McCain Campaign Offers Rewards For Turn-Key Comments 375
According to a story at the Washington Post, John McCain's presidential campaign is offering more than moral suasion to fire people up for a McCain presidency; they're also offering ready-made snippets of rhetoric for interested supporters to supply under their own names in public comments to online news sources and forums. Such pre-written commentary by itself is neither new nor necessarily nefarious, but it seems a bit off-kilter that prolific commenters are eligible for rewards — not just campaign swag like hats and stickers, but higher-ticket items like a ride with McCain on his campaign bus. Probably a script could be whipped up to compare the canned suggestions on the site with "grassroots" comments on political news sites around the web.
Oh man, too easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
The trolls just write themselves...I'll attempt to rise above.
Still, it's pretty damn pathetic when you can't trust your supporters to express their own opinions to the point where you have to give them your opinions to reprint.
Ah fuck it. Lets burn some karma..."I guess all his supporters are too senile to remember what he stands for?" or maybe "He flip-flops so often that it's safer if they just cut and paste?" Maybe "Since most of his supporters are illiterate, it's the only way they can meaningfully contribute. Coming next month, a McDonalds-style interface with pictures of common attack points (a flat tire, little back guy in diapers, a black playing card, etc)."
I am so sick of "talking points." It just reeks of brand advertising.
And we should vote for him over the other guy why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering one of McCain's selling point is supposed to be experience, why does his campaign keep making rookie mistakes?
He repeatedly mentions his opponent by name in speeches and on his web site (why give the other guy free publicity?), he refers to the border between two countries which don't border each other, and now this.
It's not stupid because it isn't done, it's stupid because people will do it anyway. Supporters (not just McCain's) will cut-and-paste talking points from the candidate on their own. A program like this just makes them, and him, look like idiots.
Yes, because our Lord and Saviour Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
(go ahead, read the article and google the name "Nikki E Sutton"
Close, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple fact of the matter is that Some Americans will no longer be able to afford to own and operate an Internal Combustion Engine powered automobile.
Fixed. There is a finite amount of all resources on this planet, so you are correct that at some point, not everyone is going to be able to do everything they currently take for granted. And transportation is going to go through some 'exciting' times in the near future. But the immediate impact is not going to dramatically change the life style of the vast majority of Americans.
-Rick
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me (Score:5, Interesting)
that the McCain campaign hasn't quite adapted to the changes technology has made in politics.
It isn't so much that his campaign lags in exploiting social networking techniques to its advantage. It's more that they haven't grasped the full implications of things like YouTube.
Politicians have always tuned their message to their audience, but in a world of cell phone video cameras and YouTube, your audience is always potentially much greater than the people sitting in front of you. It's important not to actually contradict yourself, and when you get caught contradicting yourself the worst thing you can do is to deny it. The assertion, contradiction and denial make a nice little YouTube vignette. Especially if all three bits are delivered in your trademarked blunt, plainspoken style.
This is probably why the campaign has changed its policy on access. McCain has always be famously accessible to reporters, taking questions for as long as anybody could think of any, spending lot of one on one time. This week they've switched, and now he's only giving scripted statements.
This is more of the same. They're trying to feed their blogosphere partisans the way they feed their mainstream media henchmen, even though (ironically) you have to be a lot more discreet with that sort of thing in the blogosphere.
I'm not saying McCain is necessarily worse than any other politician. Possibly Obama's just a slicker liar. Obama reminds me of Eisenhower, who had the gift of redirecting pointed questions in the direction he wanted the be questioned. For some reason, the television camera simply adores Obama; he's more relaxed and comfortable on camera than Phil Donahue.
But whether or not Obama's the real thing, or the slickest phony in a generation of politicians, McCain has definitely let his ... shall we say strategically tailored representations of the the truth ... show plainly for all to see. This is stuff that would have gone unnoticed ten years ago, or it it was noticed, reported in words rather than shown issuing from the candidate's mouth.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny.. but doesn't that sort of prove the point that the talking points on the website don't make particularly great sample comments?
They read like a prepared statement from a political campaign, not like something you'd find on a message board. Oh wait, that's because they are prepared statements from a political campaign and are referred to as "talking points" which seems to be an accurate description. Sample comments my ass.
Re:Republicans know how to win. (Score:2, Interesting)
So, either "usually" means something different to you than me, or "big elections" means something different.
Presidential elections I would classify as big, for example. Yet in the last 100 years worth, they're 13 and 12 which would seem to be as close to even as you can get.
