This does not quite seem to follow, does it? I offer their explanation:
Right, so even though Megan has about as gigantic a conflict-of-interest as is humanly imaginable-namely, she spoons every night with a guy who was on Freedomworks' payroll--and even though her article absolutely defends Freedomworks by attempting to discredit Freedomworks' critics--she nevertheless concludes, against all logic, "I think it's kosher." Speaking as two Jews to a McArdle, we want you to know that your conflict-of-interest is about as kosher as a bacon-cheese-and-crab-melt sandwich.Megan leaves out a few other details--like what exactly her partner Peter Suderman did for FreedomWorks, and how long ago he left.
One project that Megan's life-partner, Peter, produced for FreedomWorks is a video that he directed last year for the site angryrenter.com, which the Wall Street Journal described in its subheader as: "Angry Renter' Web Site Has Grass-Roots Look, But This Turf Is Fake". Fake grass-roots: exactly like the Tea Party/Santelli campaign . . .
And now, here is Megan McArdle's life-partner Peter Suderman's brilliant work for the site that even the Journal says is designed to deceive people into thinking it was representing the disgruntled masses in order to mask its real purpose--to serve the super-wealthy:
What other projects, one wonders, do the Megan-Peter team produce that masquerade as one thing (like for example a non-partisan blog) that really serves another interest (like for example, a certain mega-wealthy rightwing Republican advocacy group)? We may never find out the answer to that, but we sure know the answers to other important matters in Megan's life. Like for example, here is the freakishly-tall Megan McArdle showing the world her "look at me and my life-partner Peter Suderman being a pair of vile consumerists dipshits, I think it's so fun that I'll blog it to the world because that's how vain and shallow I am"
. . . Ha-ha! Omigod Megan, seriously! It's like, you go girl! Ha-ha!
If you've ever looked at those horrible middle-aged Republican couples who attend Washington balls and fundraisers for soulless reptiles like Mitt Romney, and wondered how they got there, because they look like they must have been born in that horrible middle-aged reptilian state--well, here they are, captured in their middle-youth larval stage, just as vile as ever. And now they're coming after us.
. . . Another late-night development: obsessed Freedomworks groupie/life-partner-of-the-inimitable-Peter-Suderman/I'll-stand-in-any-line-out-there-so-long-as-it's-selling-something-no-one-fucking-needs Megan McArdle, reports on her blog an amazing admission-of-guilt by Freedomworks which pretty much puts this whole controversy to rest. Victory: Ours. The head of Freedomworks tells Megan that they were behind the tea party "grassroots" "protests." Poor Megan, first she was their attack poodle, but now that FreedomWorks knows its cover has been blown, Megan's been demoted to the role of disgraced Freedomworks watergirl: . . . The head of Freedomworks tells Megan that they were behind the tea party "grassroots" "protests." Poor Megan, first she was their attack poodle, but now that FreedomWorks knows its cover has been blown, Megan's been demoted to the role of disgraced Freedomworks watergirl. . .
Sorry Megan, but it looks like you just queefed all over your first big Republican hit-job. Our advice: go back to blogging your petty shopping habits, you've got a serious future in that. . . .
So, to sum up the events of the past few days boys 'n' girls: We publish an investigation into the fake-grassroots "Tea Party" protest campaign underwritten by rich Republican rightwing interests, exposing Rick Santelli's role as the launch event MC, and three days later, Santelli is bitchslapped down by his bosses, he's cancelled from the Daily Show, forced to issue a Bukharin-like confession, FreedomWorks confesses that it was behind it from the start as we wrote, and every media outlet in the country from the New York Times on down is writing up the scandal.
Yes, it's a victory for us and for the forces of independent journalism. Sure, we're doing a dirty chicken dance in the endzone now. But the truth is, it's a bitter victory, because we've also been forced to confront the awfully familiar face of America's own version of the Soviet Union at work: giant scary corporations threatening and scaring smaller fish into censorship, while their bought-off minions in the media do their dirty work to try to protect the mega-conglomerate's brand.
I hadn't realized that my romantic life was a threat to the very foundations of Democracy. I just thought we were, like, decorating.
Their piece contains yet another factual error: on July 10th, when Peter and I slept out in line for the iPhone, we weren't dating. We were good-ish friends. In the interests of absolutely full disclosure on this vital topic, Peter Suderman had that very week left his job at Freedomworks, and was about to join the ill-fated Culture11. The two of us decided to camp out in line three weeks before, at a party which I believe to have been hosted by Matthew Yglesias and his roommates, though it could also have been at one of a half-dozen other friends. We met up that evening at a book party for Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, and then decamped for Virginia. While it is true that we shared a queen-sized air mattress for several hours, Peter was a perfect gentleman.
