Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You

ooby writes "MSNBC reports that Bush and Kerry plan to shoot off a million or so emails to their closest friends. By using the Internet to distribute ads, presidential candidates believe they can reach more people using less money. I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."

Comments

if they spam me

[cyrax777]

They will certanly not get my vote!!

Re:if they spam me

[Reverend528]

They're actually going to send spams advertising their opponent's campaigns.

Re:if they spam me

[goodie3shoes]

Don't worry, I'm sure the video will be in a Windows Media Player format. Um, you don't do Windows, do you?

Re:if they spam me

[iminplaya]

Looks like you might not be voting this year. :-)

-Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares.

Re:if they spam me

[thogard]

You can vote by not selecting any of the people on the list. There are other things to vote for than the president. If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.

Re:if they spam me

[skifreak87]

As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for? There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election. Side note, how do you get politicians to take a stand on issues you care about, but aren't central. For instance, I'd love to see copyright/patent reform (copyright reform because I feel like it's no longer serving it's purpose, and patent reform because one-click shopping is not an innovative idea) but I care much more about the economy than those ideas. The choice between a candidate who supports those reforms and one who does not but is better for the economy (in my opinion) is not a choice at all for me. Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

You can vote by not selecting any of the people on the list.

You mean write in candidates? Like maybe Mickey Mouse, Ben Kenobi, and of course, Steve Jobs?

At least with write-ins, your vote is recorded. If you don't vote for that office, that means that you didn't care enough to vote, and that the extremists who voted to select those candidates in the primaries win...

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for?"

Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?

"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."

It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.

" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"

yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.

I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.

Re:if they spam me

[compass46]

If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.

Good point. I seriously think that today's political climate is designed to drive people away. For simplicity's sake we'll neglect the electoral college in this example. If only 10% of the electorate turns out and canidate "A" receives a majority of the total votes cast (which would be >5% of the total electorate) then canidate A wins. There is no incentive for change because someone will always win. Forget the fact that our government derives their legitamacy from the people. Most people I find aren't really aware of that and feel it is their duty to vote and support the system no matter what they're given to choose from.

In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system. We did that once before remember... Think of it as a total scratch rewrite. :)

Re:if they spam me

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

Mickey Mouse gets more write-in votes every year. Studies show that by 2050, Mickey will have enough write-in votes to be elected. Strange wonder that electronic voting systems don't allow write-in votes! It ASSURES that the candidate that the software^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvoter chooses will actually get elected.

--
Find out more about choice in software. Click the link below, and make your voice heard by posting a comment on the article.

Re:if they spam me

[BlueCup]

Advisor: Sir, according to several Slashdot comments, if we spam people, they aren't going to vote for us! Candidate: Hmm... get an E-Mail spoofer! It could work...

Re:if they spam me

[macdaddy]

Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.

Not necessarily. It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job. However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want. We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections. They have absolutely zlich electability. Nada. None. El Zero. It ain't gonna happen. A major change in the social and poltical views of America will not happen overnight. The first step is someone not quite as liberal as Lieberman or Sharpton. The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards. The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates. If we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan. We must vote the only person with electability. Doing anything else is a waste of your vote. Sure it's your right to vote for who you please but lets face facts people. If you don't vote for one of the candidates that can actually get elected (or a party that needs a certain percentage to be in the election next time) then you're wasting your vote. Of course voting out of the norm for your state is wasting your vote thanks to this damned electoral college, but that's another matter. You can't make a sweeping change overnight. Small steps people. Walk before you run a marathon.

Re:if they spam me

[OldManAndTheC]

It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.

In an ideal world this would be true, but our election system does not reward you for voting for the candidate whom you think is the best. Every election is a strategic contest, not just an expression of values or desires. Voting strategically is distasteful - I certainly find it so - but it is necessary in our winner-take-all system. Voters who act otherwise are not acting in their own best interests, no matter how good it might feel.

The history of third-party candidacies is depressingly similar. They overwhelmingly tend to favor the side most opposed to their aims. I don't think you are "throwing your vote away" by not voting strategically, rather you are making a legitimate protest. But to what end? When the "other" side wins, you lose. Politics requires compromise - we musn't fool ourselves about that.

If you want to change this situation, support changes in our electoral system. But in the meantime, vote for the guy who can win.

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

Re:if they spam me

[kimgh]

Right now, the priority for me is to unseat Bush, so I will vote accordingly. And set my spam filters to filter all political spam. If they are all doing it, then this is a vote-neutral issue for me. (Much as I hate to say that.)

Re:if they spam me

[Technician]

They will certanly not get my vote!!

My main mailbox is overseas. I wonder if they will not bother to send to overseas domains. It will be interesting to see if I get one.

Re:if they spam me

[Technician]

It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess

It's also what has kept us out of getting the best for the job. Example, Two consurvatives and one liberal running (Republican, Indipendant, Democrat) and the consurvative vote is split so neither canidate beats the minority libral vote. Look at the electoral college. This is not a simple majority vote to get elected.

I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.

That type thinking gets the one you are opossed elected as the vote for the two good guys gets split and the libral tax and spend big government social program canidate gets elected. Sometimes seeing who has a chance of beating the oposition and supporting them can keep undesirables out of office. Learn the issues. Look at the chances. Don't vote for a long shot. They haven't got a chance.

