteerism- folks should glady reveal it.

And I disagree about "other employers"- I only agree with disclosing the fact that one works for a candidate or political organization-it doesnt even have to be specific at all-...lets not add unreasonable things to the proposed rule just to sink it...

Seriously- this is a political message board- we should be proudly defending and promoting our views- not keeping them all hush-hush.

You can keep "secret" views and affiliations without even posting at all. I truly just dont see the point or advantage in all the secrecy.

[bigtree]

70. that's what they said during the 'Red Scare'

[Dr Fate]

74. LOL! Not proudly promoting your DEM views & work is compared to being a secret commie?

Good lord!! So the commies are now involved??? LOL!

I'm saying that if you are a communist, then defend your communism- tell us why it is good. If you are a DLCer, then proudly gives us the facts as to why we should agree with you. In the context of DU it's called Democracy & robust, honest debate, not McCarthyism.

If folks dont abide by the rule, then that is between them & their own morals, as it always is.

So now I'm McCarthy just becuase I'd like to know if you work or volunteer for the Richmond County Democratic Ladies Auxillary, or if you volunteered for the "Draft Gore" Campaign? LOL!!

For the life of me- what are you all so darned ASHAMED of???

[bigtree]

78. If you can't equate what you said with McCarthyism, you need to do some reading

Bushisms on wiretapping even: "If you aren't doing anything illegal or improper than what have you got to hide?

I'm not ashamed of anything, and I've (willingly, on my own initiative) shared almost every aspect of my present life and history here at DU. But, I'm not going to respond (or agree) to what I see as an attempt here to label some folks and not others. This post is an attempt to put one set of posters in a box where you and those who care about such affiliations can saddle them with your cursory judgments every time they post. What are YOU afraid of in my notion that disclosing ALL affiliations -- paid or otherwise, past or present -- be 'required' to post here? Why should I assume that *one affiliation is more relevant and important than another?

[Dr Fate]

83. LOL! Wire tapping? I just want to know if you campaign for one guy or the other. Is that so wrong?

Is it SOOOOOO shameful & hard to defend that- to the point where you feel like you being subjected to McCartyism... Good lord-What possible deep, dark secrets could there be? LOL!!!

Labels?

I hate to tell you this, but you have to be "labeled" a DEM or Liberal before you even post here- so I guess Skinner is on the verge of being a McCarthyite with labels according to your logic.

This is a DEMOCRATIC message board- and there is nothing shameful in disclosing and proudly defending your DEMOCRATIC views affiliations- in fact , it is what this board is all about...

[bigtree]

84. I don't like your tone

that should be enough to get you to back off. You're efforts on this thread are a prime example of why folks don't openly share their personal lives. The cavalier way that you are goading me is enough for me to resist WHATEVER you want me to do. You don't have any right to information about my personal life because you offer NOTHING in return for that acquiescence from me. If it becomes a requirement for posting here, I will consider it. But, after an hour of goading from a nagging (offensive) poster . . . nothing from me.

[Dr Fate]

88. I used to work for Kerry and the DNC. I was always proud of it. Nothing to hide, no shame.

I'm sorry if my ability & willingness to be honest & open, and my call for others to do so brushes you the worng way.

I welcome all who want to debate me or attack me for my views & affiliations to do so.

Why? Becuase I'll use it as an opportunity to defend & promote my views-That's waht we DO on discussion boards, I thought.

If I am not poor at discussion, I might even convince one or two people to see a few things my way- who knows?

Ater all, this is a Democratic activism & discussion board.

[bigtree]

89. well, that's what you've chosen to highlight

much different when you assume that choice is best for everyone who posts here.

Choice. What could be more 'Democratic' than that?

[Dr Fate]

91. I'd say more honesty in deabte is a highly Democratic ideal too. This rule would promote it.

I truly and honestly dont see how hiding relevant facts in a debate is the best choice for anyone.

When did being secretive and hiding relevant facts in an HONEST political debate become Mom & Apple Pie all of a sudden? I've never heard of such a thing.

[bigtree]

92. your selective 'facts' that you've decided are relevant or important?

what's so honest about that query? It's completely biased by your assumption that your particular line of inquiry is relevant to the 'debate'

[Dr Fate]

94. By "facts", I mean people should factually say what candidates they volunteer for.

Or what DEM orgs they work or volunteer for. No shame in it. It's doing God's work.

The only dishonesty in that would be the people who would choose to lie about it- God knows for what reason.

