I see that Kos is in trouble again
in some Zephyr Teachout sort of way.
Sometimes I think that Markos is too immature to try and swim with the big fish the way he does. But hey, that's his problem.
Nevertheless, I just posted the following on his site, under Kid Oakland's diary, and thought I'd reprint it here, as it's bound to be lost in the 500 plus entries in that diary.
"This may have already been suggested, but my poor computer is having trouble loading all the posts in this thread, so I'm just going to go ahead.
In politics, isn't the APPEARANCE of impropriety almost as important as the actual act. It's not what IS happening often times, it's what APPEARS to be happening. That's why people excuse themselves to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, or decide to claim neutrality.
If your associate works for a particular candidate, it might be best to not pick sides in that race, if for no other reason than to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropiety, even where none exists.
So if Kos is not willing to remain neutral to retain some semblance of integrity, then he will have to suffer the slings and arrows of his fellow progressives, as they are treating him no differently than they have treated folks on the right. Often connections that may, or may not, mean anything are highlighted and trumpeted when they involve the Right. So Kos is being held up to the same standard? Good. As it should be. I'd be disappointed if it were not so.
I guess what I'm trying to say is "Quit yer bitchin'" If you don't want to hear the dissent, then avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety. If you don't want to do that, then you'll just have to take your lumps. The defensiveness isn't going to make anything any better.
You chose your path, Kos, and this is what comes with the territory.
(hopefully that had some semblance of coherence, as I don't have nearly enough caffine in my system yet.)"
Sometimes I think that Markos is too immature to try and swim with the big fish the way he does. But hey, that's his problem.
Nevertheless, I just posted the following on his site, under Kid Oakland's diary, and thought I'd reprint it here, as it's bound to be lost in the 500 plus entries in that diary.
"This may have already been suggested, but my poor computer is having trouble loading all the posts in this thread, so I'm just going to go ahead.
In politics, isn't the APPEARANCE of impropriety almost as important as the actual act. It's not what IS happening often times, it's what APPEARS to be happening. That's why people excuse themselves to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, or decide to claim neutrality.
If your associate works for a particular candidate, it might be best to not pick sides in that race, if for no other reason than to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropiety, even where none exists.
So if Kos is not willing to remain neutral to retain some semblance of integrity, then he will have to suffer the slings and arrows of his fellow progressives, as they are treating him no differently than they have treated folks on the right. Often connections that may, or may not, mean anything are highlighted and trumpeted when they involve the Right. So Kos is being held up to the same standard? Good. As it should be. I'd be disappointed if it were not so.
I guess what I'm trying to say is "Quit yer bitchin'" If you don't want to hear the dissent, then avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety. If you don't want to do that, then you'll just have to take your lumps. The defensiveness isn't going to make anything any better.
You chose your path, Kos, and this is what comes with the territory.
(hopefully that had some semblance of coherence, as I don't have nearly enough caffine in my system yet.)"
posted by Erica at 1:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home