Re:if they spam me

[betsywetsy]

Well, I'm in California, so I can vote for whomever I please and not affect the electoral vote.
Only voters in swing states need to vote strategically.

And the way you get your voice heard is to participate, even if you don't have lots of money.
Look at Dean's people - hundreds of thousands of small donors, hundreds of thousands more of volunteers. Their position now may not look like much, but they propelled their man from relative obscurity into early frontrunner status, and he defined much of the debate this year. They're getting their issues heard, even if their candidate doesn't win (and he's still leading Edwards in delegates).

The next step for the Dean troops is to continue their action on a local scale, reshaping local politics, running for office, making their support indispensable to local politicians.

Re:if they spam me

[welshsocialist]

You mean write in candidates? Like maybe Mickey Mouse, Ben Kenobi, and of course, Steve Jobs?

You can't just write-in anyone in the Write-In candidate box. In some states, you have to register your name as a write in candidate. I knew an election clerk a few years ago who didn't like people who wrote in Mickey Mouse because it wasted their time in counting votes.

At least with write-ins, your vote is recorded.

This is the rule. With all rules, there are exceptions to the rule. During the 2000 election in North Carolina, some voters voted for Nader, but their ballot was not counted.

According to Alex Keyssar:

In North Carolina, for example, Ralph Nader was not on the ballot (because he lacked enough signatures on a petition last spring), and write-in votes for Nader were not counted because he was not an "official" write-in candidate. (Since that fact was not advertised, many people did write in his name and had their ballots thrown away.)

Eric Longley has an article describing problems with write in voting in North Carolina.

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

Like someone mentioned before, there really needs to be a way to voice your opinion on _all_ candidates instead of just who you are for. ie. Instead of:

[_] Bush
[_] Kerry
[_] Some other guy

you could have something like:

[Yes] [No] [Undecided] Bush
[Yes] [No] [Undecided] Kerry
[Yes] [No] [Undecided] Some other guy

You could then circle either one or zero yes's, but any number of no's or undecided's. That way, in a presidential election you'll be able to see how many people not only voted for someone, but also how many voted against. People who do not like any of the candidates could vote 'no' on everyone. Someone who doesn't really know much about the candidates but definately doesn't want 'Some other guy' to win could vote 'no' on him and 'undecided' on everyone else.

Re:if they spam me

[pod]

And how will you write in a candidate, or spoil your ballot, when all you have is a touch screen?

Re:if they spam me

[pod]

Yes, and if Kerry wins, come next election it will be the Republicans' job to make people's priority unseating him.

Re:if they spam me

[msim]

I don't give a shit just as long as it doesn't land in *MY* mailbox. I'm not a fucking american[1] and don't need to see their worthless campeignmongering.

The question is, just how many email inboxes will they obliterate with this?

[1] This is not against you americans, but mroeso the miserygut lameasses that run your country. oh wait, i have John Howard & Abbot Costello or whoever the hell he is to contend with.

Re:if they spam me

[solarrhino]

Oh come on! Remember Florida? People can't operate the current voting system!

Besides, if there were really going to be a change like that, it should simply be the addition of:

[] None of the above

If "None of the above" won, then everybody on the ballot would be disqualified for one election cycle, and a new ballot (with new candidates) would have to be offered.

Re:if they spam me

[solarrhino]

Well, judging from the other responses, everybody hates you. Not me, tho - I agree with you, more or less. That's why I voted for Ross Perot both times he ran. Not because I thought he would win, nor even that I wanted him to win. But I did want to help give the ideas he expressed - controlling spending, paying down the debt, not exporting jobs via NAFTA - some currency in Washington. I hoped that, if he made a decent showing, whoever did get elected would at least honor the fact that some of us held those opinions.

Of course, now that I think about it, that didn't work at all. The deficient declined, but that was only because the economy grew at such freakish rates for a while. Spending was barely controlled, and factory jobs have been disappearing for almost a decade. Never mind what I just said - I should have voted for George Bush and Bob Dole!

Re:if they spam me

[24-bit Voxel]

Insert a blank unformatted disk and log in as admin?

Re:if they spam me

[24-bit Voxel]

If it's a two party system and you can only really vote for 2 people, then you are still voting for evil right?

I would like to vote my conscience, so I'm voting for less evil. Who is that again?

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job."

Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.

"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."

And voting for the lesser of two evils will?

"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."

So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.

"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."

With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.

I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.

"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."

Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.

"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."

I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.

"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."

On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.

"Walk before you run a marathon."

Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, under your current regime you CAN'T have demonstrations. at least not useful ones anyway. anti-bush demonstrators end up getting herded into "free speech zones". NOw pardon my ignorance of the US constitution, but isn't the whole of the US a "free speech zone"?

Re:if they spam me

[geekoid]

great, your not going to vote. good thinking. That will help.

Re:if they spam me

[Jafar00]

If they spam me with my .fr address, I'll track them down and "opt them in" for every email porn spam generator I can find ;)
I say this, because I often find spam in my inbox that contain "offers" only for American residents.
I live in France!
Seriously though, would we have any luck complaining to their hosting provider about the spam considering they are the govt? That often works for me and my spam disappears for months before starting again when someone gets hold of my email address.
Imagine! You could have the power to knock the presidential campaign website of the net! :)

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"In an ideal world this would be true, but our election system does not reward you for voting for the candidate whom you think is the best. Every election is a strategic contest, not just an expression of values or desires. Voting strategically is distasteful - I certainly find it so - but it is necessary in our winner-take-all system. Voters who act otherwise are not acting in their own best interests, no matter how good it might feel."