[bigtree]

100. I just don't see any value in those public disclosures, outside of someone's personal interest

and, I'm not so enamored of everyone here to the point where I want to make my life so readily transparent. I have been polite enough to discuss almost every aspect of my life at various points throughout the years, but those have been voluntary. I've never even submitted to a drug test. I can't see acquiescing so easily to revealing my personal life to someone I just have no comfort level with at all. I'm really beginning to question your own motivations.

[Dr Fate]

108. I do. Any candidate will tell you- know your audience. It is true in debate as well.

When I am trying to convince a Dean supporter I am right, I might use a different argument than when I'm trying to convince a Hillary supporter to go my way, or at least hear me out. Makes sense, doesnt it?

Another purpose it serves is that is will curb some of the trolls who make inconsistant arguments and are able to lie about their previous positions and get away with it- as it is now at DU- this happens often- the rule might curb that just a little.

[bigtree]

109. that's a political tool, not necessary for discussion here.

you have an opportunity to present your point of view right alongside whatever one you want. That's all the advantage you need.

[Dr Fate]

118. HIDING and keeping your true beliefs SECRET is a more nefarious political tool

While being open & honest- is, well, being open & honest. LOL!

I admit it- I do indeed like to know who I am debating and where they are coming from- especially if they are paid employee. it's a debate tactic, but it's an HONEST one- used by all of our candidates.

The only reason I can think of for hiding your beliefs would be for strategic reasons- so that one can hide their true postions and debate people using inconsistant arguements-or whatever argument works at that time and place...

Which is why I love this proposal- way too many trolls, greenies and trouble makers are able to hold 6 different contradictory postions and then claim they never did...

The rule wont solve that problem, but it might help.

[bigtree]

123. secret? from who? you?

who the hell are you? why should I give a wit about what you think of any affiliations I may have? My 'motivation' may be as simple as my distaste for your tone. But, why should I bother to disclose anything to you? You've got enough of your own internal bias for the both of us. Just continue making it up as you go along. How much more wrong can you go?

[Dr Fate]

130. From everyone else at DU who doesnt mind sharing who their candidate is. LOL!!!

AKA- the folks who come here to debate the merits of that candidate-or even to oppose those candidates they disagree with (GASP! Imagine that in a Democracy!).

It's keeping secrets from those who dont feel the need to hide the ball and play tricks.

By why would you want to keep a secret about who their candidate is, from ANYONE?

It baffles me.

[bigtree]

132. so dishonest. First it's about who you work for, now it's a simple declaration of support?

You don't deserve even that. I don't have to decide until I vote. What sophistry.

[Dr Fate]

135. It's about who ya work for like the OP says. This rule would have multiple positive effects.

And I admit, *I* do like the rule- and it would assist me in debate and advocacy. I think it would help all DUers, excecpt those who rely on secrecy as a debate tactic or tool.

The OP was taking about whether you are being paid or not-
I also think that working as a volunteer for a candiate or DEM org should be disclosed too- but that is just me. There might be some cons to that, but i havent heard them yet.

In any event, it would be up to Admin, I'm mostly just thinking out loud and throwing out ideas & opinions here just like you.

[BlooInBloo]

76. Let people fucking talk freely, anonymously, or not at all. Sheesh.

[Dr Fate]

79. Not at all? No point in shutting down the whole discussion over a few ultra-secretive activists.

Seems like a better idea if everyone just lays their cards on the table.

Seems like they would be proud to do so.

You can be perfectly anonymous and free and still be known to your fellow DUers as a proud volunteer for your party or congressional candidate, etc.

[BlooInBloo]

80. Some people - just can't stand privacy - except for THEMSELVES, of course. Sheesh.

[Dr Fate]

85. LOL! Maybe we should call DU a "privacy" board or a "secrecy" board in stead of a DISCUSSION board.

The only conclusion I can come up with in this bizzare business is that some people are just too ashamed of, or to inept to defend their OWN views & affiliations.

I assumed most people here would be GLAD to talk about all the great work they do for the party. LOL! It's a DEMOCRATIC DISCUSSION BOARD after all.

If you want privacy as to what you & your organization thinks about Democrats, then maybe you shouldnt post on a PUBLIC message board designed for PUBLICLY DISCUSSING your views about Democrats for all to see.

LOL! So there are actually people at DU who think this a place where DEM views should be kept secret rather than honestly discussed? Bizzare.