Peter and I started dating two weeks after that, on July 24th, if you can refer to his invaluable help cleaning up my apartment after a fairly lengthy cocktail party as a "date". Several months later we decided to seek a rental lodging together, thereby permanently depriving both of us of the opportunity to be shocked and a little horrified when people we know get engaged after four months--something we both noted at the time.
I want to make this clear despite what I presume is a general monumental lack of interest in how, when, and where Peter Suderman and I first lost our hearts. I apologize for the excessive detail, but I don't want any question about a lack of disclosure to linger.
So forward: during our seven months together, I have learned very little about Peter's work at FreedomWorks, other than the location of his former office, the fact that he had to wear a jacket and tie, and that his FreedomWorks supplied Blackberry was easier to type on than an iPhone. This was not because he went to any great lengths to conceal the details of his employment from me, but simply because it didn't really come up. I venture to say that Peter couldn't tell you much about my time at The Economist, other than the fact that I met Hernando DeSoto on my first day, and Hernando DeSoto buys suits at the same New York clothing shop as my father. We were busy finding out about each other's favorite colors, albums, and preferences in coffee and candlesticks.
Indeed, until Peter himself pointed it out on Monday, it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would think I had a conflict of interest. I don't know much about the group except that Dick Armey heads it, and Dick Armey is apparently a genuinely funny guy, as his impromptu response to a question about Monica Lewinsky seemed to indicate. Peter's tenure with the organization did not overlap his tenure with me. I don't know what projects he worked on there. I have no financial interest in the future of the organization, as Peter has no plans to work there. I have not, as far as I know, ever met or spoken to anyone else who works there, except Brendan Steinhauser, who I spoke to for the first time on Monday, a conversation I already blogged about.
But of course, I know all that, and you don't. It's reasonable to weigh anything I say about the group in light of the fact that someone I love used to work there. That's why I made sure to disclose it as soon as I realized that it presented the appearance of a conflict of interest. It's not possible to write a broadly focused blog without having some conflicts of interest--we all have families and friends. All we can do is tell you about them when they come up.
Ames and Levine, however, seem to think that merely pointing out a potential conflict of interest constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't--it just changes how you weigh both sides assertions. As I see it, the central problem with their original article still stands: they make a large number of unsupported assertions, one of which I am told by multiple sources is highly unlikely. They have no source for their statement that Koch funds FreedomWorks. They have no source that gives them any positive reason to suspect that Santelli said what he said at the behest of some shadowy conspiracy. They have no source proving any connection between the various groups they accused of "astroturfing". They're not even right in the follow-up post that calls Angry Renter a secretive FreedomWorks operation: the bottom of the front page notes that the content is copyrighted to FreedomWorks.
If Levine and Ames are so confident in their thesis, why have they not attempted to fill any of the gaps in the follow-up? Why haven't they offered any explanation for their article's sudden disappearance from Playboy's site, other than the obvious inference that the editors and lawyers concluded they could not back up their claims?
They certainly haven't provided any source for their implication that Peter and I are working on some secret to undermine my allegedly nonpartisan blog. Aside from a little freelance work and a few speaking gigs, all of the money that I am paid comes courtesy of The Atlantic. The only person or entity who has paid me to write any of the content on this blog is The Atlantic Media Group. The only joint project Peter and I have ever worked on, aside from the construction of Ikea furniture, is the videoblogging we did from the iPhone line before we dated. And I don't think I can rightfully be accused of ever having hidden my politics on this blog, though to be fair, Ames and Levine seem blissfully unaware that I supported Obama.
All I will say about their victory dance for "independent journalism" is that I don't see what their journalistic efforts have actually, y'know, proved. That FreedomWorks helped organize the tea parties? Finding that out didn't require "independent journalism"; it required reading the FreedomWorks press release to that effect. The relevant question is not whether a donor-funded group spread the word about a protest it supported--MoveOn does that every day. The question is whether, as they basically asserted, Charles Koch masterminded a vast attempt to create the impression of popular support for a project in order to apply political pressure, while hiding his involvement through front groups that manufactured wholly imaginary popular support.
As far as I can tell, FreedomWorks a) isn't funded by Charles Koch and b) hasn't hidden its involvement. Their central thesis does not jibe with the facts available to me. Indeed, it seems deeply weird, because getting tea and a hundred or so people together in front of a government building isn't exactly an expensive endeavor. Last I heard, the DC operation was borrowing the megaphone they used, and getting the tea for free from some tea company.
This doesn't mean I endorse what FreedomWorks does--I frankly don't know enough about the organization to have an opinion on its operations. It merely seemed to me that their specific charges about the tea parties were insufficiently backed up with specific facts. Playboy has published some great journalism in its time. The ratio of speculation-to-evidence in the Levine and Ames piece was thus disappointing, especially since it was rapidly taken up as gospel truth by substantial sections of the lefty blogosphere.