So you say. All I hear is someone arguing for history to repeat itself. No thanks. I'm voting my conscience, you vote yours. If you think voting the way you advocate is the way, then do so. But I'm not going that path. Making the same choices as you did in the past, gets you the same results as it got you in the past. And it's not about "feeling good", it's about being true to who I am.

"I don't think you are "throwing your vote away" by not voting strategically, rather you are making a legitimate protest."

Ah, good, I was worried you were like the first reply. I'm glad you see things as such.

"But to what end?"

The end of being true to who I am. That is the only thing of lasting value in this life. I've been through hard times and I've been through good times, and when all is said and done, the only times in my life I have peace about is when I've been true to myself.

"When the "other" side wins, you lose."

What other side? The other side of the same coin? What do I lose? If I vote your way, I get someone I don't think is the best person for the job, so I lose myself respect. If I do it my way, my candidate likely won't win(at this time in history), but I get to keep my self respect. I'll take self respect any day, over voting for someone I don't think is good for the job.

"Politics requires compromise - we musn't fool ourselves about that."

Yes, but it does not require compromising ourselves. I can compromise a position, I can compromise what I want, but I can not compromise my conscience. I have to live with myself you know.

"If you want to change this situation, support changes in our electoral system."

See, this sounds reasonable, but here's the problem: The system ain't gonna change by electing the very people who benefit from it. Why would you think it would?

"But in the meantime, vote for the guy who can win."

Nope. Sorry, no can do. I used to believe this way, but I'm older now, and I've recognized the loop this thinking puts us in. The only hope for us is for us voting our conscience. I will do so, and continue to hope that others will begin to. If they don't, there is nothing I can do about that. I've had enough of the games, for the rest of my life, I will be true to myself first and foremost. There is nothing else worth having. And don't worry for me, I won't be disapointed. The way I see it, the system loses no matter which 'side' gets elected. I will sleep easy knowing that I did not play a part in continuing the game.

Re:if they spam me

[welshsocialist]

It's possible to vote for a write-in candidate with a touch-screen machine. I recently voted in the Democratic Presidential Primary in Virginia and there was an option on the machine to type in the name of a write-in candidate.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Right now, the priority for me is to unseat Bush, so I will vote accordingly."

If you can do so and live with yourself, then do so. Please, by all means, Be true to yourself. Truth be told, if your conscience tells you that's what you should do, then I agree with you doing it, even if I may disagree with whoever it is you vote for as a result. Don't let some clown like me, or anyone else, override your conscience.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"That type thinking gets the one you are opossed elected "

Except, I have yet to find myself not opposed to both sides. Therefore, if I think as you, I still get someone I'm opposed to, only I ignored my conscience. If I think like me, being true to myself, I still get someone I'm opposed to, but I have not compromised my self. Integrity is more valuable to me, than voting for the lesser of two evils.

"Sometimes seeing who has a chance of beating the oposition and supporting them can keep undesirables out of office."

At the presidential level, all the front runners are undesireables in my eyes. Why would you want me to vote for someone I think is undesireable? I certainly wouldn't want you to vote that way.

"Learn the issues."

Why do I need to learn what I think are issues? I think I'm the best judge of what issues I think are important, and therefore, I do not need to learn anything of the sort.

"Look at the chances. Don't vote for a long shot. They haven't got a chance."

I'll tell you what, I'll take your advice the next time I'm at the track. But for choosing the leader of my nation, I think I'll do things my way. Thanks anyway.

Re:if they spam me

[joib]

One could use a voting method like Condorcet where strategic voting doesn't work. Of course, back in real life something like that will never happen because it would reduce the power of the two major parties. :(

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Well, judging from the other responses, everybody hates you."

They don't hate me, they have been programmed to think that way. I bear them no illwill. If anything, this is simply my karma, coming back to me. I accept it, I deserve those responses, because there was a time when I gave those responses.

"Of course, now that I think about it, that didn't work at all. The deficient declined, but that was only because the economy grew at such freakish rates for a while. Spending was barely controlled, and factory jobs have been disappearing for almost a decade. Never mind what I just said - I should have voted for George Bush and Bob Dole!"

If you're not joking, you're only fooling yourself if you think those things would have changed under GB or BD.

Let's look at republicans for a moment, shall we? Under Reagan, you had a democrat dominated congress. Who did the republicans blame for the debt and deficit? The democrats in congress. For years, I was one of them, believing all the lies that they told me, how debts were bad, deficits were bad, and how the republicans would make things right.

Fast forward to now. Republicans control congress, and own the whitehouse, and our debt and deficit has reached record levels under their leadership. If you weren't joking, what makes you think GB or BD would have been any better?

Re:if they spam me

[ogre57]

Dear Candidate,

Thank you for your spam. As one of the many Americans who believe that spammers are a somewhat lower life form than pedophiles, you can rest assured that the only vote you will receive from me is as a jury member in the felony trial you so clearly deserve.

Regards,

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"I would like to vote my conscience, so I'm voting for less evil. Who is that again?"

