McCain Campaign Uses Spider/Diff Against Obama 1171
Vote McCain in 2008! writes "McCain's campaign is doing everything it can to erase Obama's online advantage, this time they ambushed Obama by detecting edits to his website when he updated some of his policy positions. This isn't the first time the Republicans have shown up the Democrats with their web savvy — you may remember the previous reports about the Republican Web 2.0 Consultants and their online campaigning game. This just proves that old Republicans can learn new tricks." Assuming the spider adheres to robots.txt, this is clever and well done.
the third parties are running idiots too..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's high time we the people just say no to the corrupt two party system. It's time we got off our lazy asses and learn about the alternatives available outside the corporate-approved "choice" spoon-fed to us by Big Media. Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same.
Just three weeks ago I would have argued with you about this. Then Obama flip-flopped on FISA and voted for a bill containing telecom immunity. In so doing he lost my vote and my support. The only thing I would dispute is that the third parties really offer a better alternative. Consider:
Bob Barr: Witch-burning [religioustolerance.org] religious lunatic that led the impeachment of Bill Clinton and somehow gets to masquerade as a libertarian. Could they really do no better than this guy?
Ralph Nader: Left-wing crazy that thinks we should nationalize the energy industries (even I don't lean this far to the left) and expand the nanny state.
McKinney: Don't know a lot about her yet but the initial reading is not very promising [wikipedia.org]. Seems to have a huge chip on her shoulder and is probably at least as far to the left as Nader is.
I won't be voting for Obama or McCain but I don't see how I can support any of these crazies either. I'll sign their petitions for ballot access if asked but I fear that my vote for POTUS may wind up being blank this year :( I'd love the chance to meet Bob Barr and ask him directly if he's changed his tune on wiccans/neo-pagans -- a satisfactory answer might get him my vote. The others don't stand a chance though.
Re:New Meme (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not pencil in Powell as a candidate on the ballet?!
Re:it could be worse.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I voted for Bush. Twice. The first time because I actually liked him better than Gore, and the second time because I cannot stand John Kerry or John Edwards and thought (and still think) that they would've been even worse. I've been a lifelong Republican because they used to be a conservative party, but this year I'm completely undecided.
Jesse Ventura only serious contender I can support (Score:3, Interesting)
Every other potential third-party candidate is either some cause-oriented nutjob (a wacko wanting to abolish taxes, a wacko environmentalist, or just a straight-up wacko) and/or someone who has shown no capacity to actually win a serious public office. Ventura isn't a nutball and has actually won serious public offices (leaving office with the highest approval rating of any governor in Minnesota history).
Re:it could be worse.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Vast increase in federal spending!
That's bad enough but you forgot "while reducing Federal income by slashing taxes" at the end.
They morphed into a me-too-but-more party.
Indeed. To quote a friend of mine: I'd rather be a tax and spend Liberal than a borrow and spend Republican. At least the Dems are pretending to have a way to pay for their proposals -- the Republicans just want to put it on the national credit card.
Re:New Meme (Score:2, Interesting)
Until we change our voting system to something like Instant Runoff [wikipedia.org] voting, the large parties will never be beaten because voting for a 3rd party really is throwing away your vote.
Another big impediment to changing the voting system is getting people to understand it. They are used to simple voting procedures. Now, say American Idol switched to Instant Runoff or some other voting system (implemented backwards, I suppose, for choosing losers instead of winners). People would immediately see the benefits and grow to trust it. In time, with much luck, the people will demand a change in voting procedures.
Re:the third parties are running idiots too..... (Score:2, Interesting)
We can allow telco immunity, but *should* let the market speak for us and move to telco's that didn't comply (Qwest? Maybe others?).
Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. But strangely enough, where I live, Qwest is not allowed to provide telephone service.
Really. They have lines that run through here and everything, but they're legally not allowed to provide telephone service.
So if the telecoms didn't go along with the warrantless wiretaps, apparently the penalty was laws that refused to allow them to provide service.
And this is in a Democrat-dominated state. Don't think this is just Republicans. Democrats want warrantless wiretaps too, and are willing to punish those who don't give them.
Wouldn't it be nice if the US actually was a free market and we were allowed to vote with our dollars? Sadly...
