Daily Whackjob

What Creigh Deeds said.

This was me at last years conference, I take ethics VERY seriously.

I’ll see YOU at the conference!

There is a good “Open letter Regarding Blogs United” over at The Virginian Federalist.

In addition, we here at The Daily Whackjob have the much anticipated response from Tucker Martin, Communications Director for our Attorney General, Bob McDonnell.

“Now, as to the questions at hand. I guess our part of this “drama” originates in an unfortunate situation involving our office and the blog VB Dems. I suppose a very brief recap is in order prior to answering your two questions.

In early April the author of the blog called this office, identifying herself only as a “citizen”, not a blogger, and wishing to discuss recent measures involving illegal immigration. We had a 20 minute conversation on the issue on what was a very busy press day. Later that afternoon, as I was scrolling through Virginia blogs, (For the record I use Blog Net News, Waldo’s Virginia Political Blog Aggregator, and Conservativa to keep up with blog postings) I noticed a post on VB Dems that made it clear I had been speaking with a blogger. In addition, the post was absolutely incorrect and posited a bizarre conspiracy theory that never came up in the conversation. For that reason I decided to make my displeasure known to the author of the post. I cc’ed several other area bloggers on my response.

When this blogger wrote back she admitted that: “Although, I did not reveal to you why I was calling….” She also noted that her theory was erroneous, writing that if I had posted a response on her blog, for the world to see, instead of limiting my displeasure to a small group of her fellow bloggers, “….You would have me nailed for my mistaken theory…”

Ironically, I thought limiting my response to just bloggers, and not all viewers of her post, was a polite way to handle this matter; I guess that did not work eh? In the future I will use the comments section of posts for any responses I may feel compelled to make directly.

This issue probably doesn’t need any more elucidation so I will let it go at that.

Now, as to your two questions. First, you ask why my email response to a blogger also cc’ed several other bloggers? Happy to answer that. I must say I have read some of the posts on this subject after you emailed me, and I think this is going to disappoint the conspiracy theorists out there. This is a great example of the wisdom behind “Ockham’s Razor”; the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

When I emailed this blogger in question, I cc’ed the following individuals: Norm Leahy, Vivian Paige, Jim Hoeft, and Chuck Slemp.

A quick run down on the backgrounds of these individuals:

Norm Leahy: One of the veterans of the political blogosphere. A contributor to the Tidewater blog Bearing Drift, and at the time the only contributor besides Jim for whom I had an email address

Vivian Paige: The leading Democratic blogger in Tidewater, and the host of a site upon which the Attorney General live blogged last year

Jim Hoeft: Founder and principal author of the Tidewater blog Bearing Drift

Chuck Slemp: An old friend, former scheduler for the Attorney General, and deputy scheduler for Jerry Kilgore. He runs the Tidewater blog: Southwest by Southeast.

The universal trait possessed by these individuals is a simple one: They are Tidewater bloggers. The blog post I was responding to was on a Tidewater blog, and referenced a supposed “conspiracy” between a former Tidewater delegate, Attorney General Bob McDonnell, and a current Tidewater senator, Ken Stolle. Given that this was a Tidewater issue, on a Tidewater blog, I certainly wanted to make sure that the bloggers who I knew in the area, and who could be reasonably expected to read the post in question, were aware of the facts of the matter.

As far as my thoughts on the bigger issue, I have to say watching this from a distance this all seems to be, in the words of the Bard, “Much ado about nothing.”

I have seen the following exchange posted on Bearing Drift between Jim and the individual in question, from last month I believe:

jr@bearingdrift.com: Although we have had our issues, you are still a Hampton Roads blog and this is a Hampton Roads conference. I think you should at least be on the steering committee.

eileen@vbdems.org: I’ve polled our contributors and yes you can include VB Dems on the steering committee.

jr@bearingdrift.com: Great, Eileen. Thanks.

For that reason, again just as someone watching from a distance, I am a little confused as to when the issue of “exclusion” came about? It appears no one is being excluded, and that is how it should be.

