Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Under fire, Dem leaders standing by DISCLOSE act

The House Dem campaign finance proposal is taking a hammering from right and left, but Dem leaders aren't backing down in their push to get it done -- and are advising rank and file Dems to sell it hard in their districts over the recess.

In an internal talking points memo being distributed among House Dems, the leadership lays out a set of arguments for Dems to take home to voters, arguing that the DISCLOSE act, which is a response to Citizens United, "does more to strengthen disclosure and transparency than any measure in recent history."

The memo is worth a read because it suggests how Dems are hoping to use the argument over the DISCLOSE act to recapture the reform mantle, casting Dems as the scourge of big banks, corporations and other special interests that are fighting to allow corporate money to continue holding sway over our elections through shadow groups:

Unless we act, there is nothing to stop foreign companies like BP from funneling millions of dollars to some group like "Americans for Clean Oceans," to secretly fund advertising against any member of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- who tries to hold the company accountable. Or to stop Wall Street banks from secretly recycling taxpayer dollars into TV ads opposing common sense oversight of the financial industry

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is coming out hard against the bill today.

The DISCLOSE act is also under fire from some liberals in Congress who are angry about the "carve-out" for the NRA, and its prospects for passing are looking less certain than they once did. So the memo is an effort by the Dem leadership to get Dems back in line by underscoring that it represents an opportunity for real reform that mustn't be squandered.

UPDATE, 12:10 p.m.: A Democratic aide gets in touch to point out that the U.S. Chamber's opposition to the bill actually underscores the argument for the measure -- it would reveal which corporations in particular are bankrolling such ad campaigns.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 21, 2010; 11:58 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Darrell Issa: If GOP wins House, corporate America can breathe easy -- UPDATED
Next: The Beltway revolving door between consulting and commentary

Comments

The Republican Party's Rallying Cry:

BP is The Victim, and we must stop the residents of the Gulf Coast, from preying on them.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse


To hell with spending a lot of money on a quixotic manned mission to Mars.

Keep the Acronym NASA, but change what it stands for: North American Seas Agency.

The big pipe break in the Gulf has revealed that we can get men out to the Hubble telescope, but we can do almost nothing, just a mile under our own coastal waters.

That has to change. We need to have an Inner Space Race, to develop a government fleet of hi-tech, inspection and repairs, submersible vessels. We need to recruit and train a large group of Aquanauts, to work independently of the Oil Corps.

If government can not go down, and do surprise independent inspections of all pipelines, and be capable of repairing or plugging leaks, within a day after a pipe breaks, then we will keep on experiencing more of the same type of long lasting catastrophic spills, in the future.

As the polar ice cap is melting away, Russia is already preparing to go after the oil and mineral rights around the polar region.

Unless we focus on developing the equipment and trained personnel to compete with them, we will fall far behind, an never catch up. Once we cede the polar oil and mineral exploration and extraction to Russia, we will have lost them for ever.

Form a North American Seas Administration(NASA) and fully fund it now.

It is far more urgent and existentially important, than landing a few people on a dead planet.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

All, the Bilge has now gotten the hook.

If he comes back under a different handle, and posts similarly abusive missives, they will be deleted and he'll get the hook again.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 21, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the liberals, the preening queens. Never allow the good come in the way of the perfect. We want to do the reforms now in one stroke or we are taking our balls home.

Posted by: amkeew | June 21, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Well done, Greg. Good riddance.

Posted by: amkeew | June 21, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"All, the Bilge has now gotten the hook."

What about rukidding, Liam, all the other liberals who are routinely abusive?

What about Tena, if she should return with her vulgar put downs?

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the update Greg.

From The Hill last week, it's not exactly JUST progressives opposing the carve out. Feinstein is more appropriately considered a bit of a Senate "blue dog", if there were such a thing. This illustrates the problem with compromise, you win 1 or 2 votes, but lose another 1 or 2.

"For House Democrats, the most troubling statement may have come from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sharply criticized the NRA exemption — a signal that the Disclose Act could face difficulties in the Senate."

“I strongly oppose any special exemption for the National Rifle Association in the Disclose Act,” Feinstein said in a statement Wednesday. “The purpose of this bill is to make sure that elected representatives are not beholden to special interests, yet here is special interest No. 1 receiving a deal to exempt it from an otherwise very good bill.”