If privacy is what you seek, then PUBLIC discussion boards might not be your bag...

[bigtree]

86. Privacy Statement for the Democratic Underground Website

This site makes discussion forums available to its users. Please remember that any information that is disclosed in these areas becomes public information and you should exercise caution when deciding to disclose your personal information.

[Dr Fate]

90. I agree with that rule 100%. It changes none of my points about being proud of your candidate, etc.

I dont see how saying "yes- I campaign for John Edwards-and I'm proud of it" puts anyone's privacy in danger, or should cause them to be cautious.

I dont see how saying "Yes- I am employed by my state DEM party" puts anyone in danger. I never called for disclosing people's names, adresses, locations or anything like that.

I'll leave it up to admin, if they think this is a good idea, (they might very well take your position- and I'll respect it if they do) as to how to handle the specifics.

[bigtree]

96. Once again. You, as a private individual, don't have any right to those disclosures

Further, there is no practical, benign use for them, in my view, in enhancing, clarifying, or explaining someone's query or post.

And, I really don't believe you when you present your argument as asking for a simple how-dee-do. I believe you want to use those selective disclosures as a hammer against the posters' arguments.

[Dr Fate]

103. What is wrong with hammering against DUers arguments? It's a discussion board.

When I admitted I worked for Kerry & the DNC, lots of Greenies & Dean supporters took me on and "hammered me" with debate and disagreements.
Some DLCers took umbrage with that fact too.

Guess what- I DEBATED THEM over it. Imagine that.

Fortunatley I'm not frightened of debating people I have disagreements with- and I understand that it is part of being on a DISCUSSION board.

I think it has a very good use- just like a "Dean", "Hillary" or a "Che" Icon in one's post gives you clues or hints as to how the person leans, and how you should go about convincing them to agree with your own views. You use different debating techniques for different audiences- ask any candidate about that.

Another purpose it would serve is it would take away the ability of trolls & trouble makers to constantly switch their postitions and then lie about them- which happens a lot at DU..

Some folks just dont want to be up front and honest about who they are for and who they are against- but I wouldnt know why.

[bigtree]

107. you want disclosures on what you think are relevant influences, to the exclusion of others.

anyone who disagrees with the relevance or propriety of those disclosures is 'frightened'?

That's the sad level of discourse here this year. Label anyone who disagrees with you as 'frightened' or a 'coward' because they won't kow-tow to your particular point of view. Bullshit.

[Dr Fate]

124. I'm not exculding others in this. I want everyone to share their TRUE views.

Folks can disagree with me working for the DNC or Kerry all they want- they dont have to agree with my point of view- but I will debate in favor OF my POV.

In turn, some folks here do indeed seem "frightened", ashamed or at least unwilling to show us what THEIR point of view is.

You dont have to "kow-tow" to anything that my affiliations or candidates stand for- I just think it would be helpful to know if people are getting paid, etc.

And I'll admit- some do not want to disclose their views out of "firght" or "cowardice" at all-perhaps for some it's pragmatism- they do not wish to disclose their employment because they know they would have to alter their game-plans & current debate tactics...

[bigtree]

126. 'frightened', or 'ashamed' -- YOUR words -- Why do you need DU?

You can just turn off your computer and make it all up without our input.

[Dr Fate]

133. I conceeded that one might keep secrets for pragmatic reasons as well.

One might want to keep the fact that he is "on the clock" or that he works for one candidate or the other because he has built debate tactics around keeping that a secret- or he wants to be able to have it both ways- or several ways in a debate...so I concede- it might not be out of pure "fright" at all- but a desire to use secrecy as a debate tool.

It might be more out of pragmatism or a desire to keep playing a rigged game than actual "fright"- However, it is possible to be scared or "frightened" of having your game plan exposed too..

[bigtree]

134. or, it could be that someone may feel that a disrespectful, anonymous poster

hasn't done anything at all to deserve the voluntary disclosure of the selective information demanded.

Maybe they just don't like being bullied into something by a faceless nag.

[Dr Fate]

136. I wonder if Admin would like to know who is getting paid to post at their site as well.

Maybe they dont care? Hell- for all we know maybe they actually LIKE for paid employees to use their bandwith and not disclose that fact...

Discloser by those who are volunteers or DEM employees outside of DU-people like my self who did have affiliations, but were not paid to post...? I could see them not wanting to get into that- but I think it deserves some thought.

Who knows- it's up to them to enact a rule like this either way- I hope they consdier it or something similar.

