Fri 16 Jun 2006
The bizarre 180 that Markos Moulitsas did on DLCer Mark Warner after the 2008 Presidential hopeful hired his mentor Jerome Armstrong has been raising quite a few eyebrows. With eyebrows comes scrutiny.
Chris Suellentrop @ the New York Times Opinionator blog has uncovered that Armstrong’s skills at hyping candidates comes from lessons learned hyping other things online. The Plank pulls out the money quote:
some people . . . compare the blog boomlet they helped create for Dean to the work of online bulletin-board posters who touted dodgy Internet stocks during the boom market without disclosing that they were being paid for their words.
Which, interestingly, is precisely what the Securities and Exchange Commission, in court documents filed last August, alleges that Jerome Armstrong did in 2000. (The original S.E.C. complaint is here.) In a subsequent filing, the S.E.C. alleges that “there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting efforts” on the financial Web site Raging Bull.
Without admitting or denying anything, Armstrong has agreed to a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future. The S.E.C. remains in litigation with him over the subject of potential monetary penalties.
It’s not possible to direct link to the TimesSelect article, but you can currently read it on its main page.
Suellentrop’s column ends with a warning:
Of course, just because a candidate busted once doesn’t mean the experience will repeat itself with the newest netroots darling, whether or not that darling turns out to be Mark Warner. Maybe Warner should be concerned only if he turns out to be a creation of real-estate speculators.
Candidates interested in trying to force the blogosphere by hiring such professionals as Armstrong need to look no further than to the barren landscape that is the opinion that many Ohio democrats have of Sherrod Brown online. Armstrong’s ham handed efforts at manipulating online opinion for Brown were a disaster, and dozens of Ohio netizens that should be Brown’s most fervent online supporters have written his campaign off entirely. Many blame Congressman Brown. Personally I see him as just another babe-in-the-woods investor lured into the flashing web of internet hucksters, and then systematically sucked dry. As a dot con veteran it’s something that I’ve seen many times before.
I generally avoid expressing my opinions of the concentrated liberal powersource that is the Daily Kos. There is so much good about it that I join in in celebrating Kos’s term at the helm. But it’s always been obvious to me that with such a concentration of power comes a tremendous potential for abuse. (To be honest with you, I see my own little domain as having a potential for abuse, although on a much smaller, if not totally insignificant, scale. I try to counter that by always offering every candidate or their chosen representative access to the site, and by trying to temper my vitriol with understanding for other people’s perspectives.)
Eventually the burden that is the effect of the natural dynamics of power will shatter this energy and scatter it to the four winds of the blogosphere where it belongs. Hopefully the event will happen organically through technological evolution, but my fear is that it will come from internal conflict and abuse resulting in islands of Kossack expatriates surviving on their own in the wild against a revitalized opposition. In the mean time those of us online in this great state will continue building a decentralized alternative to the tower of Kos as it continues its quest for the heavens.
UPDATE: This story has grown a few legs:
- TKS > A hopefully-useful Kos-Armstrong timeline
- OTB > Kos - Armstrong Blogola Scandal
- Tapped > LITTLE FISH EAT BIG FISH
Obviously this has been the kind of red meat that the right has been looking for, and they will do everything they can to turn it into a blanket condemnation of the liberal blogosphere. As always, rovian tactics are the answer: Stay on offense. Their house is falling around them. They don’t have the time or the resources to wage an effective effort on this issue, even if the “liberal” media will eat it up because it attacks one of their enemies.
20 Responses to “The Bloga Nostra Draws Heat (UPDATED)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

June 16th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I’ve had my misgivings about Warner, a guy I was high on right after Kerry’s defeat, since his cozy relationship with the big boxes took off.
June 16th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I’ve had my misgivings about kos and Armstrong.
June 16th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
The action is on the ground … in the 3rd congressional district (this cycle’s 2nd district), the 15th congressional, perhaps the 1st congressional and in a dozen or more state house and state senate districts.
Except for maybe the 15th congressional, none of these will make Markos’ needle twitch even once. In Ohio, they will only notice Strickland and Brown.