If that is what your conscience tells you to do, to vote for less evil, then do so. As for who is less, you are the only person that can answer that, as that is based on your on your own concept of right and wrong. Be true to yourself, and you'll know who to vote for.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Oh come on! Remember Florida? People can't operate the current voting system!"

But people do operate it. People give their faith to it, which legitimizes it. Florida was simply what people have wanted all along. People grew tired of voting their conscience, and so, they voted for the types of people who would engage in and support that type of thing.

"If "None of the above" won, then everybody on the ballot would be disqualified for one election cycle, and a new ballot (with new candidates) would have to be offered."

I like that idea. The problem is, which candidate do you think will work for getting that into place? Kerry? Bush?

A national referendum might do it, but then the democrats and republicans would simply rile their sheep and scare them with pictures of costly elections having to be done over and such, and the sheep will stay in the pasture they're fed in, thinking that their lesser of two evils is best.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Yes, and if Kerry wins, come next election it will be the Republicans' job to make people's priority unseating him."

Exactly. And the merry go round continues and nothing will change.

Re:if they spam me

[jpop32]

I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.

Dude, you really should wake up to the fact that the only way out of the current two-party-which-is-really-a-single-party political system you have in the US is a massive grass-roots change of mind, a revolution of sorts. You simply cannot hope to achieve a change of that magnitude by playing within the system. It won't happen at the voting booths, but in people's minds. Voting booths will come as a natural consequence of that.

Having acknowledged that as a fact, you should adapt to the rules of the game, and start choosing between two evils. I believe you'll have no trouble differentiating which is which. Then, in your free time you could work towards a revolution. But, for now at least, I believe that preventing a greater evil is definitely a worthy cause, and a good reason to play the game. The stakes are simply too high to allow oneself to take the moral high ground and refuse to play.

Try not to forget: if those 13000 Florida votes for Nader went to Gore, the world as a whole would probably be in a very different state right now. Isn't that worth considering?

Re:if they spam me

[Xilman]

They won't get mine, either. Not least because I'm disenfranchised.

Paul

Re:if they spam me

[benlinkknilneb]

This is Slashdot. Gotta be Linus.

Re:if they spam me

[solarrhino]

Well, yes, I was joking. No doubt things would have been somewhat different under either man, but not significantly so.

There's so much I could say here... but really, it's all pointless quibbling. So instead, here's one of my favorite quotes:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler, 1787

I believe that this effect swaps whatever partisan differences may lie between the two parties, their candidates, and their policies.

Re:if they spam me

[OldManAndTheC]

Well we aren't likely to change each other's minds about this, but I will say this: voting is not the only way, or even the best way, to exercise political influence. Like it or not, we have a two-party system, and only a candidate nominated by one of the two major parties can win a presidential election, given our current electoral rules. By the time you go to your polling place to cast your vote, your choices have been whittled down by the parties, and your best option is to choose whichever viable candidate is closest to your views. I don't think that a voter doing this is being untrue to himself - he is doing the best he can with what limited power the system has given him.

There are other ways to influence the process. You can join a political party and advocate changes in electoral rules. You can contribute to a political action group. Some good folks working to change our current U.S. system can be found here. Their arguments for moving to a system of proportional representation are well worth reading.

U.S. politics is in large part a rigged game. Many people see this and either opt out, or opt to vote their conscience in protest, and I respect that choice. But it is important to see that it is the rules of the game which are the problem. Once you enter the voting booth you are subject to the rules of the game, much as you would be if you walked up to a roulette wheel. The two parties (like the house in Vegas) are in charge of the game, and your vote can only work within the parameters of the rules. If you play, you lose. But if you don't play, you lose more. So worry less about who wins the game, and more about changing the rules.

The next time you go to vote, I respectfully suggest that you see your vote for what it is in the context of the political process - only one small part of the duty of a citizen. And one which may be most wisely used to reduce the harm caused by the winner of the election :)

Re:if they spam me

[eam]

> In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not
> voting in the hopes that the current political
> climate will "go away" (not exist because the
> people no longer recognize it) and we can start
> with a fresh system.
> We did that once before remember.

It involved more than just not voting if I recall correctly.

Re:if they spam me

[solarrhino]

Agreed, of course - neither that nor any other corrective to the voting process will ever occur... until, perhaps, it is far too late. The only "realistic" hope that I see for this nation - and it's a long shot - would be the election of a true independent to the office of President. Someone with no ties whatsoever to either party, and no wish to engage in party politics. Such a person might be able to shift the focus from needlessly divisive bickering (which only benefits the parties) to the "elephants in the sitting room" issues. A few relative outsiders have been elected to lesser office in recent years, so there is an outside chance...

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'ld rather see something a bit different for election reform.

Pick one of the following:

1. Create a new federal holiday: call it "National Voting Day." Everyone is required to vote on this day (exceptions for emergencies aside). Absentee ballots must be post-marked by this day. Failure to vote means you will serve jury duty or pay a fine. Note that this portion just records the fact of you voting (or not voting) and not WHO you vote for.

2. Ammend current voting laws to state that a quorum must be reached for a vote to be valid. Set the quorum level at 66% of the population. Force the government to by "of the people" once again.

Re:if they spam me

[lysium]

I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system.

