Should Staffers for Democrats in Congress Identify Themselves at the DU?

[David Zephyr]

Poll question: Should Staffers for Democrats in Congress Identify Themselves at the DU?

This is becoming a real problem for me here at the DU.

I don't have a problem with staffers who are on the payroll of our Democratic Party officials and elected officials posting here at the DU. I welcome their comments and give and take.

However, I do think that it is not above board to be posting here always in defense of certain Democratic members in the House and Senate when someone is on the payroll of the politician he/she is defending and to give the impression that they are speaking independently.

The only staffer that I know who was upfront about it here at the DU is a Dean staffer. This individual has never hidden or tried to appear "impartial" in even the most heated exchanges that we sometimes engage in. I admire that person greatly.

With contentious primary elections looming again and with the potential for hard feelings to develop between those of us who proudly call ourselves Democrats, shouldn't those who are actually in the employment of candidates reveal themselves so that the somewhat deceitful fig-leaf of "impartiality" is removed from their arguments?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. I would rather lobbyists identify themselves

IMHO

[havocmom]

4. And GOP types

Along with plants who may post weird stuff to get comments to be used against us by RW hate-radio pundits

[BlooInBloo]

28. and gays.

:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

29. and jews.

:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

30. get the point?

:not sarcasm:

[havocmom]

34. Evidently YOU don't get what I said at all

What the hell does prejudice against minority groups have with pointing out to DUers that there are a LOT of various people who use DU for their own reasons?

Boat evidenly missed completely

[BlooInBloo]

36. Boat missed by YOU - lol

... the point is requiring members of this or that group (always seems to be an UNFAVORED group - huh - go figure!) to identify themselves is about the most un-american thing one can say.

Now onto important matters - where's my branding iron with the big 'A' on it?

I'm sorry you're in favor of "outing" members of certain non-popular groups, and refusing their right to be anonymous, while at the same time jealously protecting your own rights in that regard.

Very sorry indeed.

[havocmom]

37. Hm, I was pointing that all out

with the fact that singleing out one particular group is foolish. One group or another posting is NOT the problem. People being unaware of all the different groups who have people post for their own reasons is dangerous.

Thank you for the illustration of the dangers of knee jerk reactions and how they can make one oblivious to what is really being said :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

42. And thank YOU for so well illustrating...

... how the beginning of the death of freedom and liberalism takes place, via the introduction of special rules for this or that "undesirable" or "troubling" or "scary" or "dangerous" group. (Would you mind giving me a full and complete list of all such groups please?)

It could only have been more perfect if you'd'a followed up at some point with one off this list:

"If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have a problem"

"Terrorists want anonymity. Why does BlooInBloo support terrorists?"

"These people are dangerous. Why is BlooInBloo weak on DU security?"


Enjoy the freedom of anonymity that you would deny others!

[havocmom]

64. LOL Jezzo beezo, get some new lenses and check again

I am pointing out that we can't really have people fess up on an anonymous board! If you wanna out one group, you might have to out 'em all, as there are many with agendas and where do you make the line.

I value anonymity. And if you wanna take my posts personally, go ahead, but you do give yourself too much importance in my personal world. It isn't personal. If it were, you'd get a PM or an alert.

Just wondering why pointing out other groups who post and possible agendas as being perhaps more damaging than posts from DEM staffers, so why want the staffers to be outed. Amazing that my choice of comparison is such a hot button. If I had used 'crooked used car salesmen who favor eliminating consumer protection laws should have to identity themselves too' as my illustration, would the response have been the same?

[sendero]

68. You are ..

... beyond off base. Equating what is essentially a PAID LOBBYIST with a minority group is ridiculous.

Yes, folks who are here to sell us something should have to identify themselves. There's no real counter argument that isn't stupid.

[savemefromdumbya]

62. Here I am

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

57. Oh they usually identify themselves.

[havocmom]

61. True that! LOL Thanks for much needed chuckle and perspective

of recent events

Gads, you are the BEST! :D

[SteppingRazor]

2. How much of a problem is this?

Are their really hordes of paid Democratic staffers here at DU?

[mattclearing]

5. I always assumed there must be.

They'd be fools not to be here.

[blondeatlast]

25. If only...

But it wouldn't appear to be the case.