I, of course, am aware of the purpose of the VB Dems blog, as the founder of that blog noted in a post on May 7th:

“All the incumbents in Virginia Beach are Republicans and they should all be fired. This is a Democratic blog run by a blogger who enjoys nothing better than coming up with all sorts of reasons why these incumbents and/or incumbent party should be fired from the job”.-

(VB Dems May 7^th http://www.vbdems.org/?p=1168)

I may disagree with the sentiment being uttered, but I respect her right to it.

In my humble, personal opinion, the Virginia blogosphere is probably the most positive development witnessed in Virginia politics in the last 15 years. It has brought so many new voices to the table, and expanded political discourse dramatically. Hopefully the Blogs United Conference will not be impacted negatively by this episode. I hope that as many Virginia bloggers as possible, and of all political stripes, will make it to Christopher Newport to participate in the event. The Virginia blogosphere is too innovative a communications medium to be laid low by a trivial argument. The Virginia blogosphere provides a much needed home for Virginians who are keenly interested in policy and politics. It is a place for robust, and often very intellectual, political discourse. I can’t imagine Virginia politics without it.

Thanks for writing me, this has been a lengthy response and will serve as my only comments on this matter.”

J. Tucker Martin

Director of Communications

Office of Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell

804-692-0552

Tucker.Martin@oag.state.va.us

There you have it…now that is a show of ethics at its best.

“So I’m ready with a verdict: Jim Hoeft is guilty of being a complete and total disgrace to blogging.”

This was said by Eileen on “we the tax payers paid for the photo’s”

This is getting out of hand.  It is becoming quite clear that this is becoming one of those Vendettas God Save Va was speaking about.

This comment by Eileen almost made me loose my lunch, well more I just chuckled.

‘“Jim has been a beacon for good wholesome blogging, and Eileen hasn’t been.” ya wanna rethink that statement before i post tomorrow?”

she said this in response to brief e-mail exchange her and I had.  She sent me a link, and in the link made a statement.  Which I replied asking if she really wanted to leave that comment, she then took the statement down.

Eileen,

I am not impressed with the fact that I kindly asked you about the comment discreetly, and you threw it back in my face.  I also fully stand by my statement, you have not been a blog pushing for blogging ethics, if I am incorrect, give me a link.  Bearing Drift has been a blog that in most cases is ethical, maybe it is due to its mixed contributor base.  Yet, you have yet to prove Jim acted unethically.  Somehow you expect me to be intimidated by you asking me to rethink my belief that Jim is a ethical blogger?  Sorry, but it didn’t work… I will agree with Mad Hatter, that Jim did act tactlessly, and could have gone about this a different way, but he did act ethically.  He is letting it die, he put up a post giving his side of the story, with very little commentary, this is ethical…   NLS put out a post with almost the same information, with very little commentary, this is also ethical.  I disagree with his conclusions, but this in no way makes him unethical.  You put up a post with your side of the story, basically the same information that is on Bearing Drift and NLS, this was ethical.  You gave your commentary, although a bit longer, and the tone was not as kind as the other two.  Yet, I would still say you were mostly ethical in that post as well.  You are Unethical in what you did, in your e-mails, comments on others blogs, and your most recent post with your quote about Jim.  You undermined a blog conference that does not only effect you, you were not “excluded” you were kicked off of the planning committee (it seems cause you were hard for Jim to work with.)

If this really has nothing to do with being “excluded” then you need to drop it, and apologize for lying to Ben and to those electeds.  It seems very simple, Jim is setting up a conference with the AG attending.  Does it make sense having someone VERY outspoken just plain anti McDonnell on a committee asking him to attend?  Does that make sense to anybody?  Also, is it unethical to no longer work with someone whom you cannot get along with?  I can name a large list of people I would NEVER consider working on a blog conference with, both Democrats and Republicans

1. Eileen WAS on blogs united planning committee. (along with Jim and Alton)

2. Eileen called the AG’s office and talked to Tucker Martin.

3. Tucker e-mailed Eileen and others.  (not sure why he e-mailed the others. I have an e-mail sent in to him asking that very question)

4. Jim untactful kicked Eileen off the planning committee, but did have probable cause based on the fact that he is trying to get the AG to attend.  Two, that it is clear Eileen and he should not be working THAT closely together.