"Feinstein called the exemption “bad policy.” “The law should apply to the NRA, just like any other group,” she said. “If the NRA, or any similar group, is going to spend millions on political ads, the American public has a right to know who is funding them. The bill is the Disclose Act, not the ‘Everyone Except the NRA Disclose Act.’ ”

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

All, the Bilge has now gotten the hook.

If he comes back under a different handle, and posts similarly abusive missives, they will be deleted and he'll get the hook again.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 21, 2010 12:14 PM
.....................

Sorry to see that it has come to that. I did not want it to happen.

Perhaps if the comments section went through a slight refurbishing, and the: "Posted By", showed up at the top of the comment, rather than at the end of it, then readers would be able to see, at the outset, who wrote the comment, and be free to skip over those they do not want to read.

Another possible solution, that I have seen on a very large audio video, discussion site is; they offer registered members; an ignore list option. If you do not want to even see the comments from certain people, all you have to do is click on the ignore option, and comments from that person will stop showing up on your screen, but all others will still be able to read what the person posted.

A sad day, for Plumline. Of course, I am one of those exceptions, that believes it is more important to hear from those who hate everything we stand for, than those who like to sing only in the Dittohead Choir.

I do find it amusing that Quarterback engages in a fine fit of Cognitive Dissonance, by lamenting the banning of Bilgey, while at the same time offering up a hit list of who else should be banned.

I especially love him wanting to ban a person who no longer posts on here.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"I do find it amusing that Quarterback engages in a fine fit of Cognitive Dissonance, by lamenting the banning of Bilgey, while at the same time offering up a hit list of who else should be banned.

I especially love him wanting to ban a person who no longer posts on here."

I didn't say I wanted anyone banned.

I just raised the question of the obvious double standard by Greg and/or his "powers that be."

And Tena is as fine an example as any. Greg lamented her disappearance, despite her being one of the most abusive and offensie commenters ever, not to mention the most vulgar.

It's a poor reflection on Greg and the "powers that be," and all the liberal ninnies (noobs, mostly) who got wee wee'd up.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I'll say it qb, since no one else is addressing your concerns. If bilge had been able to express his opinion without locker room references to rectums, feces and toilet bowls as he has consistently done in the last couple of weeks, he might still be here. Greg had to deal with complaints from several quarters and tried to compromise but with no success.

"A sad day, for Plumline. Of course, I am one of those exceptions, that believes it is more important to hear from those who hate everything we stand for, than those who like to sing only in the Dittohead Choir."

Wrong on that Liam, there were quite a few of us. The problem became one of his opinion becoming lost in a sea of foulness to which many took exception. I don't believe anyone here is afraid or cowered by his opinions.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't want people with opposing points of view to be banned, but there is no reason to allow name calling and ad hominem attacks. Bilge took after me a couple of weeks ago for absolutely no reason, calling me some ugly things, and I left and vowed not to return. But I lurked to see if he would finally be kicked out.

I'm not sorry to see Tena go either, but at least she was civil.

Thanks, Greg!

Posted by: msmollyg | June 21, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"but at least she was civil"


You obviously are not very familiar with her oevre.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

And P.S. to Liam....I am not part of the Dittohead Choir just because I don't like to be called names. I am probably to the left of many of Greg's followers, and have become very discouraged with Obama. I have no interest in singing in unison, but I want to be able to read and post without insults. Bilge's points of view were acceptable, but "slave" and "cow" and "moonbat" and such were gratuitous and unwelcome, at least to some of us.

Posted by: msmollyg | June 21, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure the final decision about Bilgeman was made in light of the fact that he dared Greg to do it. See Sunday's comment section.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 21, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Here is Bilgey's comment that did it for me. Liam, if you think this is all just fine, then we will have to agree to disagree.

(June 8th)
"It's okay, cud-chewer, I understand that your cow-like loins perceive my alpha-male status, and you seek me out for my essence.

Alas, I must deny it to you, and not just because I am a married man, but mainly for the reason that you, as a moonbat mare, are almost by definition, on your best day, a theta-female.

And nothing good could come from our co-mingling, (from MY POV).

I mean, let's face it...at the "Miss America Pageant"....you're the Janeane Garofalo.

So don't bother shaving your legs, toots...t'ain't no-one wants to see YOU in a swimsuit."

Posted by: msmollyg | June 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

Yes, I pointed out, that he reached the point where he wanted to be a martyr, and was trying to provoke a suicide by cop, incident.

