Blogging Scandal- Day 2

What I have been told by some reliable sources is that Shaun's report is very close to reality.  However, I am hearing that the list of bloggers researched is "smaller" than Shaun's list, while the amount of information compiled on those bloggers chosen is "very large".  My source also assures me that this talk of credit reports that others started (notice Shaun never mentioned them) is totally false, and that the information gathered, while broad, "did not violate anyone's privacy".

I'm adding two toupees.

Developing...

UPDATE:  The staff involved can not keep their story straight.  One person pointed out they had a report done on them, and we should feel complimented, and another denied any such thing existed.  I'm hearing "yes" on J.C. Wilmore, Jon Henke, myself and Lowell Feld, and working on confirmation on others.  If this list stays slanted to the Democrats, we can assume these reports were generated for potential retribution instead of proactive research.

I will not believe these reports were not hostile until I can see mine...

UPDATE #2:  Shaun Kenney has more thoughts up.  Shaun definitely got the scoop of the month on this one.

UPDATE #3-  J.C. Wilmore cuts to the chase with exactly the problem with this.  I agree with J.C., it is expected from the opposition, not from "friends".

Comments

[not gretchen bulova]

I'm ok with this. If bloggers want to play the game, they shoule begin to expect this stuff.

[Dannyboy]

I with NGB. As long as nobody's privacy rights were violated, then it's fair game. Bloggers want to play with the big boys? Okay, fine. But they can't be upset when stuff like this happens.

I have no problem with what Webb's people did as long as nobody's rights were violated.

[Kevin]

Queen Riley, from the Kingdom of Drama, always takes the overdramatic route. Even if it turns out that he wasn't on the list, he'll still place himself on a cross for the world to see.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Kevin, agreed. I can't believe this guy is a lobbyist by day...

(PS: I can't make the meeting tonight, sorry about that).

[bwana]

If you want to run with the big dogs, someone's gonna pee on you now adn again.

ngb adn dboy above have it right...

[ZB]

Many have suggested that Webb's campaign, while ultimately successful, could have been managed better. I would think that knowing that the campaign compiled information and researched the individuals likely to potentially say critical things of their candidate or their campaign indicates that they were doing EXACTLY THEIR JOB. If that is worth toupees, something is wrong.

If, say, an anoymous blogger nicknamed "Not Bill Euille" has frequently bashed Democratic candidates for their support of immigration reform -- would it not be only appropriate for the campaign to look into whether "Not Bill Euille" has any paid undocumented bloggers on his or her staff? Shouldn't they look into whether "Not Bill Euille" is being paid by the Allen campaign and not disclosing that fact? Shouldn't they know, before "NBE" breaks a story that Jim Webb once ate at a Quizno's Restaurant whether said blogger works at the rival Blimpee's across the street?

What a dumb ex-staffer at the DSCC did to Steele was illegal and wrong. Doing basic opposition research on all potentil opponents is not.

And why is no one asking Shaun Kenney whether the Kenney campaign did any research on Bobby Orrock. If so, isn't THAT relevent to our ability to evaluate HIS credibility on this matter? (Either yes, which would incicate he is a hypocrite or no, which would indicate that he was a very poor candidate).

[michael]

Yeah, it doesn't strike me as unethical. But it does show how wary campaigns are of us unreliables out here on the internets.

It's possible -- even likely -- that Webb really respects the blogs, but these recent revelations contribute significantly to assumptions that the rest of his campaign just wanted to squeeze them for all the mileage they could get -- and they got a lot.

I think we can/should expect this in the future, although I doubt it'll matter. Bloggers will really only hurt candidates on the blogosphere, where smears like the ones they were prepping for won't do them any good at all. The tactics will be clear as day, and the stuff that would tarnish a politician by giving the media a "scandal" to talk about won't make blog-readers stop reading their favorite bloggers -- unless, of course, you can find a blog that actually cares about the appearance of "scandal" ...

So stupid - I'm sure that the Webb campaign simply compiled oppo research on anti-Webb bloggers affiliated with the Allen camp.

Which, I'm hearing, is exactly what the Allen campaign did as well to Lowell, Josh, and others.

This is standard for campaigns - research the background of their opponents and their staff/allies. Strange that such an astute political guru like Ben thinks this is some sort of new development.

[Kevin]

"(PS: I can't make the meeting tonight, sorry about that)."

Neither can I. I've taken another position in an organization that is non-partisan and therefore would look bad if I went. I can tell you more offline.

[MC]

Anon 8:48,

Researching some of the RK guys and Jon Henke might not be as bad becasue they were paid parts of the campaign.

But I do have some problem with them doing background checks on average citizens. So to open your mouth an express a political opinion suddenly means "your in the game" and should expect to be trashed? With standards like that, NOBODY is going to want to say anything in the public sphere. There is a clear line between private citizens adovcating a political position and paid staff members and associates doing it. I'm not freaking out like Jim Riley is, and I don't think the law was broken or anything like that. But should private citizens expect their dirty laundry to be aired if they express their opinions in a public forum? I'm just not comfortable with that.

