Let's start with a brief recap for those who missed this: In a recent column in The Hill about the Blue Dogs opposition to the public option, Markos confused Tennessee Blue Dog Jim Cooper with Arkansas Blue Dog Mike Ross. The error was quickly corrected and Markos apologized. And somewhere between the mistake and the apology, Cooper managed to find the time to pen a 500-word essay to deliver a scolding:
Usually the writer even interviews the subject of the article. But, unfortunately, Internet standards sometimes fall far short of those ethical guidelines.
... and to make a rather extraordinary claim:
The truth is that I have been a leader in trying to define what a public option really could mean, and I have repeatedly stated that there are several definitions that I support. By my calculation, there are about 18 ways to define a public option and at least half of them could win my support and, in my opinion, a majority in Congress.
Now, leaving aside the idea that a real leader would have come up with one, definitive definition and fought for it, this was still an eyebrow-raising statement -- and so, not wanting to fall short of any ethical standards, I talked to a spokesman in Cooper's office and requested the following:
- To please specify what the 18 definitions are.
- Whether you agree or disagree with the definition(s).
- To state which nine--or more--you publicly pledge to vote for.
And three days later, the response from Rep. Cooper's office:
*crickets*
No word on whether making wild claims that you refuse to back up falls under the category of congressional standards sometimes falling short of ethical guidelines.
And if Cooper ever finds the time between his writing and his fundraising to provide those eighteen definitions, I'll let you know.