Yet it is in these smaller areas where the real battles are fought, mostly out of sight.
June 17th, 2006 at 6:17 am
Agreed. That’s why I doubt the benefit of even talking about this stuff. Let them have their fun. It doesn’t effect me. Except that in the case of the Senate primary when it did effect all of us and now they’ve moved on to greener pastures. This time I’m letting my anger get my better judgement.
June 17th, 2006 at 6:45 am
We have to stop treating some races as chopped liver - expendable. We have to fight for all. They are all important. Copy a plan that works, oh I don’t know, like the republican one. They go for every race on all levels. Strickland is important but so are all the state senate and state house races. How much can Strickland do without a Democratic legislature? Every US house seat is important and should be fought. Schmidt is beatable so why aren’t all the Democratic organizations going after Schmidt with everything they have? I’m thrilled for Studebaker and they should line up behind her but they should be lining up behind them all. I seat isn’t going to give them the majority and the republicans are weak this cycle. Go fo it.
June 17th, 2006 at 6:51 am
The Daily Kos’s power is really concentrated. It’s when they’ve picked an enemy to rally around or a subject to investitated. Then the thousands can bring a tremendous amount of energy to a race that it works best. They did this with Paul in the 2nd special (This over the discounting of Kos and Armstrong.) They are doing this now with Lamont against Liebermann. The structure of the site is not designed to assist in the thousands of local races that are happening in a standard political cycle.
To truly tap into the potential the internet has in helping these races, we need to build new tools and new infrastructure. Concentrated monoliths just don’t cut it.
Personally, I want to see local Ohio activists calling the shots when it comes to the net and races, instead of the 800 pound Armstrong/Kos gorilla. Luckily it’s a task beyond their capabilities.
June 17th, 2006 at 7:11 am
Anger can be useful if it focuses the mind.
Local Ohio activists won’t be allowed to call any shots in races under the current system. Walls have been erected around party structures to prevent just that sort of thing.
Party Bossism is our enemy just as much as Ken Blackwell is. Challenge the leadership, locally or statewide, and you become a target. Hackett found this out as did Chandra.
Both men were chewed up and spit out. Hackett is obviously bitter (and why not?). I don’t know if Chandra is publically bitter, but he would have every right. Both men are tremendous assets to the Democratic party and should remain so.
It also happens on a local level as my family found out in a smaller but no less nasty way.
Breech the wall, drain the swamp and fix the system. That is where our anger should be focused.
June 17th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Great post, Editor.
Much of the recent anti-Kos sentiment seems rooted in elitist hostility on the MSM’s part towards citizen journalism and blogs in general (see Mickey Kaus) or resentment on the part of D-Kos-ers that Kos has decided to highlight Warner and not “their” favorite candidate. But I think your points get to the heart of the matter and the main flaws in Kos’s approach…
The dailykos community is increasingly behaving like an interest group. And I think that, generally speaking, it’s a spectacular interest group. It engages a wide variety of people, it raises significant portions of money, and is genuinely guided more by realism than ideology.
But blogs and the role of the internet in grassroots politics, cannot be codified in the dailykos model- for the reason you stated. What any kind of monolithic authority gains in fundraising power, it loses in broader participation and credibility.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kos that Warner is an intriguing 2008 candidate. But I also empathize with the concerns of other bloggers who feel threatened by Kos’s power in branding a particular candidate a “netroots-endorsed” candidate. Just because I may agree with Kos this time doesn’t mean I agreed with him the last time or I’ll agree with him the next time. And the power he as an individual wields in setting the agenda seems doomed. Kos is captaining a ship that is best sailed without a captain.
If Dean’s 50-state strategy is indeed a long-term winning strategy (as I believe it) then Buckeye State Blog or this blog are much better at achieving those aims. Afterall, all politics are local. Blogs should be as well.
But the flip side is that even decentralized political efforts still have a central power source. Perhaps Kos is that power source?
June 18th, 2006 at 11:52 am
There are times when I’ve disagreed with Kos (like on Warner), but other times I’ve agreed like with Dean. So I’m not upset with him. We all have our candidates; that’s what democracy is all about.
Sometimes people climbing the ladder of influence - whether it be political or in blogs - resent the people further up the ladder. Instead they should all be working together to maximize their strength and influence.
God knows many - if not most - of the DC insiders and the Columbus insiders sure resent any outside influence whether it be the blogs or ordinary Dems.
Dean rose because he appealed to both. Hackett did also. Right now Kos may be supporting Warner, but the polls on his site (and I’ve voted in them) sure show a lot of support for other candidates like Russ Feingold, Gen. Clark, and Al Gore. It’s likely that one of them or another candidate - more than Warner - will emerge.
We admire Markos for what he’s mobilized, but we can differ with him on issues or candidates. Unless something dramatic occurs, the next Dem nominee will be someone who presses progressive issues and causes. That is where the energy and emotion are coming from. Witness the rise of Lamont against Lieberman.
Voters are just fed up with this administration and GOP dominance. It’s their corruption, their failure to deal with REAL issues, and the cycle of politics. Enough with gay marriage and flag burning! Deal with Iraq, jobs, health care, pensions, and the rising cost of colleges!
The GOP era won’t last much longer — if we can get an honest vote count! That’s crucial for November! Let’s all work together - arm in arm to kick the bastards out!
June 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
The Armstrong story is disturbing on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.
A stock-touter? Yup, from the complaint:
8. On March 6, 2000 and after, Jerome Armstrong (”Armstrong”) promoted BluePoint on the Raging Bull internet site, which carried hundreds of posts about BluePoint. Armstrong received undisclosed compensation from Markow and Goelo in return for his posts.
15. Armstrong, directly and indirectly, has engaged and, unless enjoined, will continue to engage in acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of the touting provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, Section 17(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. ยง77q(b)].
69. Markow and Goelo orchestrated a scheme to arrange for individuals, including Armstrong, to tout the BluePoint stock. Armstrong posted over eighty times on the BluePoint message board located on the Raging Bull website in the first three weeks. He praised BluePoint’s investment value and encouraged traders who were having trouble getting their orders filled to keep trying. Armstrong never stated in his posts on the Internet that he was being compensated for making the postings. However, Goelo and Markow compensated Armstrong by transferring stock in three separate companies to Armstrong at below market prices during the relevant time period.
74. Armstrong made at least $20,000 from selling the shares of the three securities he received from Markow and Goelo.
Note: This is ONLY on those securities and doesn’t include any other compensation or profits he may have made on Blue Point shares he may have owned. The prosecution is being careful not to overstate its case.
104. At all times alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Armstrong, by engaging in the conduct described above with respect to BluePoint, used the means or instruments of interstate transportation, or communication in interstate commerce, or the mails, to publish or circulate communications which described securities for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly from the issuers, without fully disclosing the receipt…..
The prosecutor filed the case in April 2003.
Jerome Armstrong essentially did the kinds of things normally associated with unscrupulous conservative Republican types: playing the system, manipulating stocks, and cheating who knows how many ordinary investors.
Mark Warner shouldn’t be within 100 miles of Jerome Armstrong.
Kos’s willing association with Armstrong that goes back to a time that may actually be before the prosecutor filed the case raises more questions about his character and credibility than I can even begin to list.
These two (one essentially proven corrupt, one highly suspect) in major leadership roles in the Democratic Party have the potential to set the party back for decades.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Tom,
Let’s not rouse unnecessary rabble. How is Kos “highly suspect?” Just because he is associated with Armstrong? If D.C. operated by a “guilt by association” code, everybody in the whole damn city would be “highly suspect.”
Based on the report, Armstrong touted stocks of companies he was receiving compensation from, thereby violating a law whose only punishment is “a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future” and “potential monetary penalties.” Comparing that to unscrupulous conservative Republicans is quite a stretch, given such notable examples of the latter group as Frist, Libby, Cheney, DeLay, etc.
And I really hope you’re not serious when you say that “these two…have the potential to set the party back for decades.”
June 18th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Ann,
Having a political consulting firm together and co-authoring a book is a lot stronger than an “association.” It appears to be a lot closer to a “joined at the hip business relationship disguised as political advocacy.”
I re-read the Times piece, and I’ve looked at the intro to the Salon piece and other items. I’m attempting to read into Armstrong’s character, or lack thereof. Armstrong appears to be a hardened, experienced and IMO unreformed scam artist and manipulator who, based on his conduct in Brown v. Hackett and other things, has imported his sleazy tactics into politics. Kos’s relationship with this guy is at a minimum a potentially big problem for Kos, and at a maximum an indication that he is of the same mindset.
Kos’s “bizarre 180″ that Chris refers to is a red flag that Kos may have no guiding principles besides achieving power by whatever means possible.
IF, IF my worst fears about their true natures are correct, and if they achieve controlling power of the Democratic Party and the liberal agenda, which appears to be their long-term intent, Kos and Armstrong indeed have the potential to set the party (as opposed to liberalism or progressivism itself) back for decades.
To be clear and fair: The Dick Devos-Council on National Policy types who appear to already largely control the Beltway Republican Party likewise have the potential to set the GOP (not the conservatism in general, but the GOP) back for decades, for different reasons.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Tom,
You raise some valid points. However, point remains that Kos hasn’t done anything legally wrong and you’re casting aspersions at him for a relationship he has with Armstrong, whose allegedly corrupt activities have absolutely nothing to do with any of his associations with Kos.
About his “180″ on Warner, I really don’t think it is a 180. Kos, despite railing constantly against the DLC, has talked at great lengths about the realist- rather than idealist- goals of the netroots. For example, in Crashing the Gate, he discusses how idealistic purity on the part of pro-choice groups jeopardized Dem chances in the Senate seat in Rhode Island. So, Kos being intrigued by Warner, is in keeping with the political philosophy he has espoused elsewhere. Now, whether or not it is a Machiavellan power ploy based upon Armstrong’s work for Warner or an honest expression of political will, we don’t (and can’t) know. But I don’t think it provides substantial evidence to impugn his character.
Really, what this all gets down to, is a debate about the integrity of Kos (I don’t know and I don’t think enough evidence is out there to support a pro or con view) which illuminates the exact problem with consolidating the power of the internet grassroots in a few figureheads.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Ann, I agree with a lot of your last post, and rather than quibble, I’ll just say that your concern about consolidating the power in a few figureheads is an important one. I think the conservative side has done a better job of not doing that (so far).
June 19th, 2006 at 9:24 am
[…] Jerome Armstrong is the latest of the Big Box Bloggers to be shamed. First we had the vitriolic Armando who was outed as a corporate lawyering shill for WalMart, now we have Jerome who apparently was a pump and dump kid back in the day. Chris at OH02 has about the best take, where he includes this quote: some people…compare the blog boomlet they helped create for Dean to the work of online bulletin-board posters who touted dodgy Internet stocks during the boom market without disclosing that they were being paid for their words. […]
June 19th, 2006 at 10:06 am
A new piece in New York post today indicates that Armstrong was in the habit of touting stocks and that Blue Point was not isolated; but no, there are no other specific circumstances named:
http://www.nypost.com/business/shill_to_hack_business_roddy_boyd.htm
June 20th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
[…] Full disclosure: I am currently a paid staffer for Dr. Victoria Wulsin. I first got my start in blogging as an early supporter of her candidacy in the special election primary last summer, which Paul Hackett ultimately won. In light of the recent discussion regarding the dubious ethics of some of the biggest liberal bloggers in the nation, I think it’s especially important to emphasize disclosure and transparency. […]
June 21st, 2006 at 10:18 am
[…] So says one Democrat blogger Chris Baker: […]
June 21st, 2006 at 7:16 pm
The Party of “Pump and Dump”?…
May 26th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
[…] that there were more examples (my SOB Alliance Post [original source for much of the material is OH02, Tom Maguire with links to docs and to the NY Post […]