He also reached a stage of cognitive dissonance, where he insisted that he would not agree to any pre-conditions on how he would express himself, while at the same time, insisting that Greg must use the exact words that Bilgey dictated, when asking him to leave.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

Yes, I pointed out, that he reached the point where he wanted to be a martyr, and was trying to provoke a suicide by cop, incident.

He also reached a stage of cognitive dissonance, where he insisted that he would not agree to any pre-conditions on how he would express himself, while at the same time, insisting that Greg must use the exact words that Bilgey dictated, when asking him to leave.

I still think is a sad day, that it had to come to banning. That is a slippery slope.

Which one of our scalps will be called for next?

James Joyce's Ulysses was once banned, in the land that brags about free speech, because petty satraps, and church lady types, wanted to shield people from a fuller, and more realistic portrait of the human condition.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"All, the Bilge has now gotten the hook."

Why? qb asks a serious and relevant question. Why has Bilge been banned when liberal posters have engaged in equally (at the very least) abusive behavior and yet remain?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

"Which one of our scalps will be called for next?"

I am calling for yours. Not that I particularly want you gone, but if Bilge is beyond the pale, then so are you.

(Not to worry, though. In this age of Obama, we have learned that rules are for other people, not progressives. And I'm sure Greg, being a good little soldier in the progressive army, will make sure the rules apply only to those he doesn't like. You are undoubtedly safe to keep on insulting people.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Good Golly; Ms Molly!

If it were so offensive, then why are you reposting it?

A person could get banned for posting that sort of stuff.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse


Liam:

"Which one of our scalps will be called for next?"

I am calling for yours. Not that I particularly want you gone, but if Bilge is beyond the pale, then so are you.

(Not to worry, though. In this age of Obama, we have learned that rules are for other people, not progressives. And I'm sure Greg, being a good little soldier in the progressive army, will make sure the rules apply only to those he doesn't like. You are undoubtedly safe to keep on insulting people.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 1:34 PM

..................

You Right Wingers have mastered the practice of engaging in Cognitive Dissonance.

You did not want Bilgey banded, but I spoke out far more against banning him than you did, but you now say you are calling for to have me banned for the exact same reason(according to you) that Bilgey was banned.

ScottC's Cognitive Dissonance, In A Nutshell.

Bilgey was wrongly executed, so please excute Liam, for exactly the same wrong reason.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"Not to worry, though. In this age of Obama, we have learned that rules are for other people, not progressives."

Indeed, and I really don't expect any answer to my question. It was more rhetorical than interlocutory.

Heck, just the other day one of these liberals in good standing said I have s--t for brains.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

More victimhood and false equivalence from the right.

It's really pretty pathetic.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | June 21, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"And I'm sure Greg, being a good little soldier in the progressive army, will make sure the rules apply only to those he doesn't like."

You couldn't be more wrong and I think he knew this would be the reaction of some commenters here but acted in the best interest of the Plumline overall. I believe he's well aware of the slippery slope angle.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

"I spoke out far more against banning him..."

Yes, you did, and for that you should be commended. Whether you did so out of principle or simply self-defense knowing that you were at least as abusive (arguably more-so, actually), I don't know. But still, I commend you on being outspoken in the manner that you were.

"Bilgey was wrongly executed, so please excute Liam..."

Hey, I feel for you, but I didn't make the rules, your liberal friends did. Blame them, not me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Nope, no victimology involved. Just making a record of double standards and inconsistencies. You're sadly mistaken if you think that Plum Line or what its gaggle of leftists think means anything in the life of a conservative.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes indeed. Blame the Liberals. They are the ones who only allow Dittoheads to call in, and get on the airwaves with Rush.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"You couldn't be more wrong..."

I haven't seen Greg solicit a vote on the removal of any of the liberal offenders, have you?

Be honest with yourself. Bilge was banned because the target of his posts were so-called progressives and progressive shibbeloths. There have been and still are progressives here who are no less offensive in their posting than Bilge, but they remain because Greg agrees with their politics. If I am wrong, then we will soon see the banning of several others here. Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes indeed.

Blame the Liberals.

They are the ones who tried to torpedo the careers of Sinead O'Connor and The Dixie Chicks, right after those performers made some public statements that Right Wing Americans disagreed with.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Well that is enough for one day. I am going out to the hazel wood....

I had promised myself that I would stop being active in politics, once I reached seventy.

So I will soon be banning myself, for the best of all reasons, there comes a time in one's life, when it is better to shut up, and to hunker down on those few paternal acres, in order to better rage against the dying of the light.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I thought Liam promised to leave (immediately) if Bilge was banned?

