Truth is the First Casualty of Kos

by Brad Peck

Last Friday Markos Moulitsas, the Kos in DailyKos, put up a fundraising post titled "AR-Sen: Hell to Pay: Chamber-backed group runs racist ad against Bill Halter." After displaying the ad the bulk of the post starts with "The group running this ad is funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce..."

Ok. Let's stop there, because the group "Americans for Job Security" is neither backed nor funded by the U.S Chamber, nor did we provide any funding for political or issue ads to them*. As I told Kos:

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <bpeck@uschamber.com> wrote:

Regarding this post:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/30/862436/-AR-Sen:-Hell-to-Pay:-Chamber-backed-group-runs-racist-ad-against-Bill-Halter

We have no affiliation in any way with the Halter ad you posted on or the group running it.

Thank you,
Brad Peck
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The reply?

From: dailkos@gmail.com[mailto:dailykos@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:07 PM

Prove it.

Really. That was the reply. So I tried again:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Peck, Bradley wrote:

I am sure that you understand the difficulty, if not impossibility, in proving a negative. I am also sure that despite our many policies differences you share our commitment to an honest debate centered on credible facts. Since you are making the allegation in this case it would seem that the burden of proof lies with you, but in the interest of setting the record straight I have again confirmed with every group at the Chamber who does political work that we are not associated with AJS and/or this ad. I also spoke with Stephen DeMaura at Americans for Job Security who confirmed this as well. Mr. DeMaura has also spoken with reporters about the ad and the WSJ has issued this update to their article on it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/05/04/thank-you-stephen-demaura/

UPDATE, 8.55 PM IST: Mr. DeMaura said his group had paid for stock footage for the ad but could not immediately provide more details about the source of the footage or the locations depicted in it. He also confirmed the ad cost around $900,000 to air but said the group was “not associated with the US Chamber of Commerce.”

I would like to again request that your post be updated to reflect this reality.

Sincerely,
Brad Peck

I got back:

From: dailykos@gmail.com[mailto:dailykos@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:50 AM

The Wall Street Journal is as interested in an honest debate as you guys is, which is saying, not interested at all.

How about an email introduction to Stephen DeMaura so I can ask him the source of funding for that ad myself?

I am an optimist, so I tried again:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Peck, Bradley wrote:

It would seem at the moment that interest in an honest debate is lacking more on your side than mine. I do not know DeMaura or have his email address. I spoke with him this morning on the phone at the contact information listed on their website.

Americans for Job Security
107 South West Street, PMB 551
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-3110

http://www.savejobs.org/contactus.php

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking?

From: dailykos@gmail.com [dailykos@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Markos Moulitsas [markos@dailykos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 11:22 AM

You can't have an honest debate without the facts.

And right now, your side of this "debate" is hiding behind unaccountable front groups that refuse to release donor information, and have a well-documented history of flat out lying.

In other words, I don't believe you, and you have given me nothing but your word, and the word of some guy at AJS that you claim you don't even know, that all the documentation showing a connection between the Chamber and AJS is somehow untrue.

You also deny global warming. It doesn't mean I'm going to believe you just because you said so.

The complete email exchange is here. Note, none of "all the documentation" showing a connection between the Chamber and AJS was included in this last email, or in the post for that matter. Nobody around here has any working knowledge of the group, so I did a little searching. Most of the 290 references on Google are in regards to Halter ad, where the connection between the Chamber and AJS was made by Kos, that would be a nice bit of self-validation but there must be more, right? Well, there is this "late 1990's" connection made by Stealthpacs (also copied to SourceWatch):

"Americans for Job Security (AJS) spun off in the late 1990s from a group called The Coalition: Americans Working for Real Change, a group that had been formed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to counteract the extensive soft money spending by the AFL-CIO starting in the 1996 elections."

Which is sort of contradicted by this from American Rights at Work:

Americans for Job Security Founded by American Insurance Association: Americans for Job Security was founded in 1997 by the President of the American Insurance Association, a trade organization that promotes the industry's position on health care and product liability legislation. The American Insurance Association gave $1 million to help launch the group. The group later received a cash infusion in 2000 of $2 million from the American Insurance Association and the American Forest and Paper Association.

So the evidence connecting the Chamber to AJS is old and fuzzy at best, but basically non-existent. Not that lack of evidence is going to cause Kos to correct himself, after all, it might disturb the narrative.

*the part after the comma was added as an update after someone asked me if I was parsing words to get away with having funded them -- which, as I made clear in the emails, we did/do not.

// Update - 7 May 2010 - From the NY Times "Firedoglake and others have described Mr. DeMaura’s group as a “front” for the Chamber of Commerce, but Mr. DeMaura rejected that assertion categorically. And tax forms filed by each group do not suggest a financial link or affiliation. The three directors listed on the group’s 2008 tax return are established conservative political consultants, none with an immediate tie to the Chamber — or, for that matter, to any business besides the political business."

Comments

[Frank]

You are all fools.

Kos is extremely smart and you all sound like pre programmed robots with your "alinsky" talking points.

[Antimedia]

Markos Moulitsas is a liar is sort of a dog bites man story, isn't it?

[Dan]

Geoff said:
"You engaged in a completely pointless exercise. You should have had an attorney issue a cease and desist letter, then file suit 24 hours later when they don't comply."

The fact that the Chamber has not brought a legal action kind of tells you something, doesn't it? Like maybe they don't want to put their money where their mouth is?

[Jim Treacher]

"You might not be behind this, but at least admit that Kos is right about one thing: if you were connected to this you would lie through your teeth about it."

You're a member of NAMBLA.

Prove otherwise.

[uthinkweredumb]

You might not be behind this, but at least admit that Kos is right about one thing: if you were connected to this you would lie through your teeth about it.

[Joe G.]

While I applaud the gentlemanly-approach, this is of the "wrestling with the pig and the pig likes it" type of exercise.

Your very existence is proof of your "corruption" -- if you will.

Tactically, I think the best response is to -- daily, if not more frequently -- call for a retraction, each time pointing to the facts, the emails, and Kos's own words.

He might never change his stance, but he'll move on to something else.

[Geoff]

You engaged in a completely pointless exercise. You should have had an attorney issue a cease and desist letter, then file suit 24 hours later when they don't comply. They're not interested in the truth--the Alinsky book is something you should read if you're going to respond to DailyKos.

[Dupin]

I am not surprised by the response from Daily-kos.

Like others of their ilk they follow the Alinsky school of debate. Simply put, make the accusation and place the burden of proof in any debate on the victim of the smear. That is, unless they are the victims of a smear, then it is different.

[Jerry Trupp]

In Ius Voco Spurius

[Mioke]

" I am also sure that despite our many policies differences you share our commitment to an honest debate centered on credible facts."

And right there is where you made your mistake: you forgot who -- or what -- it was you were talking to.

[Paul Hogue]

I've heard it said by some who have met Moulitsas in person that he is a very likable guy. Unfortunately, it seems he suffers from the same malady on-line as too many of his lefty brethren: Cock-sure, condescending and always convinced he's the smartest guy in the room.

As many argued back in 2004 while the left attacked President Bush's ANG records, asking someone to prove a negative is a logical absurdity. Moulitsas has a law degree and should know that but as you say, it might get in the way of his fight-the-power, faux-revolutionary narrative.