Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
When sockpuppets attack
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, September 21, 2006

Who's questioning Jon Henke's credibility?
Incidentally, Henke — before he was hired last month to blog for the campaign as a result of a series of posts he wrote defending Allen's use of "macaca" — was regularly advocating on his own blog that there be a Democratic takeover of Congress as a means of restraining unprincipled and corrupt Republicans. Does radically changing one's political views in exchange for some pay by a political candidate forever undermine, or destroy, one's credibility as a political commentator? It ought to.
Mr. Credibility himself - Glenn Greenwald.

'Nuff said.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I guess if you advocate a certain party control Congress, then you can never support a candidate from the other party? Heck, why even put candidates on the ballot? Let’s just have a check box for each party and that’s it!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Last time I looked, "control" didn’t require 100% Democratic control. And it certainly doesn’t mean every Republican is corrupt or a big spender.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net

he was hired last month to blog for the campaign
was regularly advocating on his own blog that there be a Democratic takeover of Congress as a means of restraining unprincipled and corrupt Republicans.
Maybe I’m missing something here but these aren’t two mutually exclusive positions.

Maybe you can blame Rove somehow?
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
before he was hired last month to blog for the campaign as a result of a series of posts he wrote defending Allen’s use of "macaca"
And GiGi knows why Allen’s campaign hired Jon? Damn, that’s a smart argyle!

My crew socks don’t know nothin’. Maybe Thomas Ellers will show up and teach them a thing or two.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Isn’t this the same Greenwald who was contracted to help spread the "progressive" message?
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
NOW is the time for all good Libertarians to come to the aid of a Libertarian candidate who can actually win national office: BOB SMITHER

Check out his site: www.smither4congress.com esp the video

NO Libertarian has ever won a Congressional seat. Imagine the media and the public’s reaction when Smither not only wins—— but wins Tom DeLay’s old seat.

He can win and here’s why:

1. NO Republican on the ballot in a very conservative district
2. NO incumbent (DeLay is gone)
3. Democrat is perfect stereotype: old time pro-union, big spending, Nancy Pelosi liberal who, adding insult to injury, is carpetbagging from across the state.

Smither can WIN—- not a good showing—- win ! !

Talk up the buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Help us. Lloyd Laughlin laughlinou@yahoo.com 214.636.0000

"Mr. Smither Goes to Washington"
 
Written By: Lloyd Laughlin
URL: http://www.smither4congress.com
I think John’s doing a good job (good in the sense of competent) for the Allen campaign. I don’t think that George Allen will ever have a following on Q and O. Out of respect for Jon, no one’s eager to evaluate George Allen from a libertarian viewpoint on this website. I won’t either.

They hired him because he’s smart and articulate, and they hoped he had credibility. They sure didn’t hire him to give his own opinions. On anything. Deviation from the line is the cardinal sin of a campaign staffer with any public profile whatsoever. And Jon’s done a great job of sublimating his worldview. If he’d done a bad job.. he’d be a bad New Media Coordinator.

I like Jon, and don’t hold it against him, thus also subordinating intellectual consistency to... empathy and cooperation, I guess. Life is long on self-contradiction, and politics even longer.

I’m treating the whole thing as a leave of absence. What happens in the George Allen Campaign stays in the George Allen Campaign.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I was under the impression that Jon had argued for a Democratic takeover of the House only:
a little gridlock might do us all a lot of good...
I also had the idea that Mr. Allen was campaigning for the Senate.
 
Written By: sammler
URL: http://stonecity.blogspot.com
Sammler,

Exactly, and as previously noted Jon never argued we should have a house that was 100% Democrat either. Jon wants gridlock, and hopefully move the Republicans in a more libertarian direction over time. If Allen is one of the Republican’s he feels are closer to that goal than others then supporting him makes sense to me. If I only voted for people who agree with me on almost everything I couldn’t vote at all. That is a ridiculous standard.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I was under the impression that Jon had argued for a Democratic takeover of the House only.

That’s correct. We’ve all talked about gridlock and we’ve all agreed that would best be accomplished with the Dems taking the House only.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I must admit that I have had the very same thoughts as Greenwald stated. Everytime these thoughts came up I come to the conclusion that I can’t rag on Jon for getting a paying job. So I just keep it to myself.

Jon has tried to sway people to vote for the democrats. Yes, he has stated many times that he would prefer for them to get the house and the republicans the senate. However, I have always taken that to meen that if they can’t get the house that he would like for them to at least get the senate although they would cause major problems in it.

In the end I like how glasnost stated it above, "I’m treating the whole thing as a leave of absence. What happens in the George Allen Campaign stays in the George Allen Campaign."
 
Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://
Jealous much? Glenn Greenwald wrote a NYT bestseller, and Russ Fiengold quoted him on the Senate floor.

Good DAY, sirs.
 
Written By: Good Lt
URL: http://www.aredphishhead.blogspot.com
Ohmygod! Russ Fiengold QUOTED him?!!! That’s AMAZING! Oh to be so shined upon. I can only dream.

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
However, I have always taken that to meen...
Well, unless you can point to where he has suggested it, maybe you should take it to mean what he actually says!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Jealous much? Glenn Greenwald wrote a NYT bestseller, and Russ Fiengold quoted him on the Senate floor.

Good DAY, sirs.
Heh.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Maybe it’s only my faulty memory, but I’m having trouble recalling any posts here on Q&O where Jon’s credibility was even an issue. Unlike GG and his sycophants (Mona), Jon seems to rarely, if ever, require you to accept anything on his authority. IOW, he provides links or arguments to back his positions. Even when he decided that he would declare that there could not possibly be any debate on man’s contribution to climate change, he had links to demonstrate the "scientific consensus", useless as they were.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
However, I have always taken that to meen that if they can’t get the house that he would like for them to at least get the senate although they would cause major problems in it.
He, like the rest of us want a divided government because Republians never act more like Republicans should act than when they’re challenged. And a Democratic House would challenge them (and, we assume, have them stick more to their ideology than they have with full power). Another reason our preference is the House, and we’ve talked about this on podcasts and in posts, is because we want any Supreme Court nominees coming out of a Republican Senate (and the possibility exists that another SC justice may retire before ’08).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Another reason our preference is the House, and we’ve talked about this on podcasts and in posts, is because we want any Supreme Court nominees coming out of a Republican Senate (and the possibility exists that another SC justice may retire before ’08).
I share this preference for SCOUTS nominees but a Democrat controlled House has potential problems as well. (The part of the linked piece titled "The implications of a Democrat-majority House" contains the relevant text). This could be a damned if you do / damned if you don’t situation.
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
Last time I looked, "control" didn’t require 100% Democratic control
Gee.
I’ve heard that somewhere before.
I wonder....
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider