I’ll take that as a…..?
The blogosphere -- well, a little slice of it -- is aghast at three questions that I asked the other day as a result of a year's worth of warnings from former FEC Chair Bradley Smith.
Bogus Gold, for example, gets a high, deep, spiraling punt that's pushing the returner back..back...back:
Bob Collins, MPR's official political blogger, and therefore (I assume) MPR's employee, and therefore paid at least in part by my freakin' tax dollars, is questioning MY financial independence?! Get your stinking hand out of my back pocket before you say that again, hombre!
Of course, Bob, being a lefty, may think that government funding is actually the best way to keep political influence out of political campaign coverage. Rigggghhht. And, much like MPR's website claims, they're perfectly objective in their publicly funded coverage. That's two whole posts in themselves, so I'll just call b*llsh*t and move on as we agree to disagree.
Anyway, he only sort of insinuates against me personally, since he reads KvM which I write for (umm... every now and then, anyway). Outside of that I don't even make his list of blogs he reads every day. Guess I'll just shrivel up and freakin' die. Except the non-regular reading is mutual, so I suppose he gets a pass.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
By the way, I had no idea the guy wrote for KvM; I thought Gary did all the work over there. And actually he is on my list of blogs I read every day, but the list I provided was the list of folks in the ONLY POLITICS section of my reader. Bogus Gold is a good read but when you post commentary about American Idol, sorry, you don't make the "politics only" section. Unless Kenny Rogers' poor facelift has now made it as a campaign issue, which it probably should from what I hear.
Anyway, we'll put that down as a "get lost, and take your poodle," and figure the translation from what I actually said to what he thinks I meant is a freebie. (I'll have to log in later to find out what I really just said).
Over at Residual Forces, we have incoming fire...
But I am tired of the constant insinuations that conservative bloggers and the Republicans are up to no good. (Remember it was him that had his undies in a bunch over the stupid Marriage CD) The guy is a biased hack, and he is doing nothing more than phishing for someone stupid enough to admit their undying devoting and absolute servitude towards Karl Rove.
Meanwhile, a kinder, gentler approach to the notion that a medium (blogs) that ushered in the era of "transparency" should consider being, well, transparent, from Minnesota Campaign Report.
Bob, I hope you'll re-post this, including previous responses, once it falls off your front page. Lefties and righties frequent your page pretty universally, and it's both important and interesting to keep this disclosure effort going.
The issue has obviously aroused a passion not seen since the great Marriage CD controversy, another issue that -- coincidentally or not -- revolved around telling people what you're doing and letting them decide whether it means anything.
And the great irony, of course, is the blogosphere, rightly so, developed because of a guiding principle of transparency.
In an age where we're told that blogs will have more impact on politics in this country, what's wrong with asking whether content is bought and paid for or is independent information?
Is asking the question now considered a partisan attack? Gosh. Why?