Perhaps Yasha Levine and Mark Ames have some hard facts--or hell, even an untrustworthy anonymous source--who can substantiate some of these claims. If so, I wish they would provide them. Or at the very least, stop hurling unsubstantiated accusations at anyone who dares to point out the weaknesses in their case.
Update: Two commenters and one emailer have already made this mistake, so just to be completely clear, I did not write about FreedomWorks without disclosing that I was dating someone who had worked there. The very first post I wrote on the topic contained the disclosure that Peter and I were dating. This was, I presume, how Ames and Levine learned of it. If they had contacted me before writing their updated post, I would have been happy to give them the timeline, including how long Peter worked for Freedomworks (part of the year before we started dating), and tell them what I knew about the group. This would have prevented their multiple errors. But apparently, this is not the sort of thing their "independent journalism" encompasses.
I am married to Mrs. Cookie Puss.
I stopped reading after their third paragraph. It's a thoroughly disgusting article in both tone and content.
Best of luck to you and Peter.
Wow, that had to be the most trumped up ad-hominem-without-fact-posing-as-crtique that those two tools have ever done.
Typical left-wing blogger rhetoric: do nothing more than crudely attack your target (replete with dripping sexism, natch!) and hope that's enough.
Just because one's playground insults are a bit more erudite than the average schoolyard bully's taunt doesn't make them better. Angry, condescending, and childish -- and completely unpersuasive.
Do Levine and Ames have any clue how tired this kind of hit-and-run garbage has become? Please, angry snarkblogging is so passé.
There's no organized conspiracy behind this "tea party" movement any more than there's some sinister cabal of entertainment executives trying to reignite Rick Astley's career by inventing the Rickroll. It's a meme, pure and simple, and those who keep inventing ever more byzantine conspiracies to try to tie it into the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy are just deluding themselves.
Megan, you come off as nervous and worried. Like, really nervous and really worried. Something bad must have happened to you today with your editors.
Apparently they're pretty bitter about getting bitch-slapped by Playboy's lawyers, and needed an outlet to vent and make themselves look stupider.
OMG Megan is "freakishly-tall" and has a "life-partner"! I will never believe her again!
We all knew this coy who-is-the-boyfriend thing could never stand up for long to the powers of the human gossip imperative.
Pretty lame. As is the whole idea that the bailout is to help Bob (and not Bob's neighbors, and all the institutions with ties to Bob's bank -- how difficult is this to understand, really?). It's finally pushed me to delete your blog from my home page set.
Jesus Christ that reads like two highschoolers sniping at each other over Facebook. You fucked up. Get over it. That's a big honking conflict of interest you should have disclosed, and it doesn't go away no matter how snotty Levene and Ames are.
that was a waste of the 2 minutes i managed to keep my eyes on the screen.
i usually enjoy your posts, but damn. talk about inane.
Dude, the disclosure that Megan is living with Suderman was on the first post she put up about the Playboy article.
May I interpose a question here?
Yes?
Ok: who cares?
Let us suppose that Koch (whoever that is) is at the center of some big astroturfing conspiracy with the organizational precision of a Marine rifle drill and the deeply sinister creepiness of the Teletubbies.
Who cares?
I don't get any of this. I blog, and I read hundreds of blogs, and this is STILL too insider for me.
That being said:
1) "Open" secrets in D.C. don't mean much to us readers in Texas.
2) "Angryrenter.com" is a shitty looking site, which I guess is the point, but even if I agreed with the douchebags on that site I wouldn't sign up for it.
3) The people at FreedomWorks are douchebags. Someone as internet savvy as myself would realize pretty quickly that their stupid Angry Renter website is a front, but a lot of people won't and will get suckered into it. The fact that the powers-that-be behind FreedomWorks-as the WSJ points out-are rich, Republican douchebags, only enhances my detestation of these bozos. I hate fake grassroots sites, whether they're on the left or the right.
As is the whole idea that the bailout is to help Bob
That's certainly how it's most often presented: to keep innocent home buyers who were victimized by predatory mortgage lenders. In some cases that's true; in the large majority it isn't. Bob speculated in real estate and it went down. Why should we cover his losses, and not those of others who invested in stocks that went down? Why should keeping the housing bubble inflated to prop up his neighbors' equity take precedence over the millions of non-homeowners who are currently priced out of the market? And how has corporate welfare for megabanks become the "progressive" position?
Jack, as noted, their crack investigative journalism on this topic came from me: I disclosed it when I wrote about it the first time.
Managed to read a bit more of their article. Wow.
There's a word to describe guys like this: punks, and I don't mean the type that wears Mohawks.