The last major attempt to ignore the Federal government resulted in just under one million casualties. Something tells me that the modern Federal government is even less likely to allow power to slip out of its collective grasp.

==---==

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

conservatives
independent
candidate
liberal
ty pe of thinking
opposed
opposition

Your point would be better received if you wrote clearly.

Re:if they spam me

[That's Unpossible!]

I am with you ... voting for the Libertarian party candidate, whoever that may turn out to be.

The real way to fix our system is to change our entire presidential voting system. It gives a complete advantage to the two parties. Kill the electoral college (yes I've heard all the lame arguments in favor of it), institute a better voting system that allows you to vote for multiple people, ranking them from highest to lowest (or even approval voting).

Because the real problem we're facing is the idea that not voting for one of the two parties is throwing your vote away. However, the two party system in place is never going to overthrow the system that allows them to maintain control.

Re:if they spam me

[tbannist]

This is a failing of the voting system. You have to choose between voting for who you want to see elected and voting against who you don't want to see elected. I don't think it will get changed any time soon, but I think it's time for some real reform in the voting systems of North America.

Of course, I favour approval balloting because it allows an outside party to build to a point where they can actually win. However, that's also a reason why the current parties will never change the system. They like lock-in as much as Microsoft does.

Re:if they spam me

[rebel47]

Sounds like the Australian system. You must vote for every candidate in your order of preference 1 - N. If a candidate receives 50% +1 of the total votes he is elected and no further counting takes place. If no candidate receives the required 50% +1 then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his votes distributed in accordance with the voters preferences. This process continues until one candidate has 50% +1 of the votes cast. Sounds cumbersome, and it can take some time, especially in close elections but at least it gets a result. It also means that supporters of minor party candidates, and independents, DO get to have an influence on the outcome. Australia also has compulsory voting which results in vastly more people, usually 95-97% of the electorate voting. Does that infringe on their 'rights'? No, it just means they have to go to a polling place, have their name marked off the roll and be handed their ballot papers. Doesn't mean that they have to actually vote. Is the system perfect? No, but it's a lot better than most.

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because forcing millions of unwilling people into the voting box is going to lead to a well informed decision.

I think a person changing their name and running as "Forced Voting Sucks" would give you a better chance of winning than having a real platform.

You can force people to vote but you can't force people to be intelligent about it.

Mind you, forced voting would be a bit more acceptable if they included the following options:

- I am not informed and am merely voting out of legal requirement
- None of the above

Then again, if people were honest about it, you'd never reach that quorum.

Remember, democracy demands an educated, informed and active voting body. Our society does everything it can to keep us either ill-informed, mis-informed or un-informed to keep us buying $100 Calvin Klein shirts made in Thailand for $2. And to keep people from questioning the unrepresentative nature of a two-party system.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Dude, you really should wake up to the fact that the only way out of the current two-party-which-is-really-a-single-party political system you have in the US is a massive grass-roots change of mind, a revolution of sorts."

Actually, I'm wide awake to that fact. Why else would I be saying what I'm saying?

"You simply cannot hope to achieve a change of that magnitude by playing within the system."

YES. What about what I've said makes you believe I think the current political order is going to change things? I believe in the post you replied to, and in my other posts, that I've been arguing the exact opposite. I will NOT play within the current order of things and as evidence to this, I will vote my conscience, instead of playing politics as usual. I am ready to join any grass roots campaign that shares my core principles. I will NOT, however, take part in any type of violent revolution. One of my core principles is against the use of force. You either fight to change things, or fight to punish. I will only fight to change things, and that fighting will not be in any type of violent uprising.

"Having acknowledged that as a fact, you should adapt to the rules of the game, and start choosing between two evils."

Do you not see your own confusion? On the one hand, you state things won't change within the current order, and then on the other hand, you start to argue for me working within the current order!? WTF!? What sense does that make?

"I believe you'll have no trouble differentiating which is which."

No, because in my eyes, it is pretty black and white. If a candidate is a lying politician owned by corporations, he will not serve my best interests. If both candidates are, neither will. Therefore, I will vote neither. It is pretty simple.

"Then, in your free time you could work towards a revolution"

Even now, I'm working towards a revolution of thought. You argue in favor of me supporting the old order of things when I vote, and then do meaningless things in my free time. Instead, I will take a stand at the polls, and in my free time. There is no other way to change things, short of a violent revolution, which I will not take part in because it will only change things for the worse.

"The stakes are simply too high to allow oneself to take the moral high ground and refuse to play."

This isn't moral high ground, this is about being true to myself. I only have one shot at life, and if I waste it chasing convoluted and confused political theories like yours, I will die a miserable man, keeping the cycle going, just like you are arguing for me to do. I will not waste my life that way.

"Try not to forget: if those 13000 Florida votes for Nader went to Gore, the world as a whole would probably be in a very different state right now. Isn't that worth considering?"

Would it be in a different state? Didn't Clinton wage wars? What makes you think Al Gore wouldn't? What makes you think I even wanted Al Gore to win? The truth is, the economy would still be in the toilet both because of September 11th, and the fact that it was going down the drain in the final years of Clinton. Didn't clinton bomb Iraq because of WMD? Didn't Clinton join forces with NATO(not the UN, because he couldn't get them to go along with it), to launch an agression on Yugoslavia, in violation of international law? And during that agression on Yugoslavia, didn't we use depleted Uranium in the assault, and then later refused to work with the UN, to help them find where the munitions were used in order to clean them up? Wasn't there a vast lack of evidence offered us after that assault, to suppot the reasons we were told we were going there? Doesn't this sound like Iraq at all?