[bigtree]

138. then let them ask. you have absolutely no credibility in this.

[Dr Fate]

141. I hope they do. I've PMed them and asked them to consider the thread.

And actually, I do have some limited credibility to at least discuss this matter- as I've always disclosed my DEM employment, affiliations & volunteer work...I have nothing to hide and no secret deabate tactics that require otherwise...

[bigtree]

143. in all of that defense of yourself is an insinuation that anyone who doesn't support disclosure

"has something to hide"

That despicable McCarthyism colors your entire argument.

[Dr Fate]

145. I also said that they dont want the rule because it might screw up their debate tactics...

And I am not on the defense here- I'm the one who wants to be honest about who I work for.

If someone is posting at DU as a paid employee, they might have to change their debate tactics if they are required to disclose that fact.

Eitherway, they could still present facts & honest opinions- I'm not sure what they are so worried about.

I'll bet some people would oppose the rule for that reason too.

McCartyism? What a laugh.

DEM employment & volunteerism is something to be PROUD OF- what could folks possibly be hiding?- I fail to understand what there IS to hide in the 1st place...

Frankly, if someone on this board is a paid operative and they dont want anyone to know that -then it is true that they are hiding something-god knows why is what I am wrestling with...

[bigtree]

148. sure, YOU decide what their objections are? And you set the terms of the 'debate'?

and you really have got the McCarthyite thing down.

Reveal your personal life to me (and thousands of others) or I'll attach some unsavory motive to your refusal . . . and you wonder why someone wouldn't willingly submit details of their private life to you. Amazing.

[Dr Fate]

149. If your are being paid to post at DU, we should know about it. It's fairplay, not "McCarthyism."

And to be fair, perhaps volunteers should be honest about who they are working for too- but hey, if you want to keept he rule to just "paid to post" people- then we could meet half way.

Yup- sounds JUST like McCarthyism to me. LOL!

I dont care about your personal life outside of DU political context- but if you are being paid to post here, folks should know about that.

LOL! It might upset someone's gravy train here, sure- too bad.

If a DUer is being paid to post, - wanting some honesty on that fact isnt McCarthyism- it's just good old-time fair play...

[BlooInBloo]

87. Call it whatever the hell you want. Just leave people the fuck alone.

[Dr Fate]

93. If you dont want to discuss YOUR politics, then stay away from DISCUSSION Boards.

Sorry- but if you come to DU, I wont "leave you alone"- I will ask you questions, and ask you to defend your postions. That is what we do here.

I dont expect to be "left alone" at all- I expect people to challenge my views- and they should expect me to defend them. I wouldnt have it any other way.

If you want to be "left alone" concerning your political beliefs, then the best place to hide and not be asked about them is certainly not here at a public political discussion & activism site.

[BlooInBloo]

95. And I can discuss politics without identifying myself in any manner whatsoever...

... despite what un-American people want. Everyone can.

And I couldn't care less if you leave *me* alone. Hand-wringing authoritarian whiny ass titty babies don't bother me all that much.

[Dr Fate]

105. As I said, you can hide your views all you want. I just dont get why you would.

We will agree to disagree- I'm proud of my views and am willing to share them, you want to have the option to hide some of your views- fair enough, I guess.

Unless you want to keep responding, I'll leave you to your deep, dark, apparently shameful secrets about which candidate you volunteer for- LOL!!

[BlooInBloo]

106. It's about about YOU or what you "get". It's about my freedom. And everyone else's.

What a complete bunch of crap "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about". Fucking pathetic.

[Dr Fate]

122. Who in the world is "doing something wrong" by devoting time to a DEM candidate?

Who in the world is "doing something wrong" by devoting their time to DEM causes???

What in the world are you talking about????

I never said any DEMS were doing any thing "wrong" in context of give & take politics- its all part of the system- we push, we pull at the direction the party goes in.

It's just nice to have an HONEST deabte- telling people who you are working for helps honest debate a LOT more than it hurts it.

[rucky]

81. I don't think it matters.

so many are willing to shill for free.

[AZBlue]

110. I think they should.

Although there are several here now I can think of off the top of my head that are obviously on a payroll - their posts are so obvious, it's almost funny. Nonetheless, I think they all should have to identify themselves as such.

[Clintonista2]

112. Ummm, how would you prove it?

It's unrealistic.

[Dr Fate]

139. maybe it's not about "proving"- but about curbing trolls & dishonest arguments.

