Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs 889

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the new-era-of-campaigning dept.
Vote McCain in 2000! writes "McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be. McCain is now asking supporters to stump for him on blogs. Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise for this outreach, calling it 'smart' and 'unique.' McCain's blogger outreach section has a handy list of political blogs which might be interested in hearing about McCain, such as the DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress. You can even report your posts to the campaign and 'receive points for your success,' though the page doesn't say what exactly the points are good for." Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs

Comments Filter:
  • by jeiler (1106393) <go.bugger.offNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:37AM (#23762973) Journal
    I think not. The old fart can go stump for himself.
    • by nycsubway (79012) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:03AM (#23763335) Homepage
      I don't think the parent should be considered a troll. He's merely voicing his opinion of the old fart.
      • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jeiler (1106393) <go.bugger.offNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:09AM (#23763423) Journal

        No, I have to admit it was trollish (not flamebait, though--I was actually hoping for a chuckle or two). Heck, I'll gladly accept the karma burn for it.

        The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him. Back in 2000 McCain was a person whom I could respect--one who stood up for his principles. Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."

        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @11:41AM (#23764871) Journal

          Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."


          Which, to my mind, is what one has to do to get elected. This isn't McCain's fault, it's the fault of a shallow, lazy electorate that here's the word "issues" and flips the channel to watch Survivor.
          • by mhall119 (1035984) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @12:20PM (#23765555) Homepage Journal
            I'm pretty sure that calling the voters shallow and lazy isn't the kind of internet promotion the McCain campaign was hoping for.
          • by tedrlord (95173) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @12:51PM (#23766159)

            Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."


            Which, to my mind, is what one has to do to get elected. This isn't McCain's fault, it's the fault of a shallow, lazy electorate that here's the word "issues" and flips the channel to watch Survivor.
            I was right up there with you until he voted against that torture bill. He was hardline against even our perceived use of torture up until then. If the guy's willing to change his mind on that in the name of politics, I can't trust him.
        • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rei (128717) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @11:55AM (#23765087) Homepage
          It's amazing how much he's changed since then, isn't it? As a registered Democrat, I could actually respect the McCain of 2000. Now he's been voting against his own reform bills, supporting torture, supporting telco amnesty for spying on Americans, and pretty much everything else you could think of.

          By the way -- the summary article got something wrong:

          McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be

          No, the McCain *campaign* is not a stranger to technology. McCain most definitely is a stranger to technology [huffingtonpost.com]. When asked whether he was a Mac or PC person, he responded:

          "Neither, I'm an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get."

          That's right. A president who, this day in age, doesn't know how to use a computer. Makes his policies on tech issues make a lot more sense, though. Back in 1999, running for the White House, this was remotely excusable. Today, it's just sad. A year ago, I set up a older woman who has brain damage with a Linux desktop and net access and she uses it just fine.
          • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by sg3000 (87992) * <.sg_public. .at. .mac.com.> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @03:58PM (#23769387)

            No, the McCain *campaign* is not a stranger to technology. McCain most definitely is a stranger to technology
            I agree -- a person who doesn't know how to use a computer and clearly is uninterested in using one is the wrong choice to lead 21st century America.

            I think it's an interesting contrast that Barack Obama [youtube.com] knew that a bubble sort is a bad way to sort a million 32-bit integers. Although I think it's necessary, I'd hate to see a debate on technology between the two candidates.

            On second thought, maybe I'd love to see one. They could have Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens moderate!
        • by mweather (1089505) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @11:55AM (#23765091)

          The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him.
          There's nothing sad or sorry about not compromising your integrity to toe the party line. If anything, you should do so in every election.
          • by gfxguy (98788) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @12:11PM (#23765399)
            The problem is that McCain has moved left; in 2000 he was fairly solidly conservative. Since then, like the rest of the republican party, he's betrayed his roots. The republicans were left with little choice. Nearly every single elected republican official proved they weren't conservative.
            • Re:Spam for McCain! (Score:4, Interesting)

              by uniquename72 (1169497) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @01:10PM (#23766547)
              No, McCain moved from being 'sort of' a conservative (or at least as close as one gets in the Senate and still remain electable) to a Bush yes-man and neo-con shill.

              I can list a dozen ways he's shifted toward the neocons (off the top of my head: nation-building, torture, abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy in wartime, warrantless wiretapping, campaign finance reform) -- can you list some ways he's shifted to the left?
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:38AM (#23762975)
    Back in 2000, I liked and supported John McCain. He was a maverick not afraid to point out the stupidity of cutting taxes while not cutting spending. He was for small government, against nation-building, and pro-human rights. He told the bible-thumping religious right to go fuck themselves and rightly called George W. Bush an incompetent daddy's boy. It infuriated me when Bush and his disgusting cronies destroyed this good man with their scumbag tactics in my own home state (South Carolina).