@Greg: I would also like to know why Bilge was banned while liberal posters who have engaged in equally abusive behavior remain?

Posted by: sbj3 | June 21, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Sinead O'Connor, Dixie Chicks??? So now Liam wants to play "Who Are the Censors"?

Democrats are right now trying to ram through Congress yet another huge censorship bill and attack on the First Amendment.

They still greedily eye reinstution of the "Fairness Doctrine," which is just plain censorhip.

The Obama Admin conducts an ongoing war against Fox, the only news network not in his pocket, trying to deligimize it and define it out of the news realm.

Democrats since Bill Clinton have attacked Rush Limbaugh in language and substance that often veers into irresponsible hate speech.

Liberals have mounted innumerable censorship campaigns against others like Laura Schlesinger and Michael Savage. It's routine, SOP for the left.

Even the Obama campaign tried to censor and shut down resistance, by tactics including swamping phone lines and having state AGs threaten legs action against critics.

Don't tell me about censorship. Democrats are the party of censorship.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Radio is a government licensed business enterprise. It has nothing to do with free speech. It is all about Right Wing Fee Speech.

Rush will not open his mouth on the air without having a long term contract that pays him millions of dollars.

Fee Speech is what Rush engages in.

The airwaves belong to all the people, not just to the paid mouthpieces of The Robber Barons.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats since Bill Clinton have attacked Rush Limbaugh in language and substance that often veers into irresponsible hate speech."

I find this particularly humorous. Poor picked-on Rush. Never a vile word from his mouth...evah! And certainly never anything irresponsible either.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 21, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Cheer up QB, SBJ, and Scott C.

All is not lost. Bilgey is gone, but I have good news for you.

After June, 30th, to paraphrase Chief Joseph;

I shall write no more, for ever.

So long until tomorrow.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

All, two CNN contributors hired by BP to do PR work:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/the_beltway_revolving_door_bet.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 21, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you guys all day, but bilge crossed a line no other regular commenter has, I know you don't agree, and was getting numerous complaints from both old and new visitors to the site. A number of us upheld his right to be here as long as we could, but it was becoming impossible to just disregard the damage it was causing to the Plumline. After trying to reason with him Greg made the decision to deep six him. That's just the way it is, and I think you know it had nothing to do with his politics. If you guys want to sit here and complain about it all day that's your prerogative.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"bilge crossed a line no other regular commenter has, I know you don't agree"

You are correct - I don't agree!

The policy states, "Comments that include...personal attacks...will be removed."

Liberal regulars do that to the very few conservative commentors here all the time! Their comments are not removed.

The policy states, "We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards."

That has only happened with one poster. We have a right to ask why this policy is not being implemented equally.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 21, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Yay! No more lurid filth from bilgey! Thank you Greg. Now if only we can get QB, SBJ, and ScottC to post fact-based comments that add insight instead of ideological fluff I'd say we're getting somewhere. I won't hold my breath.

I've been away but am interested in how this DISCLOSE Act has been progressing. Quite clearly, the more the CoC protests, the better the bill. I'm glad to see, in the update, that the Dems are thinking along those lines as well. It is bewildering to me just how open and public the Right's commitment to corporate America has become. If you don't want transparency in elections, you don't like democracy. We always knew this was the case with the GOP, but I am still taken aback at how open they are in making the case AGAINST transparency in elections. Truly bizarre. You'd think that, at some point, the Right's adherence to corporate idolatry would be limited in the case of democratic elections, but I guess not. It appears that there IS no limit to the extent they will go to prove to America that the GOP prioritizes corporate interests and corporate welfare over all else.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Yay! No more lurid filth from bilgey! Thank you Greg. Now if only we can get QB, SBJ, and ScottC to post fact-based comments that add insight instead of ideological fluff I'd say we're getting somewhere. I won't hold my breath.

I've been away but am interested in how this DISCLOSE Act has been progressing. Quite clearly, the more the CoC protests, the better the bill. I'm glad to see, in the update, that the Dems are thinking along those lines as well. It is bewildering to me just how open and public the Right's commitment to corporate America has become. If you don't want transparency in elections, you don't like democracy. We always knew this was the case with the GOP, but I am still taken aback at how open they are in making the case AGAINST transparency in elections. Truly bizarre. You'd think that, at some point, the Right's adherence to corporate idolatry would be limited in the case of democratic elections, but I guess not. It appears that there IS no limit to the extent they will go to prove to America that the GOP prioritizes corporate interests and corporate welfare over all else.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"The policy states, "We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards."