You and Peter would be completely justified in kicking their teeth in; I admire your restraint.
"Open" secrets in D.C. don't mean much to us readers in Texas.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting Megan is claiming not to have disclosed that she was dating Suderman because it was an "open secret"? Because, uh, she hasn't; at least not on the front page.
Come on - no one has answered the real question on everyone's mind. How tall is Suderman?
Wow, what massive tools.
I just did a Google image search on this Suderman fellow -- good for you!
jmo wins awards for honesty where others quaver and turn away,
This has completely ruined all my Peter Suderman fantasies.
I just want to know how Megan remained so inconspicuous on the grassy knoll.
Pretty unimpressive, the whole thing. The long-winded response is not worth reading either.
If your a gonk, and peter is a geek, what would your children be?
Megan, we demand that you put up a list of all former boyfriends/flings/life-partners, along with information about their employment history, race, ethnicity, income, credit score and (for jmo's sake) height. We also demand that you tag every single one of your blogposts and articles with the name of the person you were dating at the time, so your work can be checked for possible conflict of interest.
"We were busy finding out about each other's favorite colors, albums, and preferences in coffee and candlesticks."
Take away Suberman's mancard, STAT!
Other than that, glad you and Peter (whoever he is) are happy 'n all - don't think it is particularly germane to the conversation. All that said, I lost a mental bet with myself when your "housemate" turned out to be a dude. I now owe me a coffee, so off to collect.
We are exactly the same height, actually.
Now that we know that, everyone's work here is done. Move along people.
Did Megan actually write this post, or did some kid just hack into her blog?
Pretty unimpressive, the whole thing. The long-winded response is not worth reading either.
Why is it people feel compelled to make these kinds of comments? If you don't like what she writes, move along. There's a big internet out there. Be a jerk somewhere else.
Hey DAVE did someone hack your FACE
daniel writes: "This has completely ruined all my Peter Suderman fantasies."
You, sir, win the thread.
Well, you're both right.
That was a pretty big oversight not to mention that relationship in a post defending FreedomWorks. Which you've now corrected. And their "gotcha" was basically an ad hominem that didn't actually prove anything that wasn't already proven in the story.
So, in conclusion, this was all pretty boring.
If you want some sense of how ridiculous the journalism/blogging in D.C. is, reflect on the number of Congressmen and Senators, some committee chairs, who have relatives or partners who draw large paychecks from entities which are regulated by the Congressmen and Senators, or draw large paychecks from lobbying firms representing regulated entities. During the largest Congressional spending spree since WWII. Then reflect on how much attention the phenomena gets written about, compared to this sort of "story". To call it pathetic is an insult to the pathetic.
That was a pretty big oversight not to mention that relationship in a post defending FreedomWorks.
Wow. Did you just comment without reading any of Megan's posts, or indeed any of the comments in this thread?
Why is it people feel compelled to make these kinds of comments?
I suspect more than a few of these are sockpuppets. Megan, where the hell is that comment registration you promised us?
Megan,
The Playboy piece's authors are indeed shown to be both jerks and idiots. Yay. I understand you need to defend yourself from these sorts of attacks, but for the rest of us this is pretty trivial. I implore you, in the future, use a "Read More" link liberally for such posts.
Megan:
Ames is a shock journalist; ad hominem is what he does. Seems like he's following in his former co-editor's (Taibbi) footsteps in seeking a more mainstream audience, but it's probably not advisable to mix it up with him, given your position. "Wrestle with a pig and you both get dirty, but the pig likes it" and all that.
When we got a dog (a dozen years ago, now!) I got the puppy-training books. They all said one thing: reward good behavior, ignore bad. Because what dogs (and bloggers) love most is attention.
From these jerks on the left to the fat slob on the right, how I wish we'd remember this. Reward good behavior; ignore bad.
I googled Peter Suderman's photo. You go girl - he's HOT! As to the rest, brush it off. Until you wrote about them, I'd never even heard of these two juvenile yahoos.
Jeez. Those guys at Playboy are clowns. Best of luck to you and your perfidious paramour.
I've been watching the Tea Party/Santelli controversy from the beginning, and I have to say that disclosure or no disclosure, you, my dear Megan, made a huge professional error. Because of the potential bias you have, you should've recused yourself from writing about this altogether, especially given that you defended — and still are — FreedomWorks and argued against Playboy's claim.
If this was your personal blog, fine. But not when you writing for a respected magazine.
I think a retraction or an apology is a media standard in such cases. No?
Megan, speaking of "full disclosure," why was your blog posted at 10:41am but it only went live at 4:40pm? Methinks that your editors have lost faith in your integrity, girl. You should stop digging an even deeper hole here for yourself, admit you screwed up so that we can all start trusting you again, and move on.