You offer me the other side of the same coin, and a continuation of the cycle that got us here. I offer you a way out. It won't work overnight, but it will work and it will take time, and it may require that we have someone whom we wil

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"I am with you ... voting for the Libertarian party candidate, whoever that may turn out to be."

Good, vote Libertarian if that is what you think is best. I don't know if I will(it depends on who gets the nod by the Libertarians, as well as who gets the nod in other parties), but if that is what you think is best, please do so. That's exactly what this country needs, people voting for who they think is best.

"The real way to fix our system is to change our entire presidential voting system. It gives a complete advantage to the two parties. Kill the electoral college (yes I've heard all the lame arguments in favor of it), institute a better voting system that allows you to vote for multiple people, ranking them from highest to lowest (or even approval voting)."

I like that idea.

"Because the real problem we're facing is the idea that not voting for one of the two parties is throwing your vote away"

Exactly! Bingo! It's people giving their faith to this idea, that keeps the two parties in power! How much more painfully obvious could it be?!

especially because... "However, the two party system in place is never going to overthrow the system that allows them to maintain control."

Why would they? It makes positively, absolutely, NO SENSE. Why do people even argue for that!? Crap. Anyone thinking that the democrats are going to change things, ought to study history, specifically, the pentagon papers(google for them). Read, READ, READ, the history of democrats saying nice sounding things during the election, and then in the backrooms, doing all the dastardly things they take issue with when the republicans do them. Nothing has changed, nothing.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

I appreciate your civilized tone and candor. I also appreciate the link, which I've book marked to read up on later. However, I can not vote for less harm. That's not good for me and only works to continue the cycle.

Please read up on the Pentagon Papers if you haven't done so already. Google for them. Take care.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Well, yes, I was joking"

You know, my first instinct told me you were joking, but it was late, and other people were being so serious...

That sucks to, because when I first read it I had a great laugh. :)

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"Agreed, of course - neither that nor any other corrective to the voting process will ever occur... until, perhaps, it is far too late."

I definetly have felt that way at times. But for me, the important thing is to do and say what I can and never give up hope. I'd rather go down hoping, than go down in despair. Not the most motivating words, but I think they are realistic.

"A few relative outsiders have been elected to lesser office in recent years, so there is an outside chance..."

I do agree that an independent like you've described could have an enormous impact. I've also been working on ways to craft election reform arguments in such a way so as to appeal to the widest possible amount of voters. One thing we have as an option, but it would not be easy(but what in life worth doing is?), is to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in all 50 states to reform the election process.

One reason I think this might be doable, is the fact that there are plenty of people on each side of the political "fence" that although they will vote lesser of two evils, are not happy about doing so. Such an initiative would have to be spearheaded by people not tainted with political afilliations, or better still, a cross section of republicans and democrats. I believe arguments could be crafted, that would say the same thing, only one set would be said in ways that would appeal to democrats and another set to republicans.

Although I'm not sure "none of the above" would be doable. I'd prefer the Australian system(minus the compulsory part, I don't like that), which another poster has just clued me into. I have to read more about it first, but I think it could be sellable to members of both "sides". What person would rather have someone they are dead set against winning, over having their 2nd choice candidate winning? Nobody I know could say this honestly. And I think that's something that if executed and sold properly, could gain broad appeal. but it would require people like us, to work at it, and evengalize it. But, I think it could be done.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"They like lock-in as much as Microsoft does."

I couldn't have said it better.

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Slacker]

When they start spamming me (I'm not holding off on hopes of an if in the case of determined overzealous political campaigns) I'll treat them the same way I do to all other spammers I get: forward as attachment to uce@ftc.gov and delete, and let the government deal with their own mess.
Provided any of them get past my email's spam filters in the first place. Who says being patriotic requires letting people harass you with undesired advertising?

Re:if they spam me

[CyberdogOSX]

"Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time."

Wrong. we are stuck here because we use a single-vote-plurality system. There are better systems of democratic voting where each party creates a list of conidate proportional to the number of seats available.

Proportional respresentation systems. each vote counts towards the party and the candidate. if there are 10 seats, and each of the republicans get 30% of the vote, in a pluralty system they would win all 10 seats. in the system i am speaking of they would get 3 seats. the 3 candidates with the most votes in that party would get those 3 seats.

that way if the democrats got 20% of the votes, they'd get 2 seats, and if 5 independents each got ten percent, they'd each get one of the remaining seats, guaranteeing equal representation.

we are one of just a few democracies who have not seen the light of the proportional system. or you could say that our politicians see the light, and it frightens the hell out of them.

The solution

[Bendebecker]

Email them all back. See how they like it.

Re:The solution

[Tom-the-Great]

I doubt they would use a real e-mail address most other spammers don't, and that's what they are doing, spamming.

Re:The solution

[dustinbarbour]

won't work.. you think they actually read their emails? it would be my guess that the emails go through a few screeners first. so if the aim is to piss off some low-level peons, go right ahead. all i know is that those bastards better not be spamming me..

