Dan, Hegedus’s standard disclosure on her posts is that she “works” for Fitzpatrick and she posted a blog entry showing a video of her speaking for him as a surrogate at a GOP event. That, to me, goes beyond the general volunteer who stuffs envelopes or goes door to door. The word “working” usually implies a financial exchange — paid word, as opposed to volunteering.

While I would enjoy reading the GOP viewpoint on a variety of races, most of Hegedus’s posts have been on races where she discloses she is working for a candidate. That isn’t giving someone a general platform but providing them free advertising for their business. Nor is a consultant likely to say anything detrimental to their client. And I think that is what people are objecting to.

Granted I am partisan but to provide some perspective, I have truly enjoyed Adam Lang’s posts and what he has written has given me a lot of food for thought.

Thanks for the honesty, it’s a breath of fresh air.

The way I see it, Beth is a supporter of Fitzpatrick. That’s the word: Supporter. I agree that “working for” may suggest a paid position, but not in the political world, where they always use that terminology. . .”I’m working for Joe Smith. . .” Lighten up.
As for pa2010 and all the bloggers…Keep on giving us the inside scoop — and don’t kill the messengers.

[...] bloggers including myself, Hirschhorn reversed his decision and reinstated the post along with an explanation about the situation.  At that point, someone apparently removed the full-length video from [...]

I think that people who write for this site should decide whether they want to be journalists or not. Even the most partisan columnists in the national media still maintain the journalistic integrity to not work directly with campaigns if they want to call themselves journalists. Dan, you need to hold the people here to a high journalistic standard if you want this site (and blogging as a legitimate media) to be taken seriously.

Never much intellectual horsepower behind any of Beth’s writings. To save the credibility of this site, I would get rid of her – or only let her cover races that she is not working on.

Beth Hegedus is a super lady, fine writer, and very ethical. She’s always disclosed her Fitzpatrick affiliation. Media is changing. These days, everyone with a camera is a videographer, everyone with an internet connection is a journalist.

Nonpartisan means not having campaign workers write your posts for you slamming their opponents, and yes, volunteers do count.

She is not non-partisan and is peddling her own agenda, be responsible and ask her to step down.

I totally disagree with the comments above. I don’t think it’s necessary for any of the columnists on this site to leave or be fired or anything else. Having partisans speak their piece is a good idea and makes for lively debate, which is always a good thing.

But with Beth Hegedus – or anybody else posting here who is also in a staff position with a candidate – part of the deal should always be that the content posted here will certainly reflect on the campaign and the candidate, as well as the author. The author is always speaking for the campaign.

What I noted from the beginning with the Open Letter to Patrick Murphy post was that the embedded video contained images that were graphic and possibly offensive to some. I took issue with a campaign that would use those images to make its argument. And I also strongly lobbied for a warning to be attached to the video (which, incidentally, has still not been done).

Dan might want to consider adding brief, prominent bio material to each of his featured columnists, so the rest of us could know just what it is that qualifies them to be here. I know I’ve wondered about that. For example, what’s up with that kid at the bottom?

This is Dan H’s blog, and he can run it as he sees fit. So far, it’s about the best thing going for info in PA.

Beth H. posted the somewhat over-the-top video on her own initiative, and because of her obvious strong feelings about the issues covered in the video.

Mike Fitz did no request or approve the video. The fact that someone is a campaign volunteer does not mean that the individual “speaks for” the campaign at all times.

Beth should stand by her convictions, but she should also clarify that not everything she does or says is at the request of, or with the approbation of, the Fitzpatrick campaign.

As for the “kid at the the bottom”, I like his writing, and I wish more young people would take an interest in the future direction of our country.

How in world would you know what “Mike Fitz” did or did not approve or request?

As for Beth Hegedus, she has represented herself here and elsewhere (for example: “Below is a recent video of me speaking on behalf of Mike Fitzpatrick at the Abington Township Republican spring dinner…”; posted here at http://www.pa2010.com/2010/04/me-and-fitz/)as exactly what I called her: a Fitzpatrick staffer and spokesperson.

Sorry, she doesn’t get to have it both ways. If she is on the Fitzpatrick staff, what she posts here will always reflect on the Fitzpatrick campaign.

And I completely agree that Dan — like any blog owner – gets to call the shots. But as a good blogger, Dan has also created a community here. And community members should take an active role in asking questions and making suggestions about how the blog works and how it could work better.

Because I know.

I guess we can disagree as to whether she is always speaking as a representative for the Fitzpatrick campaign.

Bottom line, she went off half-cocked, then realized that she made a mistake and tried to have it undone.

If Mike approved of it, she would not have been calling Dan H. the very next day asking him to throw the post down a memory hole.

Not an issue.

At best this is a distraction from the topics of concern that will truly decide this election; jobs, the economy, national security etc.

On the contrary, it’s an issue for sure.

I’m not a voter in the 8th, but if I was I’d want to know:

- what candidate Mike Fitzpatrick has to say about a member of his campaign staff posting those images in his name.

- Does he believe that photos of mutilated fetuses are something his campaign should be associated with?

- Who else on his staff had a hand in producing that video and placing it on YouTube?

