For some stupid reason, I watched this bloggingheads tv episode
where Mickey Kaus debates Robert Wright about Kos' supposed "ethical" violations by supporting Mark Warner, because Warner hired Jerome Armstrong, and, you know, Armstrong and Kos are friends. Thus, Kos is unethical (Kaus keeps repeating that it's not illegal, just unethical -- guess he does not want to get sued). We all know Kaus is a complete hack -- a guy who pretends to be a Democrat but loves to bash Dems at every opportunity (as Joe Lieberman is President Bush's favorite "Democratic" senator, Kaus is Instapundit's favorite "Democratic" blogger -- you know, so he can say "even lefties like Kaus agree that [insert RNC talking point here]"). But let's look at his absurd, ethical BS that he pulls. Join me on the flip for the story of Kaus's ethics. . . .
Throughout this episode of bloggingheadstv, this Wright guy goes out of his way to correct himself that Jerome and Kos were NOT partners as of December 2004. Of course, Kaus admits this is right, touts that there is a correction posted on their page (I guess they had said they were partners in another episode), yet Kaus goes on to say that it is still unethical what Kos did (you know, being friends with someone). So, Kaus says he will blog more about this "scandal" and provide more proof that Jerome and Kos are unethical and are supporting candidates they would not otherwise support. Of course, Kaus lives up to his promise and blogs about it today in a post entitled KOSOLAFEST
Kaus writes that while others disagree with him, "I say you don't have to have illegality to have corruption, and this situation reeks of corruption." So what is his ONLY "evidence" of Kos's unethical behavior? Why it is a link to some blog post from October 2005 about Jerome and Kos's supposed switching positions on Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown in the Ohio Senate primary. What does this post continually assert? That Kos and Jerome are "business partners"!!! Does Kaus acknowledge with his link that the blog post (from October 2005 well AFTER Kos and Jerome were no longer partners) is completely mistaken? Does he acknowledge that the whole point of the post rests on the false assumption that Kos did something wrong because he is a "business partner" of Jerome's? No, he does not. Now, let me ask Mickey Kaus something: is what he did ethical? If so, why?
Wonder if he'll answer . . .
I also have a question for certain liberal, and well respected blogger Matt Yglesias: he often appears on Kaus's show, lending Kaus an aura of respectability. Why do you do this? Yglesias and all other respectable liberal bloggers should ignore Kaus from now on -- not because we are unwilling to debate those with differing viewpoints, but because we should not give credibility to unethical schmucks like Kaus, and also because when we debate Republicans like Kaus, they shoudl be identified as such.