[EST]

3. I need to think about this for a while...

[blm]

6. It would be nice, but I think that's hard to judge.

It's hard for those in media positions to come forth, too. Same with teachers.

[Mythsaje]

7. Well, that explains a few things...

I actually don't have an opinion on the question at hand. I'm glad that they think it's important to take our pulse, but I'm not sure there's any merit in forcing them to reveal themselves. We can choose to simply assume that someone who seems extremely partial to a certain candidate/office holder MAY be a staffer, if we wish, or we can just go about our business as usual and not worry about it.

I try not to get on any trains attacking particular candidates or office-holders, though I've weighed in a couple of times about Hillary. ("Grand Theft America, Hillary, not Grand Theft Auto...you're focusing on the WRONG GTA"). I'd rather post witty rejoiners to RW yahoos than bash anyone, though I don't mind pointing out where I don't think they're doing their jobs.

[sui generis]

8. I never think anyone is "impartial"

and that solves any outstanding issues I have with trusting someone's motives.

Everyone has an itinerary and an agenda here to a greater or lesser degree - but if you ejumicate from multiple sources and not just DU, then relying on a poster's word here about a candidate won't be so risky.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Is there a Most Anti-American Suggestion Of The Week list?

Because it seems to me that this suggestion would be #1.

Answer the following question please: what OTHER groups of American citizens do you also think don't deserve the same rights on this board as you? A full and comprehensive list of "undesirables" would be appreciated. Thanks!

[annabanana]

50. who said a staffer would be an undesirable?

They're Dems... they have the advantage of having the ear of one party muckamuck or another.. I don't think they should have to identify themselves, because
1) there'd be an assumption that they were speaking on behalf of that muckamuck, and that might not be true
2) they'd have to spend all their time here fending off attacks on that muckamuck and would never learn ANYTHING

i think bloobloo is assuming the op is attacking staffers....

[David Zephyr]

51. Thanks.

Thanks for reading my originating post where I wrote:

"I don't have a problem with staffers who are on the payroll of our Democratic Party officials and elected officials posting here at the DU. I welcome their comments and give and take."

and where I wrote:

"The only staffer that I know who was upfront about it here at the DU is a Dean staffer. This individual has never hidden or tried to appear "impartial" in even the most heated exchanges that we sometimes engage in. I admire that person greatly."

I appreciate your challenging the straw horse that I was attacking staffers and trying to prevent them from posting. I am suggesting that they might be a little more honest since they are being paid to post here, while the great majority of us are not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. No one is being paid to post on DU.

At least not anyone from the Hill. Perhaps the party has people, but that's it. Do you have any idea how tight Congressional office budgets are? They can hardly afford the NECESSARY staffers!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[reichstag911]

11. Chill. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Why should I?

Do you respond positively when people demand to invade your privacy?

[reichstag911]

17. First, I don't recall anyone demanding anything;...

...second, you come off as an asshole when you're that strident, and when you tell someone asking a question to go to hell.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[reichstag911]

20. With charmers like you as (former?) Hill staffers,...

...no wonder we Dems have done so well in the last couple election cycles.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

33. Really!

GEEZE!

[OzarkDem]

45. Vash are you a staffer?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. I'm a lobbyist now

But I might be going back to the Hill real soon.

[seaglass]

12. What would be the point? Do you weigh people's opinions

because of what they say or who it comes from?

[petronius]

31. I agree - there doesn't seem to be any point

The discussion board format is so anonymous that there is no way to know who anyone is - posts stand on their own, and we assess them based on content.

It's both a blessing and a curse - on the one hand we can consider ideas without any baggage pertaining to our opinion of the poster, but on the other hand the anonymity allows people to make claims and statements that they would never make if they had to take personal responsibility for them...

[Lerkfish]

13. I voted yes, but then thought about it and disagree with myself.

I think we should take what people say at face value and not worry about agendas. If there is an agenda, it will become clear, whether that person is in the employ of a VIP or not. And, you could just as easily have a rabid fan of a VIP making the same arguments, so it could easily become a pointless witchhunt.

so, I think my earlier vote was dead wrong.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Are you now or have you ever been...

Flame bait.

Don

[BlooInBloo]

16. Oh stop the irony! It's an ANONYMOUS POLL!!

:rofl:

The OP is happy with anonymity, but not with OTHERS having it.