There are more advantages to this than just finding out who is "on the clock"...

If folks would put down what candidate or org. the work or volunteer for, than maybe-just maybe- it will keep a few posters from having 5, 6 different arguments, and then lying about their positons once called on it. Greens and others come here and do it all the time.

Also, knowing what candidates And what orgs people work for helps in debate- any politician knows that "know your audience" is key.

For instance- one might try to appeal to you differently, knowing you are a Hillary supporter (I can tell by your sig image) than I would to, say a Dean supporter.

Rules were made to be broken-true, but that doesnt mean they dont do some good.

[Clintonista2]

142. So let's assume I work for the Clinton campaign

I have been accused of this many times on DU. How would you know I work for her? Your plan is based on the honor system, and I doubt anybody working on a campaign would be likely to disclose that.

[Dr Fate]

146. If you are not working or volunteering for her, then why dont you? She's your candidate.

I guess I was operating under the assumption that most DUers are active- at least as volunteers.

God help us if that is not the case. I just assmumed we were all activists outside of DU at one point or another- golly!!! Please tell me I'm right!!!

And lets say you DID volunteer for her- or even worked for her (Jeeze- why dont you? It's better than just posting about her at DU, but that is my mere opinion...think about it!!!)- then you should be prepared to defend that, and tell your detractors why they are incorrect.

It's called political debate, and backing your man- or woman!!! Nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide.

Some folks on this thread are almost suggesting that doing hard work for a DEM org. or candidate is a bad thing, something NOT to be proud of and that is just too difficult to defend- I really dont get that.

When I was working for Kerry- and strangely enough for mu local party- some folks (mostly greens, I guess) attacked me.

My response was something like:

"Yes- I do volunteer and sometimes even get paid for the people I agree with- maybe you should try it yourself. Who do YOU work for? Maybe you should get up and work for YOUR guy and YOUR agenda besides just attacking mine..."

See, the rule works on many levels- it even gives us opportunities to goad or encourage others to get up & work for THEIR guy...

[Dr Fate]

152. Or at least DLCers & Hillary supporters, that is one thing this thread has taught me.

You might be right about them not being likey to disclose much.

They really do seem to be the only people who express concern about this proposed rule.

I wonder why...

[plantwomyn]

114. I think they should

This is suppose to be a forum for "grassroots" dialog. Elected officials, candidates or consultants for candidates have the money and there own "bully pulpit" to get there ideas out there. I guess if they don't post at all and just read posts as a sort of "research" it would be fine with me but the "big brother" shit has got to go.

[Dr Fate]

147. Agreed. I see nothing but positives and more credibility for DU. n/t

n/t

[July]

115. It might cut down on the content-less "you can say that again!" type of posts, at the least.

When I see several posts by the same person, cheerleaded by the same two or three others, in support of a certain candidate or in opposition to one of his rivals, I can't help but wonder if they are all working (either for pay or voluntarily) in a coordinated effort to create interest and to bring down rivals on our site full of likely voters.

In my mind, that's significantly different from the kind of discussion that usually takes place here. I would even say that it is deceptive. Anyone who works for a candidate can post here, and many campaign workers, staff, and relatives have done so.

But if there are posters who are pretending they don't know each other or just happen to agree with fellow staff/operatives/whatevers when they are actually actively working together to promote their candidate here, they are abusing the pretty open nature of DU.

It would be more honest and ethical, as you suggest, just to state their associations with the candidate and then say whatever they'd like about that candidate or about any other candidate or topic.

[Dr Fate]

144. Good analysis. For the life of me, I dont see why folks would have a problem with this.

The only thing I can come up with is that some folks dont like they idea that they might have to change or alter some of their secrecy based debate tactics- but certainly they could still maintain facts and defend honest opinions-right?

[mondo joe]

129. I'm not worried about it at all. No need for such a requirement.

The unethical will not disclose anyway.

[Dr Fate]

137. But for everyone else who does, I think it will improve the site.

I've posted several arguments for why above...

[Dr Fate]

150. Kick- n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

151. kick n/t

n/t

[undeterred]

153. Well. I hope almost everyone here is working for a candidate

not necessarily in a paid position- but there aren't many of those. Those that are in paid positions should have better things to do than post on messageboards. We all should be working to get good candidates elected, sharing information, and encouraging each other for the next 14 months through the presidential election. I think it would be hard to keep one's interests a secret.

I want the Wisconsin state assembly to be overrun with Democrats!