THE REAL ISSUES. Jason Zengerle concedes that, as rumored in the blogofascistsphere over the weekend, the email he attributed to Steve Gilliard was inauthentic. He then pleads that we not "use this minor error to distract people from much larger issues," namely:
Armstrong's troubles with the SEC; Armstrong's relationship with Moulitsas and Moulitsas's pattern of supporting politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant; Moulitsas's attempts to silence liberal bloggers from commenting on these matters; the seeming acquiescence of so many of these liberal bloggers (including Greenwald) to Moulitsas's demands; and now, strangely, stuff like this.
I have to say that I don't understand this at all. Frankly, I think Markos' views on Mark Warner are wrongheaded and I've said so in the past. That said, I have yet to see Zengerle or anyone else adduce a shred of evidence that Markos took money from the Warner campaign, that Markos took money from Jerome Armstrong, or that Markos threatened or otherwise "silenced" liberal bloggers.
Rather, what appears to be the case is that Markos and Jerome, coauthors of a book on American politics, tend to have similar views about American politics. Zengerle's theory about the Liberal Advertising Network being used as a tool of intimidation was totally ridiculous and he never had a shred of evidence to back it up. Markos asked that people not respond to the story, and people respected his request. Quel horreur! Meanwhile, Jerome . . . what, exactly? Has wacky views on astrology? Appears to have committed unrelated financial misdeeds in the past?
Where's the beef in these charges? The evidence? Anything? Or is the idea that Markos should just operate under a presumption of guilt?