To say nothing of the 2/3 who silently vote 'yes'.

How American is that? Sheesh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Of course they should.

Just like somebody acting as an "impartial" expert trying to sell you something for the company he works for should.

This secret government crap is what the fascists love.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

21. I voted No.

But, I do think all Lobbyists from K-Street should id themselves where ever they converse online.

[rucky]

22. Yes. But it's usually pretty easy to tell. n/t

[DrGonzoLives]

24. Given the atmosphere around here

I sure as hell wouldn't.

[blondeatlast]

27. No, and it doesn't really matter.

It's hardly difficult to identify them.

[warrens]

32. No way

The Repukes will use anything they say against their bosses.

[Kingshakabobo]

46. Exactly!!! n/t

[Zhade]

35. Anyone professionally involved in politics should identify themselves.

IMHO.

[mopinko]

38. it would be nice

especially if posting here is part of their job. but i assume that a lot of people are getting paid to stir the pot.

[Texasgal]

39. I say NO WAY!

Nobody should ever have to "identify" themselves on an anonymous message board... For ANY reason!!

We have freepers and GOP weirdo's constantly patrolling these boards all of the time, imagine what they could do with this information! I say NO WAY!

Edit- Spelling

[quinnox]

40. No, but

if there was a rule then I would prefer if green party types and other non-Democrats would identify themselves.

[cally]

41. I disliked the advocacy more during the primaries

Several posters were strong advocates for one candidate and then disappeared as soon as their candidate dropped out. Too many flamewars and much divisiveness occurred because of their actions. I'm fairly certain that they were working on the campaigns and never identified themself. I think it hurt all of us.

Mostly, I try to ignore the obvious advocates. It becomes obvious when one person always hits the threads and either trashes or advocates for one candidate. I tend to just read right past their posts.

[David Zephyr]

44. Thanks.

Cally, I agree that it hurt us all. It hurt the DU during the primaries and we are soon approaching them again, only now with a lot more staffers who post for their boss under the cloak of "impartiality".

Even with the current Feingold call for censure, we are seeing a lot of transparent excuse making by some for their Democratic bosses who are refusing to go along with Feingold. It troubles me and I wanted to air this subject. At the bare minimum, staffers will now know that they will need to be a little more careful when they jump all over threads that question their boss.

If I raised the skepticism level a little, I am happy I did so.

[madfloridian]

47. David, by Dean staffers here do you mean campaign, DFA, or DNC?

I have not seen any "staffers" from any of those here. ?

[Neil Lisst]

43. in time you can tell who the hardcore advocates are

There are many people here who are pushing either themselves, or their patron, or their employer, or their whatever. I have a cartoon I promote here, because the content is amenable to the DU readers. While I am promoting my cartoon by being here, not every idea in my head is about the cartoon. I'm here to discuss my views, just as others.

I appreciate that some staffers would not feel free to identify themselves, because then their comments become much, much more, and can be used against their boss. That's a big, big problem.

I believe in due time, one sees the prejudices or devotions of other posters. Some worship Hillary, some Wesley, some Conyers, some Dean, some Feingold, some Gore, some Kerry, some Kucinich. I'll figure it out soon enough, whether they tell me or not.

[onenote]

48. really truly stupid idea

talk about your slippery slope. So do limit only to paid staffers; what about campaign volunteers? Do we disinguish between senior staffer and the guy/gal that opens the mail. Do we keep a list or are people expected to "disclose" every time they post. How would you enforce?

After we get through with staffers, I see that there is an interest in lobbyists identifying themselves. Just lobbyists for certain entities or all lobbyists. If you work for multiple clients do you identify them all? If you work for a company that hires a lobbyist, do you identify that fact? What about if your spouse, significant other, close relative is a staffer or a lobbyist or works for a company with interests before the government.

Where exactly does it stop? If someone wants to talk about where they work and how that relates or doesn't relate to their opinion, fine. But I don't expect people too, tend to take such claims with a grain of salt and think any attempt to set a "rule" about such things is a horrible idea.

You don't know me, and I don't know you. Thats the only rule and it had damn well apply to everyone or to no one.

onenote

[David Zephyr]

49. No "rule" was mentioned.

There's a very big difference between writing in support of a politician or a candidate and writing on their behalf for hire and doing so under a cloak of "impartiality". A very big difference.