- Does he believe that showing graphic images of mutilated fetuses is the proper way to handle the question of a woman’s right to choose?

Lots of questions that I hope members of the press will be asking the next time they get together with Mike Fitzpatrick. I think these are far from a distraction; they are questions that will determine what kind of campaign Mike Fitzgerald is running.

Now I know a hack like JD Mullane wouldn’t ask those questions, but I’m sure a real journalist will.

Again — Fitzpatrick, not Fitzgerald. Sheesh!

You can try to push this all you want, but I don’t think you’ll get much traction.

Does he believe that showing graphic images of mutilated fetuses is the best way to advocate for the sanctity of life?

I’m sure he does not, and I’m sure we will never see anything like this submitted with the imprimatur of the campaign.

When you run for office a lot of people become hangers-on, and you can’t always control what they do. Doesn’t mean you agree with either their message, or their medium.

If the people of the 8th dist want Murphy out of office, and all indicators show that they do, Fitzpatrick will win, Hegedus video notwithstanding.

Mullane has savaged Fitzpatrick, by the way. So I don’t really see your basis for calling him a “hack”.

Yep, not much traction. Just another example of the damn liberal media jumping all over Republicans. Or not.

No, of course you seem to be right – I really don’t expect this to ever get written about for a number of reasons, chief among them that local papers have no interest in kicking the hornet’s nest of abortion unless they’re absolutely forced into it. And nobody is going to force them to touch this one.

Even though they most definitely should.

As for Mullane, I’d never heard of the guy before this week when the Hegedus brouhaha brought him to my attention.

Seems to be just another in the Spencer-Huskey-Phyrillas chain of wingnut opinion writers populating the Philly suburbs. Anybody that complains about a “liberal media” has never read the suburban dailies that ring Philadelphia and reach a collectively bigger audience than the Inquirer and Daily News combined. I’m sure Mullane was pulling hard for the Tea Partier who ran against Fitzpatrick in the primary; apparently most of the Beck-heads up in PA-08 feel that their Repub candidate isn’t far-right enough to suit them.

By the way — what people (other than the Tea Party crazys who were captured in that Hegedus video shouting down and harassing Patrick Murphy) have given any indication of wanting Murphy gone?

Everything I’ve read says that seat is pretty safe, and Murphy has a great following. Everyone I’ve met from PA-8 is proud of the great job Murphy has done keeping taxes down and can’t wait to send him back for another term.

Finally, it’ll be interesting to see how Beth Hegedus reacts to being called a “volunteer” and “hanger-on” and pretty much being forced to take the fall for this. If she’s not the only staffer involved, I’m not sure that the campaign can feel very comfortable cutting her loose like that.

They’ve pretty much trashed her reputation. She can’t be happy about that.

Hegedus Hullabaloo – I – Potential Personal Bias

Because the content/thrust of disclaimers is particularly at-issue, here, this posting starts with two key-recognitions.

Beth has been a friend for years (despite extended hiatuses). She is a whirling-dervish of a social-interactor, and she is heartfelt in her dedication to pursuing her beliefs. Indeed, perhaps two months ago, she raised the issue conversationally about her potential to blog regarding the 8th District race [vide infra]. She is strong externally, even as she is personally “feeling her way” when delving into shark-infested waters.

She served to introduce many people to Mike, who immediately conveys the type of candor that proves refreshing when contrasted with public/private evasions that emerge when confronting the typical-politician with uncomfortable-queries. He shares a “life is too short” approach to tackling tasks, and motivates supporters to mirror his worriment about all-things-Obama.

This is what has led to personal involvement with Mike’s campaign on multiple levels ($/attendance/blogging) during 2010, and this is what has prompted postings that attempt to clarify/enlighten rather than merely to opine/extol.

As a result of having entered this fray, unknown individuals have strayed into directing personal attacks; these ad-hominem rants have been tersely addressed…on the way towards transitioning overtly to the issues germane to the independent voter/thinker/citizen.

It is with this mindset that this raging controversy–which appears to have smoked-out the “usual [compositional] suspects”–is to be probed….

Hegedus Hullabaloo – II – Observations

I watched the “offending youTube video,” and failed to view it as offensive; being “multiple-choice” regarding the abortion issue, I “noticed” the fleeting imagery that some have found so offensive and, frankly, it seems that those who should be anticipated to harbor “liberal” personal-expression beliefs are taking umbrage over a target that is more “political” than “ethical.”

Yet, taking everyone @ his/her word, it can be reasonably concluded that a take-away message could be adopted regarding the desirability of providing a “viewer-warning” under such circumstances in the future. It is, perhaps, this delayed-sense of recognition that prompted Beth to contact Dan, although awareness of this entire situation has only just emerged (personally).

What one individual wisely noted (but which has seemingly/unfortunately been lost-in-the-shuffle) is that the video ended with an overt-statement of what the intended outcome should be (replacement of Murphy with Fitzpatrick) and an overt-provision of citations (which no one has disputed).

That said, let’s see how this posture accommodates reasonable commentary retroactively….