"That has only happened with one poster. We have a right to ask why this policy is not being implemented equally. "

Unless your argument is that a policy either must be enforced with zero tolerance or abandoned, this makes no sense. No fair minded observer could miss the fact that Bilge took his abusive behavior to a unique level.

And qb1, your list of "acts of censorship" at 2:41 included:

A gross misrepresentation of the bill in question.

A lie.

Four items that, even if accurately described (which they weren't), are not censorship.

Some high quality advocacy there, although typical of the kind of bad faith argument required to defend Bilge.

Posted by: zimbar | June 21, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I love Ethan! First he makes a plea for "fact-based comments." Then he writes this:

"If you don't want transparency in elections, you don't like democracy. We always knew this was the case with the GOP, but I am still taken aback at how open they are in making the case AGAINST transparency in elections. Truly bizarre. You'd think that, at some point, the Right's adherence to corporate idolatry would be limited in the case of democratic elections, but I guess not. It appears that there IS no limit to the extent they will go to prove to America that the GOP prioritizes corporate interests and corporate welfare over all else."

If WaPo had a rule about not posting comedy routines then Ethan would sure be in trouble!

Posted by: sbj3 | June 21, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"I find this particularly humorous. Poor picked-on Rush. Never a vile word from his mouth...evah! And certainly never anything irresponsible either."

Whatever your ignorant beliefs about him are, Rush isn't the government.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Radio is a government licensed business enterprise. It has nothing to do with free speech."

Interesting perspective, which makes it curious that you brought up criticims of leftwing radio artists in this context.

I think your promised retirement is not premature.


Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

SBJ, what part of what I wrote was not a fact? It is pretty obvious that the GOP opposes limiting corporate influence in elections. I don't see how anyone can dispute that or suggest that is just my opinion.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

SBJ, what part of what I wrote was not a fact? It is pretty obvious that the GOP opposes limiting corporate influence in elections. I don't see how anyone can dispute that or suggest that is just my opinion.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Some high quality advocacy there, although typical of the kind of bad faith argument required to defend Bilge."

Wasn't a defense of Bilge, just a response to Liam.

The bill is censorship and will be struck down if passed, you identfied no lie, and if you don't think any of it is censorship, your argument is less with me than with Liam.

But thanks for the very typical, substance-free liberal outburst.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double posts, I'm on a blackberry, maybe that's causing the duplicate.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double posts, I'm on a blackberry, maybe that's causing the duplicate.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, this is one of your biggest problems, one shared with more than one other liberal commenter.

You truly don't seem to know the difference between fact and opinion, not your own anyway.

There is not a single factual statement in your comment. Not even close. Your firm belief in the malevolence of Republicans doesn't make it a fact.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"bilge crossed a line no other regular commenter has"

Not at all true. For example, liberals have deployed many variations of the f-word aimed at conservative commenters. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

But they get all wee wee'd up about being called moonbats and cattle.

Greg can do whatever he wants. I really don't care. I just want liberals to be confronted with they hypocrisy.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"bilge crossed a line no other regular commenter has"

qb: Not at all true.

What other commenter dared Greg to ban them? That was the final straw that led to Bilge getting hooked. That was the line he crossed. He taunted the blog host.

(For the record, I did not express any opinion in public or in private on whether or not Bilge should be banned. But, I did encourage Greg to get control of his blog, and that I also recognized that some other posters taunted Bilge, and I found that equally inappropriate.)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 21, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"But they get all wee wee'd up about being called moonbats and cattle."

You have completely missed the point, again.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"bilge crossed a line no other regular commenter has"

Both sbj and qb have weighed on this, but I will throw my 2 cents in as well. This is simply not true and you should know it. Reading through yesterday's comments, it seems that Greg is making the biggest issue out of Bilge's regular use of the "slave" qualifier when addressing liberals. Well, for weeks I was regularly addressed by one poster as "the comments parasite", yet the person who did that is still posting quite freely. The pejorative terms "troll" and "teabaggers" were and are regularly used by some people here to denigrate qb, sbj, bilge and myself. It happens all the time. Have they ever been banned? Of course not. Indeed, far from being banned, the self-imposed departure of one of them was greatly lamented by Greg himself.

That a double standard is being applied here to Bilge is quite simply beyond question.

"That's just the way it is, and I think you know it had nothing to do with his politics."