    I don't know who this "John McCain" is today, but he's definitely not that man I supported in 2000. I never thought I would see a John McCain who backed Bush, supported unprovoked preemptive wars, wanted to cut taxes at a time when the country is $9 *TRILLION* in debt, and sucked up to the religious right. But above all else, I NEVER NEVER NEVER thought I would see a man who was a torture victim and POW stand up and support that very torture by HIS OWN COUNTRY.

    I was obviously naive to believe in him in 2000, to believe he was anything more than just another hyper-ambitious Washington scumbag who would sacrifice anything to win. I won't ever make that mistake again.

    I guess he wants to hear from supporters. But this FORMER supporter wanted to chime in too.

    • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:43AM (#23763057) Homepage Journal
      Hear hear, I don't have a candidate this election, again. It seems to be becoming a trend.
      • by ubrgeek (679399) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @11:09AM (#23764339)
        "If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires." - Lazarus Long, via Robert A. Heinlein
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mazarin5 (309432)
      Even four years ago, I could have backed McCain, but who's this man I see now? This is astroturfing at its finest.
    • by pubjames (468013) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:51AM (#23763159)
      The question is, how did this change occur? Did they put something in his tea?

      Joking aside I'd really like to know how this dramatic change came about.
      • Joking aside I'd really like to know how this dramatic change came about.
        He was replaced by a robot from Neocon Central Command as soon as it looked like he might actually win the nomination. The real McCain is probably being "entertained" in some dark cellar in deepest darkest Utah...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Frosty Piss (770223)

        The question is, how did this change occur? Did they put something in his tea?
        It is possible that he thinks this is the only way to get elected, and he wants to get elected. The other possibility is that he's eating the crow out of loyalty to his party (he's a military man, he believes in that sort of thing). And yet another possibility is both of these things are true.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NMerriam (15122)

        Joking aside I'd really like to know how this dramatic change came about.

        I'm optimistic enough to think that he's simply playing the game of politics now the way he thinks he needs to, to get elected by his own party (after seeing the dirty tricks and bullshit of Bush 2000), and that once in office when he no longer needs to kiss up to the neocon idiots who still hold disproportionate influence in the party, we'll see the old, genuinely conservative McCain assert himself and tell them all to fuck off.

        I ju

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:57AM (#23763231)

      I don't know who this "John McCain" is today, but he's definitely not that man I supported in 2000. ... I was obviously naive to believe in him in 2000 ...
      No, you were not naive. The simple explanation is this: the John McCain you knew died when his own party turned on him and sold him out in 2000. This is a man who staked his whole life on the Republican party, and was not willing to even entertain the notion of running as an independent because of that.

      He was betrayed by those he trusted most... and it killed him. What you see now is a shell.

      I'd like to believe that the John McCain of 2000 would have paid attention to a report predicting a terrorist attack on US soil, would have gone right to work upon hearing of the attack on the Towers, would have resolved the war in Afghanistan before starting another, would have set strict limits on the use of Guantanamo Bay, would have cracked down hard on abuses like Abu Ghraib, would not sacrifice the Space Shuttle, Space Station, Hubble, and the unmanned exploration of space, wasting billions of dollars, in order to distract the public from his mistakes, and would not simply have left all the decision making to others. Sadly, the McCain of today is not this man.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ogive17 (691899)
      The 2000 John McCain would not get elected in 2008 if he didn't suck up to as many demographics as possible. Maybe once (if) he gets elected you'll see more of the 2000 McCain.

      I'm not sure about anyone else, but I ignore the rheteric until October, then I look for a summary of each cadidate over the previous 6 months. Obama's campaign is trying to call McCain "Bush Jr." while McCain is trying to label Obama as naive and vague.

      I don't think McCain is Bush Jr. and I don't think Obama is naive (althought
      • by smilindog2000 (907665) <bill@billrocks.org> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @11:02AM (#23764205) Homepage
        I agree that McCain is not for the most part McBush. I will call you on Obama being vague, though I agree he makes a lot of vague statements in his stump speeches. In terms of actual policy statements, Obama's been the most precise, broad, and detailed of the entire bunch from the beginning. For example, check out McCain's "Issues" page. He only talks about 14 issues, and in political rhetoric for the masses. Compare that to Obama's issues page [barackobama.com]. He talks about 21. In his book, "The Audacity of Hope", Obama talks in more depth about real policy than I've ever read from a politician. Name an issue, and I'll go look up his position in the book.

        Across the spectrum of issues, Obama is mostly avoiding politics as usual, and is being straight-up with us, unlike McCain. For example, how will McCain save Social Security? No one knows. It's not one of his issues. How will Obama do it? He'll raise taxes and increase the age for receiving benefits. It's not a warm fuzzy answer, but a rare honest one.
    • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:08AM (#23763421) Homepage Journal
      Aren't you glad that the faker in 2000 who's got a new scam in 2008 didn't get all the power in 2000 that Bush got, and then showed everyone he's a fake in 2000, just like Bush did? OK, maybe you're not glad that Bush got those powers, but aren't you glad that McCain didn't lie his way into them the same way?