Re:the third parties are running idiots too..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New Meme (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing that can excuse this. I don't care if Cheney took his family hostage, he had a duty to be honest to the American people and he failed.
Re:The Goods (Score:1, Interesting)
But when you make it look like it was ALWAYS your policy, then you get into the level of dishonesty.
Vote Third or Fourth Party (Score:5, Interesting)
As a fellow Brit, it's almost ontopic to reply here :p
I wrote a JE [slashdot.org] a while back, asking people to vote third or fourth party, even if they could "make do" with one of the "main" parties. The interesting thing is that reasons to do so do not rely upon faith!
A number a years back, I did some campaigning for the Liberal Democrats; I no longer consider myself to be party political, but their campaign techniques were interesting. The most interesting was the "reverse squeeze". The way that that works is that the Lib Dems would go after either Labour or the Tories, whichever had the fewest votes in the seat. Once their support went down, the numbers voting for the other team would come down in roughly equal numbers.
In other words, one vote fewer for one of the main parties implies approximately one fewer votes for the other one. Because voters can sense the political equilibrium, your own decision to deny the main parties your vote for a better personal choice is essentially costless! Better still, your vote is amplified (although they might instead choose to vote for another small party).
Not only is your change of vote essentially costless, but also you get to send a signal both to voters and to your future representative. The voters get to see a change in the support of your chosen party which is bigger than the signal would have been if cast for one of the main ones. Your representive receives a signal as to how best to win your vote the next time around.
The only reasons not to vote for a smaller party are if you are better represented by one of the main parties, or else if you think that competition is a harmful force in politics, and would rather give a clearer "mandate" to the winner. American voters seem to act like this, with later voters preferring to strengthen the early vote, and it can even make a kind of sense if a "strong nation" is more important to you than democracy.
The flip side to the last observation is that if you're in the US, vote early. Others will then copy your vote, so in a sense, you get to "vote early, vote often".
Re:Why is updating your policy positions bad again (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. The FISA thing disappoints me, but, OTOH, I have to accept I was sorta projecting 'He will hold Bush accountable' onto Obama, when he's really said nothing of the sort.
Of course, just because he hasn't said that, and doesn't plan on doing that...simply appointing non-Bush-cronies to investigative positions would result in some accountability.
I was hoping that Obama would sweep and empty the trash of the Bush administration onto the street in view of everyone, but, frankly, he's still a much better choice than McCain even if he's not. And I have to wonder how many people suggesting otherwise are not actually McCain supporters.
Re:New Meme (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesn't give us more choice, because the choices are filtered for us by the media and the parties before most of us get a say.
We need a final election system that is made to work with multiple candidates so that there should be no reason for somebody to vote against their preferred candidate out of fear that there second (or third) preferred candidate will fail to eliminate defeat their least preferred candidate. If we have this electoral system, we could have 5 or six candidates from each party and another dozen from other parties or as independents.
After that, if we still decide we want a primary system, it needs to be a party-less primary, so that nobody is eliminated from contention without the say-so of the entire electorate. The only purpose of the primary should weed out individuals that the majority of the electorate consider clearly out of the running.
This would eliminate the current one side against the other conflict that we have. All candidates would struggle to appeal to the broad middle, by trying to piece together policies that appeal to all people instead of one half of the country or the other, who may only be interested in a couple of issues of one party or the other.
If done for the members of Congress, you could also end up with 3-5 parties who each have different focuses on different issues. The members of each party would then examine the issues out of their focus, and side with or against a party that had a focus on that issue, and make for a much more fluid Congress. For instance, there might be a party that focuses just on adhering the Constitution and strict adherence to it, which might side with the Republicans on certain issues and with the Democrats on others. You might have a party that only focuses on issues concerning parents (education, crime) and another that focuses on elderly issues (medical expenses, Social Security, etc.).
This would reduce the venom in our public discourse, because some popular policies that are currently blocked by our current 50-50 split would probably find more support if there were more than just two parties, who sometimes take a bad policy stance just to keep a minority happy.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never get it approved, because the electorate doesn't understand the need, and the parties in power won't want it.