"why was your blog posted at 10:41am but it only went live at 4:40pm?"
Good catch. You pose an interesting question.
Um, if that's a serious question, because my web browser automatically opens a new entry for me when I load it, and I started typing in it, then forgot to update the time stamp. That post was composed around 3:30; I spent most of the day tied up in meetings.
Both the same height, and both unemployed.
Give it a week or so.
While this subject doesn't interest me all that much, I definitely recall Megan's full disclosure in her initial post. One must wonder if ken, Tex and Adam are all that stupid or merely the same person.
ken you've employed the sort of brazen self-seriousness that can mask most asinine asininity. This isn't jury duty. This is the marketplace of ideas. People make claims and arguments, other people evaluate them. There is simply and absolutely nothing sinister that could have come from Megan being attached to some dreamboat Peter Suderman. She's not making deals behind closed doors, she's doing PRECISELY the opposite--posting something for you to read openly on an open website. The things she writes are going to add up for you or they're not; this is functionally independent of what prompted her to write them.
RW Rogers, maybe you're actually Megan?
I would feel sorry for Megan like many of the commenters here, but really she brought this on herself, even if she didn't know what she was getting into. Let's go back and remember that it was Megan who set out to destroy the integrity of a pair of fellow journalists, and it turned out that she herself had a serious conflict of interest. It's called "hypocrisy." What happened here is a classic case of the loudmouth glassjaw getting pummeled by serious heavyweight talents. Megan messed with the wrong reporters. Looks like a case of arrogance to me. Ames and Levine, in case you don't know the eXile (and Taibbi too), come from the rough media neighborhood in Moscow, where they've dealt with far scarier stuff than Megan's attacks. You should have done your homework first, Megan. Bad idea to pick a fight with people tougher and more talented than you are, always is. Like Socrates says, "Know thyself." Know the limits of your talent, and you'll be fine. Overestimate yourself, and this is what happens. I agree that Ames is a shock journo, but that doesn't excuse Megan. It only underlines how arrogant and thick in the head she must be. (Sorry to be rude, but it's true.)
Thanks for answering the height question! The possibility that it might be answered was all the kept me reading this thread.
--CF
Perhaps people feel okay calling you on this conflict of interest because you are so quick off the draw to demand accountability of people who actually work for a living and have so much sympathy for people who live off the labor of others. In essence, you seem to see it as your mission as a journalist to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.
This whole argument is silly. Did the left not expect opposition to Obama's proposal to increase government spending from 20% of GDP in 2007 to 27% in 2009? I would expect both organized and spontaneous opposition to a shift so large. Show Santelli's rant to 100 people, and a large fraction will shout "hell yeah!"
In light of that fact it is inane to argue whether Santelli was scripted (I am pretty sure it wasn't), but the real issue is Obama's HUGE shift in policy. SOMEBODY would start leading the opposition and spark the dissatisfaction. Santelli simply voiced what many of us were thinking.
Megan, keep going. I can't believe that anyone takes the attack on you seriously.
Now of course, when people do original reporting we are actually depending on them to input information into the social network with some degree of fidelity. In that case, sleeping with the shady chemical firm's PR flack is probably something we can go ahead and demand to know.
The juvenile tone of their attack was mostly incidental in comparison to the juvenile and deeply weird idea that a commentator--such as Megan--is expected to be "impartial". Now, I don't want to put claims on her she won't agree with--I don't doubt that it's actually very important to Megan that she not be some obvious hack (okay start snickering, Megan haters)--it's more that this is confusing actual goals of responsible debate (i.e. integrity and honesty and incisiveness) with some sort of pseudo-judicial arbitration.
Daniel: Excuse my rigid tone and language. That aside, you do understand that when you are closely and personally connected to a controversy, if you want to maintain a shred of objectivity and trust as a journalist, you have to remove yourself from participating. If you don't, only one thing can be assumed: that you are weighing in on "your" side. That would not align very well with your role as a journalist blogger and commentator who wants to get to the bottom of things, to the truth. Isn't this self-apparent?
By the standards of Playboy journalism, doesn't this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/74033728@N00/256376096/) prove that Peter associates with gangsters?
--CF
ken: The problem is that when appeals to high ideals simply don't apply to the situation they are clownish. No offense. You seem like an okay dude.
In the post in which Megan took on the Playboy piece, she not only disclosed the Suderman Connection, but also provided a numbered list of arguments/observations she had made about their work. At no point were you asked, explicitly or implicitly, to unconditionally accept anything as truth, or even her opinions as your own. All she had done was post her own thoughts so that you could in turn look into the situation.
Whether she was just weighing in on her side or whether she had gotten closer or further to the "truth" could be judged from the actual written word on display--no external information, no system of trust was required.
I have to say that disclosure or no disclosure, you, my dear Megan, made a huge professional error. Because of the potential bias you have, you should've recused yourself from writing about this altogether, especially given that you defended — and still are — FreedomWorks and argued against Playboy's claim.
Totally. Lets impeach her ass. Lets ride her out on a rail. In fact, lets pay John Yoo to write a memo outlining what horrible stuff we should do to her, and then do it.
ken, the fatuous notion that anyone lacks a "side" in any debate is what needs to stop, and the last person to be trusted is the person who claims to be objective. Everybody with an I.Q. approaching three digits has preferences gained from living life, and the person who claims to be the neutral truth seeker is a liar. Period. Just tell people what your preferences are, what the sources of those preferences are, and then put forth the facts as you see them. I'll check your story against the story of people who don't share your preferences, and then judge as to which version is more credible. A person who would trust one version, because the version was put forth by someone who purports to be "objectiive", is a fool.
Jeez, it's been a slow day at work today. But luckily I had this to kill my time on. But I have to say, sometimes pragmatism pays off. The more I look at this, the more facinating it becomes and the I realize how deep a hole you have dug for herself
So I went through Google's blog search to find out who blogged on this story and how often they did. And Megan, you come out as the leader of this group by far. You posted 4 posts on the Playboy story (with this one it comes to a total of 5). Most of them were pretty involved and very long, and included placing and taking phone calls.
Just for comparison, I found two other bloggers on theatlantic.com who posted one entry each on this story. One post was one line long, the other was just a few paragraphs.
Out of the dozens of other websites and blogs that blogged the story no one paid nearly as much attention to the story as you did.
The question is, Why? The fact that your livein boyfriend worked on fake grassroots anti bailout campaigns for FreedomWorks (exact the same sort of thing mentioned in the Playboy article) seems to answer the question pretty neatly. Doesn't it?
Also, I found out something else. Megan you've met Mr. Koch himself in the past and believe that he would be incapable of underwriting dirty trick campaigns. Because...he seemed nice! Wow that's journalism for you.
Here it is:
"Koch is pretty open about their connection with institutions like IHS, but from what I know of them, astroturfing doesn't really seem like their style. I've seen Koch in action at private events, and though I'll respect the privacy, I'll say that even in the company of other like-minded rich people, he displayed rather a mania for honest dealing."
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/did_playboy_just_disappear_an.php
First of all - and this is completely juvenile and probably more than a little sexist - I wouldn't punching either of these dudes in the nose. But that's my problem. My real question is, did Santelli confess the whole rant was staged as stated in the Playboy "rejoinder"? A quick search of Google News didn't reveal anything.
Rick Santelli here. I just want to thank Megan for doing a fine job trying to defend me. It's not your fault that I got busted and forced off the Daily Show. You did your best, and as promised your wire transfer should hit your account soon. That said, I just want to tell you Megan that you should do what I did and just make a big confession to keep your job and be able to continue attending private parties with Koch and Dick Armey. What I said (or signed off on) on CNBC's site is that I support Obama's stimulus plan, and I take back everything I said. You should do that too. You're embarrassing yourself trying to keep this going. Just let go, Megan. Let go, admit that you were paid by Freedomworks just like I was. Watching you suffer like this is too painful to endure.
Just for comparison, I found two other bloggers on theatlantic.com who posted one entry each on this story. One post was one line long, the other was just a few paragraphs.
Yes. I, too, find it surprising that out of all the Atlantic bloggers basically accused of malfeasance in the Exiled article, only Megan McArdle chose to respond to it. There are over six billion people on this planet who did not blog about this story, and Megan's the only one who wrote four (four!) times about it. Clearly, she is doing this at the behest of her boyfriend, who in turn is egging her on at the behest of the Kochtopus.
The fact that your livein boyfriend worked on fake grassroots anti bailout campaigns for FreedomWorks (exact the same sort of thing mentioned in the Playboy article) seems to answer the question pretty neatly. Doesn't it?
You may have noticed that Megan wrote that Suderman quit the wingnut place in July. Presumably you know that this is before the crisis that prompted the bailout had really begun. Now perhaps FreedomWorks had a time-machine, which they could have used to predict the future, foreseen the bailout, and begun preparing for an astroturfing campaign against it already. My question to you is, if you're willing to base your arguments on something as imaginative as that, why stop there? Why not say that Pete Suderman went around in 2005 and 2006, making dodgy subprime mortgages and single-handedly caused this current crisis? I mean, if you say that, then Megan should recuse herself from almost all financial writing, right?