So the Republicans didn't want to win those elections? Why would you want to want to win this election over say 1996 - much higher chance of the economy cratering on your watch this time round...
Re:It seems to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the reason is that he actually is more relaxed and comfortable.
Agreed, by I'm not a jump on the bandwagon type; I like to keep one foot firmly grounded in skepticism.
I think that Obama is rare, dually gifted individual. He's got the intellect to be a professor of Constitutional law, but he also has really strong people skills. Of course he's comfortable. Anybody'd be comfortable if their life experience told them they'd be able to outdebate or persuade most people they deal with. People gifted in only one of these ways aren't uncommon, but there's often a gnawing canker of doubt about whether they're on the right track, or can persuade others that they are.
It doesn't make him "qualified" to be president, but those talents will stand him in good stead if he makes it.
Re:It seems to me (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more that they haven't grasped the full implications of things like YouTube.
I think they're getting it now -- according to the Washington Times, McCain's YouTube channel has beaten Obama's 11 of the last 14 days. [washtimes.com]
Even if he's just paying people to set around all day and click on his videos, it still makes for a nice statistic. Even if Paris Hilton crushes both of them.
It isn't that Democrats are more enthusiastic... (Score:3, Interesting)
... it's that Democrats have more to be enthusiastic about right now.
If I were a Republican, I'd be keeping a pretty low profile this election cycle too.
Re:This is going to end badly (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, you're not a Republican. Tell me that you're "really a Libertarian" or something. Or a "real Conservative". Who did you vote for in 2004?
I asked for a link to an unsupported, but highly bashing statement. When people make those kinds of claims, it's their job to back them up, especially when asked politely. No one has time to go searching for the evidence to back up each outrageous claim made on the Internet, especially not the ones routinely manufactured for Slashdot posts.
But someone who had the link posted it [slashdot.org]. And it's clear that the Democratic one is not "just the same as the Republican one" as you now claim. On what evidence do you base that claim? On the powerful fact that you "imagine the Democratic survey is about the same".
Who did you vote for in 2004?
You're a Republican. You're just a cowardly cop-out who votes Republican and denies it. For my part, despite being registered to no political party, I usually vote for the Democrat in most elections, because they're the best choice. I have never seen a Republican worth voting for, unless I were on a jury voting for hanging.
The fact is that here in reality, the Republicans have actually destroyed a country. Democrats at worst have squandered opportunities to lead the country into greatness, but their mismanagement has at worst still been sustainable. Not "as Republicans imagine it", but in reality. So when a horde of Republicans modded me out of sight when all I did was ask for a link so I could decide that pronouncement's truth for myself, I just called them out. And then even more of you creeps came out of the woodwork. Though along with that one person's post that proved you're all lying about the Democratic survey's quality compared to the Republican one.
You can go on and on about what you imagine. Here in reality, the Democratic survey is not "just as bad as the Republican one". The Democrats are not "just as bad as Republicans". And you Republicans, no matter what name you fancy yourself going by, are destroying the country. You people are full of nothing but nightmares that you use to destroy us, with truth as your first victim.
Selling his soul (Score:3, Interesting)
"Now that that's out of the way, why don't you go fuck yourself?"
What's funny is that Democrats have accused Republicans for years now of being little more than mindless cult members. But if you criticize the Obamessiah whatsoever, Democrats just lose their minds and go into a rage. Look at Ratzo. Further, any criticism of The One is both inherently racist and a conspiracy.
Soul? Maybe he didn't have to sell it, Ratzo. Maybe he has to have one in the first place. He had no problem allying himself with Jeremiah Wright for 20+ years, and then, as soon as he became a liability, under the bus he goes. He had no problems teaming up with Tony Rezko for years, but then, as soon as he becomes a liability, bump bump, hear that bus a'rolling. How many speeches has Barack given this year that include *insert name here* is not the person I used to know"?
He used those guys to get to the top, and then disposed of them when the heat became too much. That's not selling out? As for his distinguished law professor career, well, it wasn't. Because he wrote nothing. Nada. Zip. He left no opinions that could come back and haunt him during a political campaign.
Some people worry that Barack Obama is a raging leftist, a real life version of the New Yorker characature of him.
Me, I think the guy is about one thing and one thing only... getting power for Barack Obama. And that makes him just another politician. So you can put those robes away now, Rat. He's not gonna save your soul after all. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.