Re:New Meme (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole US system has a fucking cancer of strategic voting
Agreed... that is the inevitable result of using plurality voting, which demands exactly that sort of behavior if you ever want to win. The best way to solve the problem would be to switch to another system (e.g. range or condorcet) that allows people to vote sincerely without penalizing them for doing so. Of course, the problem is that the people in power were all elected using the current system, so the current system (by definition) works for them... which makes them reluctant to change it. Only a real tidal wave of popular support will bring in the necessary electoral reforms, but too many people's eyes glaze over when you start discussing game theory...
Another libertarian here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget that we're almost as disparate a bunch as the republicans or democrats.
Unlike MBGMorden, I really don't like the democrat idea of social services. But my ideas on how to 'fix' various problems aren't what the republicans want either.
To Republicans: Stop trying to push your morality down my throat
To Democrats: Stop trying to ban my stuff and take my money
To both parties: Balance the budget(several states have done it!), stop the huge waste of money that is the drug war, legalize prostitution while you're at it*. Stop handing subsidies out left and right. Stop the tendency to control state governments by the circle of taking money from a state's citizens, then making the local government agencies(such as schools) apply to get their own people's money back.
*"I've never understood why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal? Why should it be illegal to sell something that's legal to give away?" - George Carlin
Re:The Goods (Score:0, Interesting)
Give me a break. I can't believe you're modded +5 Informative. If a Republican flip-flopped like that, you'd be all over it.
He didn't "update his policy position." He edited out the previous position without telling anyone it had changed. First, he said we were failing in Iraq--a common Democrat position at the time--and then when he turned out to be wrong, he changed his website and suddenly sounded pro-military as if he had been in support of the Iraq strategy.
This is contrary to his previous statements and is misleading, as if he was never against it. He was, and he turned out to be wrong.
Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (Score:5, Interesting)
As evidenced in, say, Somalia. I know Somalia's not a great model (it's missing the "enough basic laws" part), but it's not irrelevant.
I'm a big-government libertarian, which I know is inherently contradictory. I like the ideals of freedom, but in practice you always end up with so much market failure due to externalities, information asymmetries, etc., that a nice layer of medium cost bureaucratic inefficiency is actually a desirable thing.
Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is anything un-american in the political landscape of the USA, it's the fake two party democracy that is essentially a single party dictatorship in disguise.
I don't live in the US. I live in Europe. From our point of view, you have two parties that are so similar we can't even really tell the difference. Our position is usually closer to the democrats, since we tend to be quite a bit more "left" on the political spectrum than the average US person, and the dems aren't "so far right" in most of their positions. Oh, don't get me wrong, from our point of view, one is a moderate right wing party, the other is a harcore right wing party. But then, we're not really into the "strong leader" idea. We had some bad encounters with that.
Many people here seriously don't see the point in voting. Maybe because we're also not really used to the idea of parties having corporate sponsors. To us, it seems you're voting on what cartel is to rule the US. Political viewpoints come secondary. So if you want the media industry and computer industry to rule, go Dem, if you want military and oil to call the shots, vote Rep.
That's basically how it looks from beyond the pond.
Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (Score:3, Interesting)
It annoys me that Democrat == anti gun, etc. exists because it detracts from any kind of real debate. I think purposefully, and this is why things like abortion, family values, etc. are talked about as "the issues", when without the media playing them up they would not be "the issues".
So the thing that happens with the libertarians is they come off as crackpots in the media. People who think every town should be run by a militia and such. There was a rundown of candidates in the free paper here (alibi) a while ago and the libertarians all came across this way . . . I think of libertarians as a more pragmatic version of the old school republicans, before religion became the rallying cry. Small government, be stewards to the environment, dont regulate the market and don't let the market regulate government (the latter part seems to be largely ignored, but a free market needs both). I guess my offtopic rant is done . . .
Republicans and tricks (Score:1, Interesting)
Republicans need to be learning new tricks. They don't have the media at their back.
For example, Dan Quayle once said, "I love California- I used to live in Phoenix." At least that's what was reported. What he DID say was more like "I love California, I live in Phoenix and have driven there many times, etc". But no: Republicans, the one-time home of Conservatism, doesn't get the benefit of the media. One channel on _cable_ or _satellite_, not wider coverage like CBS/NBC/ABC etc.
Young people everywhere hated John Ashcroft because it was reported that a soldier asked, "What happened to the armored HumVee's?" and he was quoted to have said, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want." though his answer went on about three minutes. A member of the media posed the question of a soldier to make it look authentic. I've actually MET people who have hated Ashcroft for this reason- it's weird, and sad.