I did not mention the word "rule" and I only make this point because you used the word and put it within quotes which implies that you were quoting me which is not correct.

My poll asked if those writing on behalf of their bosses should let the rest of us know that they are working for hire for them. That was the simple question.

Most of the staffers who post this way are already known here at the DU anyway. This thread also lets them know that a lot of us know and are tired of being "nice" about what some might consider deceit.

[onenote]

65. okay, not rule. expectation

Sorry for suggesting you were calling for a "rule". You didn't. But you did suggest, in effect, that there should be an expectation that staffers will identify themselves and that you consider the failure to do so "deceit." But why limit it to staffers. If someone works for NARAL, or Planned Parenthood, or Sierra Club, etc. should they be 'expected' to identify that interest before commenting on issues of interest to those organizations? Should nurses/doctors be required to identify themselves before commenting on health care reform, abortion, or other issues related to the medical community?

And as others point out, how can anyone "know" who someone is unless that person already has revealed that AND you have some independent confirmation of who they really are. For the record, I'm a Washington lawyer who occasionally represents clients before Congress and federal agencies. Sometimes my posts align with my clients interests. Sometimes they don't. I'm not paid to post here and I don't think any staffers, lobbyists or anyone else is either. (If someone here gets paid for posting at DU, please let me in on how to get that gig.)

onenote

[LSK]

67. i have read better reasons for no rather than yes

I would only like it for curiosities sake. I want to know which politicians are reading DU. I dont look at it as outing a particular poster.

[EFerrari]

52. Oh for Christ's sake, who cares? We all have jobs or we all

have interests we pursue as retirees.

Why, on a progressive board, should it make a bit of difference who you work for?

It's not like staffers can wave a magic wand and gain support?

Do ideas and logic matter here or don't they? :)

[Horse with no Name]

53. Absolutely NOT

This is an anonymous message board and people should be allowed to say what they think without the chance that it would get back to their bosses, etc, in case it wasn't in a good light.
And no--it is not deceitful.
Besides...what happens if trolls start lying about who they are and who they work for.
Would definitely cause more of a problem than any benefit it would serve.

[TahitiNut]

54. We're in sad shape if we can no longer evaluate the message ...

... without evaluating the messenger. While "consider the source" is wise advice, the anonymity of the Internet is a terrific exercise in escaping reliance on authoritarian mindsets and engaging in critical thinking directed at the content of a message alone.

[mandyky]

55. I don't have a yes or no view

I think it depends. I also respect some people like to make their points in anonimity.

[napi21]

56. I don't think they should have to ID. I'm actually very happy that

there might be some here with us! I think it's great that they would be getting the pulse of a lot of people who post here all the time.

I can't see what good it would do to be ID'd. You know what would happen. THEY'D be constantly getting kudos or slams depending on what their boss did that day!

[Plaid Adder]

58. All I want the lurking Congressional staffers on DU to do...

is SMACK THEIR EMPLOYERS SILLY until they realize that they have to go on the attack!

Seriously. Are you a Congressional staffer? Do you work for a Congressional Democrat? Then for me, please, will you tell him or her that Bush's approval rating is 33% and it's fucking time to go after him already?

Thanks in advance,

The Plaid Adder

[blondeatlast]

70. I'll be happy if they could read DU for an hour a week.

The "Journals" function should make it easier.

[savemefromdumbya]

63. I'm not worried about them

[JNelson6563]

66. I sure as heck wouldn't

DU ain't what it used to be and, with having to slog through a lot of crap to get to the good stuff, I wouldn't be publically proclaiming my participation here if I worked for an elected official. A few years ago I probably would have.

Julie

[KoKo]

69. Good Point, David...it would make sense that "Political Ops" make

themselves known here on DU. After all DU is Diverse enough...that the "OP'S" would have a good following.

By "not" declaring themselves it makes many posters "suspect" when in fact if we KNEW their "true views" some of us might actually AGREE?

:shrug: I VOTE for DECLARE WHO YOU ARE AND WHO PAYS YOU....but maybe OTHERS might feel that's NOT a "GOOD THING." :shrug:

I don't know the answer right now........