Interestingly, Eddie, Tex, The Bubbly Stuff, and Rick Santelli are all the same troll, a New Yorker who appeared on our site for the first time today. I leave the logic behind the sock puppeting as an exercise for the reader. Though not Eddie, Tex, The Bubbly Stuff, and Rick Santelli, who have sadly all been banned.
Kunal: If FreedomWorks has a time machine, do you think there is any chance of borrowing it?
Ken: Are you being paid to post while working? I'm only asking in the interest of full disclosure, of course. In response to your question: no, I'm not Megan. We're not the same sex, generation, sexual orientation, homeownership status, height, weight, birthplace, ancestral heritage, career or employment status. But thanks for asking.
Mazel-tov!
Much happiness to Megan and Peter! I love love stories...
Kunal: If FreedomWorks has a time machine, do you think there is any chance of borrowing it?
Well, it doesn't have to be a time machine. It could be like a crystal ball. Or maybe they go to an Italian restaurant where the sauce-stirrer sees the future in the sauce. Obviously, the Kochtopus is as unconstrained by the laws of physics as it is by the laws of man.
[Also, Megan, I don't know whether the problem is at my end, but your site is refusing to remember my details in the comment box after I check "remember personal info". This has happened on both computers I used today. If this was done by the Atlantic, can you get them to change it back please?]
Eh - I don't think Megan has anything to worry about from The Atlantic over this kerfuffle. After all, they didn't seem to have a problem with Andrw Sullivan trying to crawl up into Sarah Palin's uterus. The fact that Megan is literally in bed with Peter Suderman should be small potatoes compared to that.
And here I am again! Megan, you must be really OCD as well as worried for your job if you're looking up IP addresses. I'll see ya soon in some other dastardly disguise! Thanks for acknowledging me and the fact that I've upset you with my comments, and thanks for trying to hunt me down. I feel so loved!
MM writes: "Interestingly, Eddie, Tex, The Bubbly Stuff, and Rick Santelli are all the same troll, a New Yorker who appeared on our site for the first time today."
Sweet -- Lee Siegel reads your blog!
Is Glenn Greenwald in New York?
skullberg,
I had the same thought, but this sockpuppeteer is definitely not (one of the) Glenn Greenwald(s). Otherwise those comments would have included assertions that Megan McArdle cannot hold a candle to one Glenn Greenwald, who incidentally has written a New York Times-bestselling book and has been referenced approvingly on the floor of Congress.
Lorenzo,
In retrospect, the comments were also under 1000 words. Glenn and his army of Brazilian Sockpupeteers can't seem to write anything that doesn't need an index or at least a table of contents.
I keep trying to read your posts. I dip in every few weeks. But they always seem to come down to interpersonal strife. This latest post is just pathetic. Have you no sense of personal space? WHo cares who you are dating or what accusations of conflict of interest you have as a result. I can call my sister for interpesonal drama. But anyway, becasue of the stupid stuff about your life I keep reading about I have no confidence in your opinions, which seems especially bad in an economics commentor.
Damn.
And to think that the whole reason I went to Iraq as an infantryman to start Countercolumn in 2003 was to impress Megan McArdle.
becasue of the stupid stuff about your life I keep reading about I have no confidence in your opinions, which seems especially bad in an economics commentor.
You poor bastard, chained to your computer with your eyes taped open. Will they ever force you to stop reading this blog?
The website where that is posted seems to be comprised of nothing but crassly expressed righteous indignation and peremptory rhetorical assertions. It irritates me that anyone could regard any person or publication that embraces so noxious a style without some disdain.
"can't seem to write anything that doesn't need an index or at least a table of contents."
Here here. Can't make a point in less than 3,000 words? Then don't bother.
A solid registration system would seem to be something this site needs ASAP. It won't completely stop sockpuppeting, but it would make it more tedious to do.
this post was almost as interesting as andrew sullivan's posts about his beagles
I can't resist, sorry - "The Bubbly Stuff", you mean like Farts in a Bathtub?
And the only thing on eXile worth reading was the War Nerd.
Ames and Levine seem blissfully unaware that I supported Obama.
Any plans for a mea culpa post on that topic?
I love the foreshadowing in the very first comment to the post about Megan and Peter waiting in line for iPhones:
Someone , quick! Ask Ed Reid for this week's poweball numbers!
Anyway, mazel tov. This feels like one of those tings one points to about the kids these days and their twitters and their facebooks, living their whole lives online.
That was one of those 'run out the clock' posts, where Megan writes for pages and pages and wins on word count alone.
What are rightish leaning people doing hanging out with Matthew Yglesias? That's the real conflict of interest everyone ought to be worried about. Too many conservatives, libertarians, limited government advocates, Constitutionalists, common sense good ol' boys and even plain old moderates suffer from Stockholm Syndrome once they become hostage to D.C. area cocktail parties.