5.  Eileen originally claimed she was banned, and e-mailed Democratic bloggers and electeds who were attending.

So, we are down to Jim and Eileen acting Immaturely.  Originally I said “who is in the right? It seems no one…It also seems no one is in the wrong.”  Now I would like to amend that statement.  Yet, I cannot, for it seems if I call someone unethical, the proper response is to call either I or the other person unethical…

First, Eileen lies about being “excluded.”

Secondly, she E-mails sponsors and attendees with the sole purpose of convincing them not to attend . I would very much like to meet these Democrats, just like I am looking forward to meeting the two Republicans.  (It just seems no one is trying to convince them to stay home) I am quite impressed at being able to meet all four candidates at one event. Why must Eileen try to ruin it for the rest of us? I would in a heartbeat drop out of this conference if I felt someone was being unfairly treated, if Eileen was actually “banned” I would very regretfully (I would regret missing the great opportunities taking place, IE meeting DWJ) drop out.

Thirdly, she persists on adding fire to a already out of control situation by saying some rather nasty stuff about Jim Hoeft.  Without giving facts or basis for it, other then “he kicked me off the planning committee.”

Fourthly, The the truth, she has a grudge against the AG.  I have seen her site, and it is quite clear, which is fine by me.  She can like or dislike any politician she chooses.  It just makes things clearer.  now I know why he keeps getting brought up in this.  At first I had no clue what the AG had to do with it, but now I see…

Lastly, why isn’t she happy??  It is clear her and Jim do not get along, does she want to work with him again on the planning committee, and WHY???  Why the shock of not working with someone you can’t stand, and why be upset over it?  In my book, she should be glad, if Jim is so horrid… She should be relieved that he kicked her off, and she didn’t have to leave, and give him more ammo to tastelessly attack her with.

First, I would like to thank Whackette for that wonderful self congratulating welcome.
and the whole Daily Whackjob team for giving me this opportunity to broaden my audience and participate in one of the most talked about fun blogs in Virginia!

Secondly, I would like to discuss some recent actions and events dealing with our local Blogosphere. It seems there has been unrest among a group of bloggers concerning the July 13-15 blog conference. I was first informed of this through an e-mail. Then, I saw several posts dealing with the blog conference, mostly pro with a few regrets and negatives.

Richmond Democrat and blueweeds, sent out their regrets. Richmond Democrat made an interesting point. Should there be a bloggers conference for each party? It makes things run smoother working with like minded people (hence two separate conventions.) I, personally, am really impressed with the idea of a non-partisan blog conference. Yes, I understand there will be many difficulties, but there are many issues that I believe ALL bloggers should be a part of. (ethics)

Which brings up the question, I have been wondering, who has acted ethically and unethically in this brief firefight? Continue Reading »

Daily Whackjob is proud to announce the addition of a new contributor, The Ethical Blogger. Here at DWJ we take ethical blogging very seriously; we are one of the few blogs that actually has a code of ethics. I look forward to EB’s posts. Ok, so really I like EB because he obviously possesses an above average intelligence. Check this out. (Yes, this is also a shameless self promotion.)

Blogging Ethics, is all about treating other bloggers the way you desire to be treated…Regardless of there political affiliation, look at “The Daily Whackjob“, it has several members, ranging from “Flaming Liberal”, “Religious Conservative”, Moderate, Libertarian…and they can still get along, on one blog. It is cause they understand that there opinions are not more important then the people they interact with. If there were more people willing to have real debate then our blogosphere would be in a much better place, heck, our country would be in a much better place. ~The Ethical Blogger 6/28/07