      Does anyone think it's just a coincidence that both McCain and Bush have become wastefully spending warmongers, now that the 2000 election is over? Maybe you should think about how they're just spokesmodel puppets for a Republican Party that cannot be stopped from wasting American lives and money destroying our government that interferes with corporate rule.
  • by Yetihehe (971185) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:40AM (#23763009)

    Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.
    Just imagine beowulf cluster of those McCain blogs, [...] they do nothing!
  • Yikes (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrphrtq (35942) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:41AM (#23763019) Homepage

    Republican Web 2.0 consultant

    This is a terrifying job title.

  • Har har (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rinisari (521266) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:42AM (#23763053) Homepage Journal
    McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul [xkcd.com], and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts.
  • I wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by demonlapin (527802) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:43AM (#23763059) Homepage Journal

    Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.

    Because /. is neither primarily political, nor a blog, while the mentioned sites are both? Because there aren't a lot of disgruntled Hillary supporters here?

    C'mon, Taco, you have lived through the careers of Lee Atwater, James Carville, Bill Clinton, and Karl Rove. Have you learned nothing about political strategy from the best in the business?

  • by Shajenko42 (627901) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:44AM (#23763067)
    Sending McCain's supporters into the DailyKos is like sending lambs to the slaughter.
    • by halivar (535827) <bfelger&gmail,com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:55AM (#23763205) Homepage
      It depends on how many disaffected Hillary voters still lurk there. DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst. Most Hillary supporters have left the site, but it's worth putting forth a modicum of effort to find them there, nonetheless.

      I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.
      • I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does

        This election has come down to race, sex, and oil.

        Obama won the nomination because he won every state that had a large black population, and they overwhelmingly voted for him, and then, he split the white vote with Hillary. So now, McCain is reaching out to those white voters and po'd women that probably won't for Obama.

        The PO'd women is a huge factor. If McCain picked a woman as his VP -
        • by Woundweavr (37873) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @11:22AM (#23764555)

          Obama won the nomination because he won every state that had a large black population, and they overwhelmingly voted for him, and then, he split the white vote with Hillary. So now, McCain is reaching out to those white voters and po'd women that probably won't for Obama.

          Like Wisconsin, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado....

    • ugh, dailykos...... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Shakrai (717556) * on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:03AM (#23763341) Journal

      Every single negative stereotype you can think of about Democrats/liberals is exemplified by some of the comments on that site. Pulling out words like "racist" or "homophobe" in the middle of a conversation because someone has a principled disagreement with you. I asked once upon a time why that was any better than Republicans who pull out words like "cut and run" if you disagree with them -- needless to say that didn't win me many friends and I got about 30 replies explaining why it was "different" when Democrats do it as opposed to Republicans.

      I consider myself a staunch Democrat and a liberal/progressive in most areas and that site still seems to extreme even for me. Half of the people that contribute there seem more interested in punishing the Republicans for the last seven years then they do in moving forward. They all seem to be extremely pro-Obama yet none of them pay anymore than lip service to the part of his message about disagreeing without being disagreeable and ending the partisan rancor in Washington.

      I'm particularly concerned with the O'Reillyization of our political discourse. The manufactured anger. The one-sided reporting. Automatically assuming the absolute worst intentions of your opponents instead of assuming that they just have a principled disagreement with you. I flirted with Dailykos for about two weeks before my head started to hurt and I couldn't take it any longer. Ditto for Keith Olbermann. Tried watching him -- eventually came to the conclusion that he is little better than a left-wing version of Bill O'Reilly.

      I would love to see a site where people on the left, right and center could come together to discuss the issues in a calm and principled manner. Hell for that matter, I'd love to see some real journalism that didn't slant to one side or the other. Closest thing I can come up with is the Newshour on PBS.

  • by The G (7787) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:45AM (#23763075)
    "Spam lefty blogs with righty ranting to win points!" -- it's like someone created Internet Troll: The MMOG.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:45AM (#23763083)
    Does anyone really believe that he came up with the idea himself?
  • You can't plan... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:48AM (#23763117) Journal
    to have bloggers write about you. It just happens. It's like trying to be cool. You either are, or you aren't. No amount of effort can change the fact your a nerd (or in this case, not a nerd).

    He'll just end up coming across as creepy and forceful.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720)
      That's BS. There has been astroturfing for a very long time, and the best ones at it are the ones who are true believers, and are also subtle.

