I'm always posting here that we should hold republicans to the same standards as dems--if a R does something wrong, we should pounce on him as we would a D. But this is, uh, LAME. A guy used pseudonyms? So what? If the paper selected the letters based on content, what's the big deal? They got hoodwinked, that's their problem.
Samuel Clemens will be happy to hear that.
Big deal. The DNC has thousands of activists working as journalists at newspapers throughout America.
What is the issue?
They gave a conservative view and tried to keep their identity private.
Shouldn't this be titled,
Democrat activists use pseudonyms to get threads posted?
The scumbag paper is only going to print the letters that fit it's agenda. Requiring a name is simply censorship. Try taking an unpopular positions ("we should leave kitties in the tree and not waste fire department time rescuing them" or "smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public, anytime, anywhere") and see the number of nasty calls you get in the early morning hours. The result of the name requirement is the surpression of certain opinions; it is censorship!
And, groups have been doing this for years. The dems do it, of course, but who in the media would dare question that!
The founding fathers did this all the time, e.g., the Federalist was published in newspapers under the name of Publius.
most editors are so f'n dumb they'd print letters by
Seymore Butts and I.P. Freely without a clue.
My real name is J.J. Lackluster...
>>As letters coordinator for the Jones Senate campaign, Vallone said he sent at least eight letters . . .
There was a Jones Senate campaign? Who knew? ;-)
lol! I know Kyle. He's a very, very bright man. And he knows, without a doubt, that this "deception" technique has been used by liberal-democrats for too many years in the San Francisco Bay Area. Really, why should it all matter, NOW?. Liberals have been doing this for so long.