Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology?

Petey_Alchemist writes "With Super Tuesday coming up and the political field somewhat winnowed down, the process of picking the nominees for the next American President is well underway. At the same time, the Internet is bustling through a period of legal questions like Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment. All of these are just a few of the host of issues that the next President will be pressured to weigh in on during his or her tenure. Who do you think would be the best (or worst) candidate on Internet issues?"

A Good Reference

[longacre]

Popular Mechanics' Geek The Vote '08 [popularmechanics.com] has a nice rundown of each candidate's tech policies.

Check the candidate web sites

[polin8]

I was impressed by Obama's technology issues page:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/ [barackobama.com]

The summary points are:

        * Ensure an open Internet.
        * Create a transparent and connected democracy.
        * Encourage a modern communications infrastructure.
        * Employ technology to solve our nation's most pressing problems.
        * Improve America's competitiveness.

The list is pretty much "policy speak" but the detailed initiatives indicate a good grasp of the issues and a reasonable stance on the direction we need to move.

Obama good, Huckabee bad

[abburdlen]

If Obama is good enough for xkcd [xkcd.com] then he's good enough for me.

I imagine Huckabee is the worst on technology issues unless of course they were mentioned in the bible.

Re:Al Gore

[Daniel Dvorkin]

And Vint Cerf agrees [umich.edu] with [politechbot.com] him.

Ron Paul

[d3ik]

- Only person running that voted against the Patriot Act(s)

- Only person running that voted against Sarbanes-Oxley

- Opposes the DMCA

- Opposes the national ID card

- Has never voted to raise taxes

- Returns a portion of his congressional budget to the treasury every year

- He is a Republican who opposes the Iraq War on moral and economic grounds

There's a lot of FUD out there about Ron Paul, and there are a lot of fanatics on the internet who work against him sometimes, but if you look at his voting record over the last 20 years it speaks for itself.

This is a good guy who opposes the big government mentality that so many here on Slashdot rail against.

Re:Check the candidate web sites

[Anonymous Coward]

And he knows his complexity theory [wired.com].

Re:A Good Reference

[Stradivarius]

News.com has candidate interviews [news.com] on technology policies.

Re:Ron Paul

[scubanator87]

He did vote against net neutrality though. http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Technology [ontheissues.org]

Re:Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

Monopolies are nearly all caused by big government. Without the special privileges government gives them it would be extremely difficult to get into a monopoly position, and once there they would have to keep prices low and provide good service, lest new firms arose to compete for that pie.

Big government encourages big business with regulatory and tax structures that encourage bigness. When it takes an army of accountants and lawyers to do business, only those firms large enough to afford an army of accountants and lawyers will do business! Add to that governments at all levels handing out exclusive contracts, and a patent system that explicitly encourages monopoly, then no one should be surprised at these behemoths striding across the land. Stop and think where Microsoft would be today without their government granted copyrights. Even if you agree with the concept of copyrights, their very monopolistic nature demands that they be limited.

Government isn't the solution, it's the problem!

Re:None of them

[cduffy]

Support IRV [wikipedia.org] and there really will be no such thing as a wasted vote. Right now, however, the spoiler effect [wikipedia.org] is very very real.

Re:Ron Paul

[d3ik]

This is a reply to you and the grandparent.

On the abortion issue, half the country wants a constitutional amendment that bans abortion and half the country wants a constitutional amendment that allows abortions. I would say this is a perfect example of a divisive issue that should be left up to the states. The grandparent said "He would allow states to ban abortion"... I would also add "He would enable states to *allow* abortion", even though he is personally opposed to it after being an obstetrician (sp?) for many years and personally witnessing an abortion early in his career.

On free trade, he is probably the candidates most *for* free trade. What we have now isn't free trade, it's managed trade. Ever wonder why there are such high tariffs on steel imports?

He is not anti-immigration, he is anti-*illegal* immigration. There is a big difference there.

Re:Check the candidate web sites

[cduffy]

Lack of universal, affordable health care [...] Is Obama going to toss out the HMOs?

No, but he's going to give them competition [barackobama.com]. Private healthcare plans will remain available, but a publicly funded healthcare plan will be available in addition, providing competition. Individuals will be able to get rebates based on their income level to help pay for whichever healthcare system (be it a private company or the public one) they choose. This may not be "tossing out" the HMOs, but it's surely not going to make them happy.

Foreign policy in a shambles

Yup, it's a mess. However, Obama has a great deal of credibility in the foreign press [ruralvotes.com], and being a relative newcomer to national politics (having most of his experience state-level and below) helps him disassociate himself (and his administration) from the US's disastrous policies of late. Indeed, his stated intention to avoid some of the US's more longstanding and counterproductive policies (like refusing to even talk to folks we disagree with) is likely to do some good.