Re:The solution

[c1ay]

cc contact@ataconnect.org while you're at it to make sure they get enough copies to send to their friends. Everyone should probably forward their copy to darl@sco.com as well. He's hoping to have about $5 billion available that he could contribute to the campaign effort as well so I'm sure the candidates would really appreciate it.

Re:The solution

[TheIzzy]

Leave it to slashdot to have people completely overreact and blow things out of proportion. I actually see email as an effective means of campeigning.

According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends." That means less than 1% of the American population will see one of these emails, and I'd bet a pretty penny it won't just be in typical spam style (hint: it will actually be from a *real* address and company). The emails will probably be sent to people who have specifically given their addresses to the Republican/Democratic parties, or similar organizations that promote voting and voter education.

When it comes to campeigning, these guys are not stupid. They know people hate spam. But they also know if they use email in a legitimate fashion, it could actually help their cameign. Assuming they don't abuse this line of communication, I think it will prove beneficial in the long run.

Re:The solution

[MisanthropicProggram]

Mailwasher Software
I just send a bogus invalid email addresses back at them.

Re:The solution

[c1ay]

Maybe not though. According to Dave Barry there's at least 14 or 15 people that are not on the internet yet. This type of campaigning would miss these people.

Re:The solution

[diersing]

all i know is that those bastards better not be spamming me

Whatta gonna do? Create a filter... nice!

Seriously, what is our recourse? They've created a loophole in the policy so we can't report them. You just know if they throw in a "forward this to 10 of your friends and I'l promis to..." all our aunts are going to become relays for them.

Re:The solution

[gilroy]

Blockqouth the poster:

According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends."

Funny. You'd sort of think all of their "close friends" already know that they're running... This will be used to drum up new contributions. It's political spam, pure and simple.

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had a million "close friends".

Re:The solution

[boogahboogah]

Actually, I got lots of negative spam about democrats, presumable sent by Dubya folks, during the last election.

Didn't get any spam from the Democrats...

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

you will

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, the rest of the world (ie everything outside the US) sees this as what it is, opportunistic SPAM.

How exactly are they going to guarantee that their partisan garbage reaches a US audience?

Better yet, WHO is providing them with the email addresses they're going to spam?

Re:The solution

[Kohath]

It's political spam, pure and simple.

Spam is very bad, and it is a threat to the future of the Internet.

These political emails are perhaps somewhat questionable, and not a threat to anyone or anything.

You're setting back the fight against spam with your exaggerations.

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it is spam, they know just like the commercial spammers do... spam exist because of the people spammed, not the spammer.

I'm so sick of people complaining about spammers. Not that I approve of it, I don't like spam in my inbox either, but people should be complaining about the millions of assholes out there that actually click on ads in their email. Get rid of them, spam ceases to exist as viable marketing, you get rid of the spammers.

I thought this basic premise would permeate as people become more capable, but apparently not. I blame stupid behavior, not the learned response.

Re:The solution

[Savatte]

Get a webcam

Re:The solution

[Dimensio]

I actually see email as an effective means of campeigning.

I see it as no better than email spam advertising penis pills, and I will treat it all the same. The sending ISP gets a complaint, as do the hosts of any websites advertised in the junk email.

Re:The solution

[CyanDisaster]

...According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends."...

Wow...I wish I had that many friends...Wait...No I don't...

Hope be with ye,
Cyan

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why Gore got a majority of the votes?

Re:The solution

[Dimensio]

Spam is very bad, and it is a threat to the future of the Internet.

These political emails are perhaps somewhat questionable, and not a threat to anyone or anything.

Could you explain the technical difference between email spam and "these political emails"?

Re:The solution

[jlanthripp]

Yeah, I'd like to have 1 million close friends too. Then I could borrow a $10 bill from each of them and buy myself an election.

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You confused the news reports of the 8 years of the Clinton administration with spam.

Re:The solution

[Kohath]

Spam is sent randomly to people who don't want it. This email will probably be sent specifically to certain people who have a history of dealing with whichever candidate or party. That's just a guess based on the characterizations in the story.

Of course, this misses the point I made. You're not going to win the fight against spam by taking minor technical points and exaggerating them into a pseudo-scandal.

Spam is a real problem. It would be easier to convince people of that without you people distracting the public with fake problems.

Re:The solution

[Crypto Gnome]

Leave it to slashdot moderators to label a Brainless Troll as +5 Insightful.

Unlike YOU I actually read the article. The headline does not in any way mention "close friends" in fact, the article specifically says "to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file" which not only is not "only about a million" it actually sounds like another way of saying anyone and everyone we can find an email address for and even the vaguest excuse to claim they might possibly be interested.

Even the writer of the articl is quick to admit how devious and underhanded this scheme is "And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad."

This is not even slightly about "save the environment" and other tree-hugging fantasies it's purely and simply a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws.

Re:The solution

[Dimensio]

Spam is sent randomly to people who don't want it. This email will probably be sent specifically to certain people who have a history of dealing with whichever candidate or party. That's just a guess based on the characterizations in the story.

Okay. I was under the impression that these emails would be sent to people who had not specifically requested to receive email.

You're not going to win the fight against spam by taking minor technical points and exaggerating them into a pseudo-scandal.

What minor technical point, exactly?