For having (almost) one, non-broadcast television channel and a handful of newspapers nationwide, I think they're doing pretty well. The Democrats have every Hollywood movie that comes out. Every show on Oxygen, Lifetime, Discovery, HUNDREDS of shows on HUNDREDS of channels to make their case and laugh at things like lower taxes and self-reliance. It's an uphill fight.
But it's our fault we're unhappy, now.
Democrats post "empty suit" candidates like "I voted for it, before I voted against it" Kerry, or "Soon the world will be on fire" Al Gore, or "I've been to all 57 states" Obama. Honestly: can you trust these people to park your CAR so you can find it again? These are puppets, clearly. From the people who used to bring you candidates like Truman and Roosevelt. Now, only mindless playboys seems to be in line.
The Republican side has problems, too: Semi-Conservatives. George Bush, Junior and Senior, are semi-Conservatives. Say they want smaller government, then sign-in prescription programs that no one really wants. Worse yet, McCain is a fighter pilot, chosen for our side by the media. He's gonna do whatever it takes to fulfill his goals, even if that means setting fire to the Republican party. Using "Global Warming(TM)" as a political tool, he's clearly a Liberal who wants to build government, not shrinking it.
What we all need are _Conservatives_. It's simple: smaller government for lower taxes and less intrusion.
This is Conservatism, and it wins because every time. Regan was a Conservative who followed an Liberal in the mold of AlGore/Kerry/Obama, taxing the rich so there are no jobs, taxing us 'cause there's no income to the government, and then wondering what's wrong. His election was a landslide, but that makes sense, life SUCKED economically, kinda like it does in the larger, Liberally-driven cities where people are now leaving in droves. But what's interesting is that his *re-election* was a landslide, too. That's unheard-of.
Why do you think Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 MILLION on (mostly) AM radio for the last two decades? Why do you think they could justify his $400M contract? It's so popular, the Left is trying to outlaw it, since their own message doesn't sell.
People _hunger_ for the life that we used to have. Now we have so much self-analysis and political correctness: a fascism of theoretical kindness. We don't need hate crimes tuned to ethnic groups- we need equal protection under the law. We don't need messing with our Freedom of Speech (Google: McCain Feingold) or Imminent Domain (see: http://www.ij.org/Private_property/connecticut [ij.org]) . Most people don't even know about these two incursions have taken place, thanks to the media.
Smaller government. Lower taxes. Enforce _existing_ laws. Stay _blind_ to color/race/ethnicity, protect a person's choice of religion, and all the other enumerated promises of the Constitution. No babysitting, no protecting speculators from losing money in various markets. If you rely on government instead of yourself, you'll be
Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (Score:5, Interesting)
To temper this a little bit, let me try to inform on the assumption that dems see gun ownership as "immoral". We do not find gun ownership immoral (while unaffiliated, I almost always vote democrat). I'm also an NRA member, and I have enough guns to arm my entire neighborhood, twice over.
For most of us left-leaners, guns are seen as tools of war or tools of crime or tools of getting something to eat. Most left-leaners have no problem with gun ownership, but also believe that there's a certain level of responsiblity (and regulation) that makes them safer to have around if one -=must=- have one around. Interestingly, in conversations with my right-leaning friends who keep and shoot guns, they also point out that a concealed carrry license doesn't require any safety training or demonstration of competence, whereas we require that for cars and motorcycles. The colorful part is that people die from poor operation of cars and motorbikes all the time, so there's a seperate argument as to whether training and testing have much effect, ... but I digress.
Left-leaners basically don't want to see guns used in crimes, and the thought is that if you make guns hard to get, or restrict which guns can be acquired based on meaningful background checks or licensing/registration schemes, the likelihood of having these guns being used in crimes is diminished. Our friends on the right love to point out that criminals don't follow the rules, and therefore the restrictions only fall on the law-abiding. True enough. Yet, if a bank robber gets one sentence if he robs a bank with a fist and an angry look, most lefties believe that he should be charged with two crimes if he robs a bank with a gun, and three crimes if it's a gun that has not been legally acquired.