Hegedus Hullabaloo – III – Assessments

Thematic among the more “legit” entries is the claim that Beth “can’t have it both ways” because she should choose (with regard to her preferred candidates) either to blog or to promote. Yet, also noted are the factoids that others with professed-biases are accommodated on this website and that she is not a paid-staffer.

Indeed, her admitted-focus has been (successfully) to rev-up awareness of this race within MontCo, no easy-task. Being so well networked, she has facilitated the ability to introduce Fitzpatrick to myriad local-leaders…and he has done the rest.

Therefore, any (c)overt effort to dismember this relationship is to be resisted, even as there is “plausible deniability” evinced from the official campaign. On the one hand, it is legitimate to query both candidates regarding how they view (and have acted upon) this perennial social-issue; it is quite another approach to sensationalize it, @ the expense of the “hotter” topics of jobs/budgets/deficits…and the “hottest” throbbing topics of Foreign Policy and Constitutional Limited Government.

Yet, one final concern must be confronted….

Hegedus Hullabaloo – IV – Conclusions

Every effort is made to integrate all pending concerns when tackling a given controversy and, thus, the “reasonable man” would ask if these postings have adequately articulated what should transpire in the “go forward” mode. In short, should any behavior–beyond the re-introduction of Beth’s column and, perhaps, a greater sensitivity to the need to provide “informed consent” when uploading potentially-unsettling hyperlinks–be altered as a result of this rather public laundering of self-soiled clothing?

Nope. Adherence to Freedom-of-Speech (particularly by someone who is in a position to be in-the-know) must prevail. Beth should continue to write (with customary disclaimers), Beth should continue to advocate (with customary sincerity), and everyone should remain issues-focused.

That video eviscerated Murphy, simply by recording his own words for posterity. Granted, it was a bit “stylized,” but the “message” was unambiguous. Regardless of one’s personal posture on the “Life” issue, hypocrisy was exposed on this (and other) major fronts.

Now, when will Murphy hold a Town Hall
(for an exchange of ideas with constituents) and debate Fitzpatrick (for an exchange of positions with his putative-replacement)?

OK, leap-frogging back to my comment before the, um, long-winded Dr. Sklaroff joined in, here’s a prime example of a Bucks Repub sounding off about his/her dissatisfaction with Mike Fitzpatrick (got it right that time!):

http://tinyurl.com/2dndsab
(from a pre-primary comment thread)

I am also one of those who won’t vote for Fitz if he wins the primary. I would rather beat Murphy in 2012 with a real conservative – and besides, I do not think Fitz can beat Murphy since independents and moderate Dems can not stand Fitz. I can not vote for a flip-flopper and still have not heard a good explanation from Fitz on why, during his one term in Congress, he co-sponsored Card Check and the Safe Climate Act of 2006 (Cap and Trade) and received a “D” from the National Taxpayers Union. Fitz was the poster boy for earmarks, was against Drilling, and even voted against the American Made Energy and Good Jobs Act of 2006. But the biggest reason, I will not vote for Mike is that I hate the pay-for-play going on with the Bucks GOP (local GOP commissioners routinely buy bonds from a company which is owned by Bucks Vice Chair Pat Poprik who outsources the corresponding legal work to Mike Fitzpatrick’s law firm). That is why the local GOP hates Gloria (Carlineo) so much, they do not want the gravy train to stop…”

Seems like there’s a lot of that sentiment swirling around the Fitzpatrick campaign.

Negative ghostrider.

A handful of people sitting in front of a computer can create the false impression that there is strong (negative or positive)popular opinion about something, or someone, when in fact there is not.

This blogger that you quoted cares primarily about gun rights, almost at the exclusion of every other issue. The blogger is supporting Harry Reid for example, because of his evidently favorable 2nd amendment voting record.

An interesting blog you quoted, penned by a gun-rights oriented political junky, but not a voice for mainstream Republicans in the 8th dist.

Again, Fitzpatrick got over 76% of the vote in a four-way primary. If that is not a mandate, I don’t know what is.

About Carlineo, nobody “hated her”. She was merely unqualified, and in way over her head in running for congress. So she tried to make up for her lack of credentials by picking fights with everyone just to prove that she was a “tough” campaigner. So yes, she annoyed more than a few people.

The true response to Fitzpatrick in the 8th district is far more evident from the way people react to him when they actually see him on the street or at events.

If you are not in the 8th dist, and you spend most of your time in from of a computer screen, you wouldn’t know this, however.

Mmmm, OK, er, hulk

Actually, I completely agree re: “a handful of people sitting in front of a computer” creating a false impression. In fact, on a site like this one, all it takes is one. We’ve faced that with the Sestak campaign in the primary and now, again, in the general.

And as I said at the top, I’m not in the 8th, so it’s not as if anything I get is from being on the ground and involved.

I’m sure Fitzpatrick is a nice enough guy; but like all moderate Repubs these days, he’s going to have to tap dance his way between the fringe right-wing zealots that demand purity on the fringes and centrist independents who voted for Murphy and Obama in 2008 and want no parts of the Tea Party insanity.

I don’t see any path that wins this for him, unless he lucks into a national landscape where the economy tanks badly between now and November.

By the way, I’m in front of the computer a hell of a lot less than you might think. I write fast.