As for economic issues -- yes, the US economy is a mess. Obama has a plan, of course -- every serious candidate claims they do, after all -- but I haven't looked at the details well enough to support it here.

Re:Ron Paul

[d3ik]

On the first, Ron Paul suggests, reluctantly I understand, that states should handle marriage themselves.

His position, as stated in the Candidates@Google interview, is that marriage is a religious issue and shouldn't be a concern of the state. He said something to the effect of "People can do what they want, and call it what they want, and the government should have no part of it".


On DoE (Department of Education), conservatives have long been lobbying for various subjects, like history and biology...
You're absolutely right. And what role did the DoE have in stopping the Arkansas (?) board of education from adding Intelligent Design to the curriculum? As I recall the people in favor of it were voted out of office at the local level, all without involving the federal government.

I get into similar discussions with people over civil liberties (or lack thereof) in the current administration. They say things like "It's okay, I have nothing to hide. I trust President Bush". I then say, "But what if Hillary Clinton was president, would you have the same confidence in government then?"... and their face usually turns a pale white.

So let's say the Department of Education suddenly decreed that state schools needed to enforce abstinence only education (with this administration that should not be a stretch of the imagination). Wouldn't you want the power (at the local level) to oppose that?

Re:2008 has me disillusioned, politically

[cduffy]

I'm glad you've done your homework; since you're doing so, I'll do mine as well and go try to find references for what you're saying.

Charlie Rangel had called some of Obama's comments about the history behind Civil Rights Act "absolutely stupid"

That quote was defending Clinton after her comment implying that MLK was all talk; if you look at its context, it's surrounded by a mischaracterization of Obama's position as well.

Like his comments about Ronald Reagan.

You mean the comments which were blatently misrepresented by the Clinton campaign [chicagotribune.com]?

My own impression of Obama is of someone who's not in touch with the facts, has no concern with getting them right, and thinks that the country owes him the presidency.

If the sources you've given so far are representative of the factual basis of your impressions, I think you should be a little more careful about where and how you do your research.

Re:Absolute Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

From Marxism of the Right [amconmag.com]:

There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties--I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism--enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace "street" libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We've seen Marxists pull that before.

I agree with what Locke said above. The Libertarianism we are all used to seeing everywhere is a formula: 1) gubmit == evil, 2) market == good, 3) supporting the market absolutely will ultimately lead to a meritocracy that doesn't need any gubmit at all except to enforce contract law, police, and national defense. Which is indeed a batshit crazy formula. No amount of quotes from Hayek, Mises, Rand, or the Cato Institute will turn the street libertarianism that is spouted all over the Internet into tested and successful public policy. Nor can you re-define "free market" at will. "Free market" strictly means in America unregulated capital. Forcing corporates to pay for externalities is precisely the purpose of regulation, and if you think regulation is OK then you aren't really a free marketer. I would suggest YOU look into modern socialist democracies as these come much closer to your idea of what a free market means.

Re:None of them

[NeutronCowboy]

If Paul has no chance, it will be because his positions are interesting at best, and laughable at worst. I like libertarian approaches to a lot of things, but there are some things that a government has to provide if it doesn't want the nation to slide into feudalism.

Re:Check the candidate web sites

[polin8]

Did you actually follow the link and read the policy descriptions? That list is not policy descriptions, it's sound bites. There's significantly more detail on the site. Cynicism is an appropriate attitude to our political process and it's participants but if you don't take the opportunity to back it up with evidence it's just ignorance. So ... I'm not impressed by your lack of effort.

Re:Ron Paul

[Flavio]

Yeah, don't vote for the guy who authored more than 10 books on economics, foreign policy and civil rights and has by far the best voting record in the House of Representatives.

Americans say they want change, but it's all bullshit. When the time comes, they vote for variants of the same old corrupt politicians. Obama may be better than Hillary or McCain, but he's still in bed with big business and his concept of economic responsibility isn't nearly good enough.

When the dollar crashes and you're left with massive debt and no civil rights, Americans will act like this was a complete surprise, as if no one could see it coming. When in fact, the US has been borrowing $2-3 billion PER DAY from the Chinese, and your administration's idea of economic responsibility is giving $800-1200 dollars to every American without mentioning where the money's coming from.

So yeah, you can expect a huge "I told you so" from the Ron Paul people when the time comes. And it won't take 10 years.