I think you know, or at least you should know, that it has everything to do with his politics. As I have pointed out, liberals have regularly engaged in nearly identical, if not far worse, behavior without being subject to even a mild rebuke by Greg. in fact he encourages it by often engaging in friendly banter with some of the worse offenders. But then he goes out and asks for a public referendum on whether he should ban Bilge.

And you think it has nothing to do with his politics? Any interest in buying a bridge from England?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1:

"That was the final straw that led to Bilge getting hooked. That was the line he crossed. He taunted the blog host."

Well I'll cross that line too, and see if you are right:

I hereby dare Greg to ban me. Go ahead...make my day.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"You have completely missed the point, again."

Oh no, not again!

No, I get the point just fine. I haven't seen a statement from Greg explaining it, just his statement above.

But my statement was accurate. Lots of liberals showed up to start complaining about being called moonbats, and cattle, and (government) slaves, but they never complained about abusive and vulgar liberals.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"Greg can do whatever he wants. I really don't care. I just want liberals to be confronted with they hypocrisy."

I agree wholeheartedly. If Greg/WaPo wants this to be a humorless echochamber of liberal sycophants, then I applaud them for taking steps to achieve that.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I am having serious spelling and typing problems today. Apologies for my thumbiness.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Scott, these are the kind of comments he was posting for the last couple of weeks. This was to someone who is always polite and civil in their comments. A large number of people were beginning to complain about the one man show quality to his insults and the comment section. Anyway, my impression is that Greg had to do something or face the constant drudging of his site. I'm sorry, but he did cross an imaginary line most people here don't, and we were becoming the enablers. It's just my opinion of the way things went and I'm not saying it was pretty or ideal, it just was, and there's no easy solution. Maybe Greg has a different take on it, but that's truly the way I saw it.

"Moonbat, had George Bush done this kind of thing to a company you cared about, your anus would have been clenched in anger and concern so tightly that feces would be oozing out of your nostrils.
(Instead of your ears, where it usually oozes from)."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

How I fondly recall being called a scumbag, a moral Lilliputian, a treasonous war criminal wannabe, a torture lover, etc., upon first appearance here.

And that was just the beginning. I've even had disease wished upon me by rukidding.

Home court or home field advantage I guess.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

@lms: I hope you realize that the conservative commentors have been told they have "shiite" for brains. This is almost exactly what Bilge wrote above - except Bilge tried to make it funny.

We cannot navigate imaginary lines.

If we are removing one-man-show types of commentors then I think you and I both know of one or two on the liberal side who qualify.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 21, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

sbj, I'm sorry I don't think it is equivalent. And now I'll be quiet because I've said my piece and I think Greg is the one you guys really want to hear from, not me. And hey, I've been on the receiving end from both sides, but bilgey really did cross the line and was beginning to take control of the Plumline in the comments section. Over and Out. I will concede there are people here on both sides that I normally avoid but that's all you're getting out of me.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 21, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

qb:

Me too. I came here and was about as polite and non-confrontational as it is possible to be while still disagreeing with people. Yet was soon barraged with the nae-calling and vulgarities. Not surprising I suppose.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 21, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

QB, do the Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE Act? Yes, they do. Do they support corporate financing of political ads with no disclosure? Yes, they do. Tell me where I'm wrong if these are not facts. But you won't because they ARE facts. You should take a cue from your Right Wing overlords and just admit that you're okay with corporate money influencing our electoral process. Don't just stand there and tell me I'm wrong when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

QB, do the Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE Act? Yes, they do. Do they support corporate financing of political ads with no disclosure? Yes, they do. Tell me where I'm wrong if these are not facts. But you won't because they ARE facts. You should take a cue from your Right Wing overlords and just admit that you're okay with corporate money influencing our electoral process. Don't just stand there and tell me I'm wrong when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 21, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@ethan: That reply was weak even by your standards!

Posted by: sbj3 | June 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

Your reply is nonresponsive. Your previous comment (actually both previous) was purely opinion, not fact.

"QB, do the Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE Act?"

Yes, they generally do. That's not what your comment said.

"You should take a cue from your Right Wing overlords and just admit that you're okay with corporate money influencing our electoral process."

Little ad hominem abuse for me, huh? I don't have any ideological overloards. I knew what I thought about the issues when I was young, unemployed, and penniless. It hasn't changed.

What I am "okay with" is freedom of speech, which includes speech through a corporate form and the use of resources to speak. There would be many other forms of "influence" I would not be "okay with."

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 21, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company