I concede that most of these controversies tend to flow to envisioning "what if" scenarios, but I believe it is unfair to state that democrats think owning guns are immoral. Democrats want to see criminals who use guns punished to the fullest extent, and to reduce the numbers of guns used in crimes. That last sentence is not forcing morality on anyone. Everyone can agree on those two things, even the gun-nuts. Where people differ is on how you accomplish those two things, and that's a very good dialogue to have.
Lots of democrats own guns, but most of them choose to not associate themselves with the NRA, and choose to not justify their ownership by way of the 2nd amendment. They're pretty much silent on the topic, unless you get them talking about hunting. For my part, I am an NRA member because we stand for the training, gun education (operations, safety) and gun rights education. In general, I do not support the candidates that the NRA suggests I support,... unless they're democrats, that is.
Re:Oblig. Futurama Ref. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Libertainian party is mostly a bunch of extremists that don't well represent ordinary libertaitians precisely because they're a third party - those politicians willing to compromise join the two large parties, leaving only those unwilling to compromise.
This is just how politics works in the US - there are only two parties, but each is a coalition of many diverse interests. Power shifts regularly withing those coalitions. The parties may be *named* Republican and Democrat each year, but that doesn't mean they stand for the same things.
The problems everyone like to complain about aren't problems with the parties IMO, but with the system as a whole - to much money is required to campaign, and politicians have to much ability to funnel money to campaign contributers in payback. Having 5 parties instead of 2 won't fix this.
Re:Who are you trying to fool? (Score:2, Interesting)
Even without the immunity, I would have been troubled (read: appalled and outraged) by his vote. What kind of message does it send to make FISA even easier to comply with after Bush blatantly ignores it? You do know this this bill...actually legalizes warrantless wiretapping, I'm sure. As long as "the target" is an overseas foreigner (excuse me, as long as they reasonably believe this to be the case), they can listen to the overseas calls of American citizens without a warrant...using a broad and automated system. Take a gander at the pertinent section [loc.gov] of the bill. You still need a FISA warrant to wiretap a U.S. citizen as the target for evidentiary purposes...well, you need one in a week anyway.
So, can you still sit there are justify this vote? Exactly what part of this bill is strengthening the rule of law and executive accountability? You know the lawsuit I linked earlier in the post...the plaintiff can still be wiretapped warrantlessly, only with the full protection of law this time! Not for evidentiary purposes, but if I recall a certain executive order correctly, all it takes to freeze someone's assets for supporting terrorism is for the AG to say "he's a bad bad man." A great day for Obama and America, to be sure.
Re:Who are you trying to fool? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Race shouldn't be an issue so it is unreasonable to argue that Obama represents something new.
2. He's all talk and no walk.
For the first point, it is painfully obvious that every single person who says, "I don't see color - you're a reverse-racist for saying it is relevant" is white. Maybe the fact that Obama hails from minority heritage is irrelevant to you, but it is positively moronic to think it doesn't matter to tens of millions of minority voters or to billions around the world. When a brown-skinned man at last becomes President of the United States, it will fundamentally alter how minorities - particularly African Americans - view themselves. It will prove once and for all the anything is possible for anyone; that the American Dream is available to all of us. If you don't realize or understand that black people living in the projects DO think the American Dream excludes them, you are a fucking idiot. You're also obviously too young to remember a time just forty years ago when brown people couldn't use the same fucking drinking fountain as white people in some parts of the country. As for the billions across the rest of the world, much the same applies. If you don't understand the significance of America electing a minority president, you simply don't understand the views and positions of the majority of the people on our planet. Here's a hint: that is not something to be proud of.
Obama's ethnicity may not mean anything to you, but it means a lot to most of the world's people. But please, don't let that stop you from breaking your arm patting yourself on the back for "not seeing color."
As for the second point, Obama's record is a strong as anyone in congress. The FISA bill is the first bit of ammunition anyone has against him, and was a compromise vote - not an outright flipflop as some would brand it. If you read his published statements (it's obvious who among you hasn't) then you'll see his reasoning for voting for the bill. No-one can get elected by acting like Kucinich. Obama must play the political game if he wants to get elected. And he plays it brilliantly. But as another poster mentioned, he is the only candidate whose pounding rhetoric is supported by a firm call to rationality and reason for dealing with complex issues instead of a standard platform-based response.