      McCain asking his supporters to blog on DailyKos is like MS or Apple asking their PR firms to work on web presence. I'm fairly certain that PR firms hired by companies like MS and Apple astrofturf -- but at least on Slashdot we have moderation to tune out some of it (and a realtively informed readbase), so it has to be fairly subtle to work well. I'm not sure I ca
    • by Miseph (979059) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:58AM (#23763259) Journal
      "He'll just end up coming across as creepy and forceful."

      I believe that in the biz that's referred to as "Mainstream Republican".
  • by DeeQ (1194763) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:56AM (#23763221)
    He would do the blogging himself but his wife doesn't have the time to help him with the puter. McCainlol [digg.com]
  • by nojomofo (123944) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:58AM (#23763251) Homepage

    McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be.

    Yes he is: McCain Admits He Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer [huffingtonpost.com].

  • by iguana (8083) * <<davep> <at> <extendsys.com>> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:59AM (#23763265) Homepage Journal
    Uh, effluent?

    "Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise"

    From the MacOSX Dictionary:
    liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea : the bay was contaminated the effluent from an industrial plant.

    See also:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+effluent [google.com]

    Oh, wait. Politician talking about a propaganda plan. I guess effluent is the correct word then. Carry on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by iamdrscience (541136)
      Effluent actually is the correct word, the double meaning is just a delightful coincidence. From Merriam-Webster:

      Main Entry: effluent
      Function: noun
      Date: 1859
      : something that flows out: as a: an outflowing branch of a main stream or lake b: waste material (as smoke, liquid industrial refuse, or sewage) discharged into the environment especially when serving as a pollutant
  • I can help! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nycsubway (79012) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:59AM (#23763275) Homepage
    I can certainly help him blog and get his name out there and what he stands for:

    John McCain is a 'miserable failure', much like George W Bush. (Google take note, please) McCain wants to continue tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations at a time of huge national debt and rising unemployment. He wants to continue giving $2 billion/week to Iraq instead of spending that money in the US to fix infrastructure or develop mass transit to reduce use of fossil fuel. He supports torture of terror suspects. He does NOT support a new GI bill to give money for college education to veterans. He stated that he wants terrorists to see him as "their worst nightmare" (stated in an interview on the Daily Show).

    I'm happy to help him get his name out there. The more people understand what he's now running for (instead of 8 years ago), the better.
  • by kellyb9 (954229) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:04AM (#23763351)
    If I was McCain, I wouldn't worry, Obama may have his "blogs", but McCain has an ENTIRE NETWORK! http://www.foxnews.com/ [foxnews.com]
  • by gringer (252588) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:20AM (#23763609)
    Crooks and Liars? Really?

    I mean, look at a few carefully cherry-picked blog posts from there:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/would-mccain-want-cheney-in-his-cabinet-hell-yeah/ [crooksandliars.com]
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/12/john-mccain-wont-let-the-war-stop-him-from-golfing/ [crooksandliars.com]
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/new-moveonorg-ad-featuring-john-cusack-take-the-bushmccain-pop-quiz/ [crooksandliars.com]
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/mccain-showcases-his-foreign-policy-expertise/ [crooksandliars.com]
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/mccains-evangelical-problem/ [crooksandliars.com]

    I didn't have to hunt far to find those, and I knew I'd find them even before looking, having seen a few posts from C&L in the past. Maybe McCain's old friend Putin, the president of Germany, tipped them off about that site.
  • Points? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MachineShedFred (621896) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:23AM (#23763647) Journal
    So if they're issuing points for trolling lefty forums and keeping score, what score is necessary to earn an appointment to some position in some agency where I'm completely incompetent, yet responsible for nothing; I enjoy a very impressive title and $230,000 a year in salary as well as the best pension and benefits befitting the last remaining superpower nation?

    Or is that on a different scale, like gold stars?
  • Sounds fishy to me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:28AM (#23763727)

    "McCain's blogger outreach section has a handy list of political blogs which might be interested in hearing about McCain, such as the DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress."

    I don't know Think Progress, but DailyKos and Crooks and Liars are prominent left-of-centre blogs. People who post there are probably quite familiar with Mr. McCain already, though that familiarity wouldn't be the kind his campaign might like.

    This sounds to me like it isn't really about campaigning for John McCain, though. It's about setting a bunch of true believers loose to swamp sites that offer opposing viewpoints with trolls. If what I've seen is any indication, these blogs can soon expect to be flooded with posts that feature all caps and lots of pure, unadulterated nonsense.

  • by giminy (94188) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @10:57AM (#23764131) Homepage Journal
    This is pretty much the opposite of a grassroots movement.

    Grassroots: people spontaneously talk about you, support you. Their actions are unpredictable, because, well, they are people and are not guided by a central authority.

    Monolithic: top-down approach where policritter issues organizational guidelines and tells people what to do.

    Looks like McCain is using the monolithic model here. Oops.

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Working...