[phriendlyjaime]

That's exactly what I said last night, yet you told me I was nuts...

[phriendlyjaime]

Well, at least my file (which I am sure there wasn't one) is entertaining. I've gotten too crazy before, too many times.

Here's my thing; I totally understand profiling people you pay. I DON'T understand NOR DO I CONDONE profiling volunteers. They should be thanked instead.

Posted by: phriendlyjaime | December 13, 2006 at 09:52 PM

[not gretchen bulova]

MC - there is a difference between someone who blogs part time vs. a blog that breaks stories about people's past and their missteps like NLS and a third category for people like Riley who want to be like NLS.

If they were researching someone like Alice Marshall it would be a waste of time, but people like NLS and TC and Shaun like to break stories and get inside info so you have to protect yourself

[Not Jack Herrity]

Doing oppo research on the opposing candidate and his/her paid staff is a fact of life. Doing oppo research on a bunch of bloggers is a little shadier. You see, unpaid bloggers, like campaign volunteers or anyone else with an opinion, are part of the public discourse. I'm sure many of the private citizens who contribute here would take great pause if they knew they were being researched by political campaigns. It really speaks to the level campaigns have sunk in recent years. And that's true whether the Webb people did it or the Allen people did it.

NJH

[Alice Marshall]

This all just speculation. If the Webb campaign really did such a thing there would be some indication of that on their FEC form under "dispersal's."

I'm too lazy to look, but those forms are all online at FEC.gov.

There's a difference between (1)unpaid, unaffiliated bloggers and (2) unpaid, affiliated bloggers. I think the latter - if they are getting fed info from the campaign and are basically part of the campaign media operations - have a much lower expectation of privacy.

It's a grey area for sure - it depends on how ingrained that unpaid affiliated blogger is. Is that blogger on his own, occasionally getting a nut of info here or there, or is that blogger basically an unpaid staffer? The closer you get to second description, the less concern we should have.

Murky stuff - it all depends on who we're talking about.

[phriendlyjaime]

Well, I know that one person on that short list definitely had a falling out with the campaign, so this all matches up with a conspiracy to attack if needed. That being said, I still have no idea what the hell is going on. But I DEFINITELY want to see all of the files involved, and if anyone else is interested, we should have a party and a book reading.

Henke was basically an Allen operative.

I'm not concerned about doing background on your own staff (Lowell).

I'd be concerned about doing oppo on Ben and J.C.

Another explanation re files on the Dems would be to simply know who they could and could not affiliate with. If a Dem blogger had a skeleton in the closet, then the Webb camp - that had an aggressive and novel blogger strategy - might want to do a minor background check to weed out any bloggers with skeletons that Allen would be able to out (and then bash Webb with that skeleton).

For example, if the campaign wanted to affiliate with a pro-Webb site/blogger, they'd want to make sure that blogger wasn't a sex offender or something like that.

If this had been done by Allen, imagine the outcry. Love the hypocrisy here.

[Bubby]

Is there a "Bubby File"? 'Cause if there is, send it on. I'm having trouble remembering the '70's and I'm damn sure some really good stuff happened.

[phriendlyjaime]

anon 10:04-I don't think anyone is saying that this WASN'T done by Allen. And, I would say that the opinions are pretty evenly split between those angered and those not.

I'd like to know what happened....a lot of people either dropped off the face of the campaign after the primary (specifically JC) and now even more after the election (lowell and Josh).

Something must have happened.

[Thomas Paine Patriot]

If people decide to place themselves in the public eye and public discourse by blogging, they must expect to be subject to the same rules as the politicians and others they are blogging about.

In the rough and tumble and hyperbolic world of the blogosphere, bloggers often launch intense and nasty attacks on candidates and others (like party officials who also volunteer their time).

Why would bloggers expect to be exempt from the same kinds of research and attack politics that they themselves practice?

Bloggers become public figures when they establish a blog or even comment on a blog, particularly when their comments are over-the-top and, in some cases, only half-truths or worse.

There is at least one case where a blogger has been successfully sued for more than $50,000 in damages.

Bloggers can expect more scrutiny in the future as the role of blogging grows in the political process. The fact of the matter is that anyone has a right to investigate them (or anyone else) to the fullest, as long as the information is not obtained illegally or under false pretenses.

God knows, bloggers have certainly hurt innocent people and damaged the reputations of others. Bloggers can't expect to be treated any different than the subjects of their blog diaries.

[The Richmond Democrat]

I don't know about "outcry," but I am interested in getting to the bottom of this story.

So, let's see, now we're down to four . . . that would make us "The Vanden Berg Four."