Here are a few interesting graphs: http://financialranks.com/?p=33 [financialranks.com]

(For the record, I'm not even American. I'm just pointing out what's absolutely obvious to everyone in the rest of the world.)

Re:None of them

[7-Vodka]

You know, I'll bite on your cointelpro bullshit.
Nothing that Ron Paul has ever said or done is in anyway supportive of racism. He has for many decades supported individual Freedoms and Liberty which are concepts that are diametrically opposed to racism. Racism cannot exist when you have Freedom ideals that treat individuals as such and not as part of a group. Racism comes from creating groups of people and judging likewise.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is the republican candidate with the most support from minorities. It has been pointed out time and time again and unless you start accusing non-caucasians of throwing their support behind a racist candidate in some uninformed way (yeah right) you have no argument.

Everything that Dr. Paul has ever done and all the ideals he stands for seek the end of racism. The entire accusation was constructed by professional counterintelligence personel. The same types who run scenarios on stealing elections and what would happen if they were to assassinate Ron Paul.

Unfortunately for them anyone who actually looks into it or even just hears his side of the story [youtube.com] will realize it's a joke.

Also, calling a respectable candidate who's served in congress for 20 years and has a respectable record a "batshit crazy racist loon" is quite possibly the worst ad hominem attack I have ever heard in my life. It shows you have no ground to stand on to debate his views without distorting them and have to focus on attacking the man.

But it's ok, the vast majority of people see through your games little cointelpro agent and we'll be knocking on your door soon demanding you pay your dues to our society.

Re:Check the candidate web sites -- and web hosts

[rjamestaylor]

As the AC pointed out, it's BARACK (not BARAK) OBAMA.

Registered at GoDaddy, hosted by Pair, running Server: Apache/1.3.37 to redirect http://barackobama.com/ [barackobama.com] to http://www.barakobamaa.com/ [barakobamaa.com] which is running Server: PWS/1.2.18.

PWS is supposedly Win98's Personal Web Server... which probably means Barack's web admins have a rich sense of humor.

Re:Barack Obama

[tomhudson]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Economists have been critical of Greenspans 2003 decision to cut interest rates which, they argue, helped create the housing bubble, the collapse of which provoked this summers banking crisis.

So Bush wasn't president at that time?

Or here back in 2004: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/overcoming_the_bubble_economy.php [tompaine.com]

The damage from the overvalued dollar threatens to be even more dangerous. With President Bush largely maintaining the high dollar policy, the trade deficit and foreign debt have continued to rise at a rapid pace. The current account deficit hit an incredible $660 billion in the most recent quarter, more than 5.7 percent of GDP. This deficit will push total foreign debt to more than $3 trillion by the end of this year. On its current path, it will exceed $7 trillionapproximately 50 percent of GDPby 2009.

The deficit is actually $9 trillion, not $7 trillion, and that's a full year ahead of schedule. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"

And I guess Bush never said this back in 2002, which was the signal to lower loan standards http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html [whitehouse.gov] - my comments in italics ...

But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.

One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We now know that not everyone who wants a home should be able to get one just because they can fog a mirror.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

this was the initial go-ahead by Bush for the private sector to eas up on lending standards for mortgages

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

so the mortgage industry came out with all sorts of snake-oil financial schemes, to extend the "dream" everywhere - ev

Re:Absolute Nonsense

[rohan972]

So whatever Paul's ideological reason, there's no reason to believe he'll protect America's people against the telcos.

You can be sure he won't, he would leave that to the states, meaning the telcos would have 50 governments to try to bribe, rather than one.

It doesn't say anything about murder in the Constitution, either...

Hence his position on abortion. Why do you need federal laws on murder, when you have states that can form extradition agreements? (I am not a US citizen and have never visited, I don't know anything about what extradition agreements may already be in place)

FWIW, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution includes, for example, no separation of church & state except perhaps no authorization of a state church itself. If Arkansas wanted a state church, though, that would be OK, since the Constitution doesn't "specifically" prohibit it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Indeed you are correct. A matter already attended to when the people of Arkansas decided on their constitution.

24. Religious liberty.

All men have a natural and indefensible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship; or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, denomination or mode of worship, above any other.

If we try hard enough, I'm sure we can come up with something that you and I both agree should be done by the federal government (in our respective countries) however it is my personal conviction that this ought to be accomplished by amending the constitution rather than ignoring or reinterpreting it.

Re:A Totally Free Market is Best, but ...

[TheoMurpse]

You're kidding, right? I would have thought the connection is obvious:

1. Have health insurance under current employer
2. Cannot afford own health insurance
3. Therefore if starting own business, lose health insurance