Brandon--I knew I wouldn't like what Obama did. I just thought--and still do--that I would like what McCain did less.
With bonus sexism too, as other people noticed. Is it retro or not retro to be surprised that there's sexism in Playboy?
Sigh. If those two Jews, whatever their genders are, speak for liberals, they certainly don't speak for me. I'd rather be part of the "polite harpy" party, or whatever it is they're describing there.
Megan,
With the Dems in control of the House and the Senate, McCain wasn't going to do anything.
Could McCain do any worse? When it comes to pass that he couldn't have, we'll await the mea culpa.
"Could McCain do any worse?"
The McCain stimulus would be war with Iran. I'll let you be the judge if that's better than what we got from Obama.
Yancey writes: "With the Dems in control of the House and the Senate, McCain wasn't going to do anything."
... other than pass an amnesty bill, of course.
By the way, felicitations on the improvement in your personal life.
Yancey writes: "With the Dems in control of the House and the Senate, McCain wasn't going to do anything."
Exactly why I voted for him. And I why I missed Megan's argument for divided government in '08 as Jane Galt articulated in '06. Since we are piling on mea culpa requests, that is the one I'm waiting to hear.
@staash - meh. A small price to pay considering.
The most interesting thing about the the Santelli kerfuffle, is not what he said, but the reaction by the public. He clearly touched a nerve.
The most interesting thing about the reaction of the left, is the seemingly desperate need to believe that the reaction was not genuine.
All you had to do was read the article to see there were no facts supporting the conspiracy claims. Of course, it was in Playboy - so the whole "article reading" thing may be a sufficient explanation for blogs and media uncritically embracing and promoting the story.
The story reinforced lefty beliefs, so it must be true - QED. The true believer's promoting this non-conspiracy read exactly like the posts about the Palin/Bristol baby rumors. It would be interesting to see the correlation of blogs that promoted both false memes.
Did you see Jon Stewart's takedown of Santelli? http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2009/03/video-jon-stewart-reports-on-cnbc-rick.html
Megan, you really shouldn't have gone out on a limb to defend this loser.
Yes, John Stewart, the real leader of the Democratic party.
mw:
I'd say a Republican congress with a Democrat president worked better than a Republican president with a Democrat congress.
The seemingly overwhelming need a Republican president has to "work with" a Dem congress simply means Democrat goals, but at a slower pace.
You're dating Suderman? What an ideal example of assortative mating.
@Fraggle: Agreed.
But either D President/R Congress or R president D congress work better Single Party Rule by either Party.
You can get a lot more granular. I actually have a complete hierarchy of my preferred mix of legislative houses and President, which I'll get around to posting on my blog someday.
Top of the list is D President/D House of Representatives/R Senate.
Second Choice - R President / D House of Representatives / D Senate
Worst of of all possible combinations - D President/ D House of Representatives / D Senate
(second from the bottom - all R)
Swords should start from their scabbards to defend your honour. Those two fellows are bounders.
Megan,
Could you ask Peter about this?
Last year, FreedomWorks paid the law firm of Winston and Strawn LLP $58,045 for "legal services." Apparently, this involved Freedomworks' attempt to file an amicus brief with the fifth circuit court of appeals (Louisiana). The brief was in defense of State Farm, which was refusing to pay water damage claims in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, arguing that they were natural "floods" and ignoring the problem of failing levees.
Freedomworks spent tens of thousands to help defend State Farm (which had lost its case) from having to help the victims of Katrina.
Could you please ask Peter why this supposedly "grassroots" organization is paying a law firm which employs one of FreedomWorks directors and has a K Street address to help out a specific insurance company in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
Thanks.
--Sickle
This has got nothing to do with anything else but I met Dick Armey once and he was the coolest guy alive. I've met plenty of politicians and non has ever been so down to earth and approachable as him. Bob Graham was good but not quite like Armey
Well, the e/m shippers must be disappointed right now.
There are times when the utility of code duello becomes apparent- this is one of them.
An article that uses that level of personal insult is simply asking for a swear contest.
I discovered long ago that giving that sort of moral coward a bit more of a... physical... response prevented future occurance, and, in a few cases, actually improved the level of verbal discourse.
Of course, you will have to take the challenge outside DC, since even beautiful matched pieces are verboten there.
Seriously, these guys need a set of bloody noses.
"Interestingly, Eddie, Tex, The Bubbly Stuff, and Rick Santelli are all the same troll, a New Yorker who appeared on our site for the first time today."
If you put a gun to my head and I had to, had to, had to guess, I'd say it was Matt Taibbi himself.
You spent an entire night camping for a product you don't need. You have surrendered all your intellectual credibility and your opinion is worthless. Do the human race a favour and stop expressing your opinion.