Re:The solution

[Technician]

According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends."

Funny, know how many close friends want me to get body parts enhanced, house refinanced, visit this neat website,....

Re:The solution

[one4nine4two]

I'd buy a Playstation 2. Those are pretty cool. Seriously, if I had $10 million I'd do as little as possible for the rest of my life. Who cares about being president?

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that SPAM usually implies that the e-mail is unsolicited. I don't know for sure but I'd be willing to wager that the e-mails are all being sent to people who signed up for party mailing lists etc i.e. they are considered "solicited" e-mails and therefore not SPAM.

Re:The solution

[BHearsum]

Overreact?! They're SPAMMING FOR VOTES. It's as simple as that. Political campaigns are treated as a form of marketing, so why the hell should they be allowed to spam?

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Change the text of the email to say something dreadfully offensive, then send it out to everyone you know claiming if came in your inbox. Smear campaign the fsckers. That'll learn 'em real quick.

Re:The solution

[ratamacue]

a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws

That's impossible. Government would never act in self-interest. They represent us, not themselves. For the people, by the people.

Re:The solution

[FictionPimp]

What they really ment to say was: Million close republicans. No big deal, I'll just configure my spam filters to block porn and the president.

Re:The solution

[karniv0re]

Maybe a mass /. emailing.

Re:The solution

[Eraser_]

Their "close friends" though might want a little bit of material to tell their close friends in return about why they should vote for said candidate. Sometimes people know why they like someone, but have difficulty expressing this to others. It can help to have a clear cut list of views or political propaganda to use with your friends. Maybe they would want to hear about something you couldn't care less about.

So and so supports technology and the environment! Now I couldn't care less what those tree huggers are doing, but I do have a few friends who do, now I know what to push with them.

Re:The solution

[jlanthripp]

Yeah, but I'd have borrowed $10 each from my 1 million close friends. I'd have to pay that back somehow. So I'd buy myself an election, use my influence to repay that debt and make myself a tidy profit to boot. Isn't that how government works? ;-)

This will get ugly

[erick99]

This is what will allow this form of campaigning to get very ugly.

And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad.

I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:This will get ugly

[LostCluster]

We've already seen this set of loopholes exploited by the Bush team who e-mailed out an anti-Kerry video that doesn't contain the "I approve..." video from Bush that would be required if it was placed as a TV ad. Not too many people saw the e-mailed ad, but the major news organizations did and the cable networks all felt obligated to run the 30 second a few times amid several segments that discussed it.

It's not exactly an ad that's destined for the hall of fame of political advertising. This is far too early in the campaign to be going negative. It really seems like we're in for a bumpy ride of an election, especially if Kerry decides to return fire.

Re:This will get ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already seen this set of loopholes exploited by the Bush team who e-mailed out an anti-Kerry video that doesn't contain the "I approve..." video from Bush that would be required if it was placed as a TV ad. Not too many people saw the e-mailed ad, but the major news organizations did and the cable networks all felt obligated to run the 30 second a few times amid several segments that discussed it.

Howard Dean's campaign committee has also had online Flash ads which don't have the "I approve" bit. It certainly isn't against the rules. Bush's ad was newsworthy because it shows that he's opening up the campaign against Kerry already.

I personally find the required "I approve" testimony to be obnoxious, but it actually does seem to be fairly effective in making the candidates watch what they say. Of course, the ads from folks like Moveon.org, the NRA, etc. will not be affected by this requirement.

Re:This will get ugly

[martin-boundary]

I agree. I shudder to think about when the first Bushse.cx and tub.Kerry links will start to appear. And things like "Your voting connection is broken. Download our vote accelerator now. Not thinking required". Oh gawd.

Re:This will get ugly

[demachina]

Its not well known but George W. learned dirty campaign tricks as far back as the 1972 Senate campaign which is at the heart of his Alabama National Gaurd controversy. This campaign is noteworthy because Bush's team, though perhaps not him personally, apparently doctored and spliced audio tapes of their Democratic opponent so he appeared to say that he was in favor of busing to force desegration at a time when this was the kiss of death for a politician in Alabama. It didn't work but they tried. Indications are the picture of Kerry behind Jane Fonda doing the rounds this week is also a faked.

Also in 1972 Karl Rove "admitted using a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon. He admitted stealing letterhead stationary and sending out 1,000 fake invitations to the campaign headquarters opening, promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing." He was cleared after a Republican party investigation by none other than George H.W. Bush. After all, this was 1972 when Nixon and the Republicans were using dirty tricks on a massive scale in an effort to rig elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ca mp aigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm
http://www.so utherner.net/blog/awolbush.html

The southerner article, among others, raises the possibility George W. Bush refused to take his National Gaurd physical in 1972, which caused him to be grounded, because this was the year drug testing was instituted by the gaurd and reserves. Its likely he would have failed because he was known to indulge in cocaine and a marijuana while in Alabama, and may have done community service in Texas around this time to have a cocaine charge cleared off his record.

All indications are he received disciplinary action for refusing the physical, and a number of other transgressions, which is why he was transfered to the reserves, normally a sign of punishment for Gaurdsmen, which is where he was when he was finally discharged.

Its hard to figure out all of the machinations of his military service since there is at least a possibility Bush campaign operatives were given the chance to purge his military files of anything negative in the late 1990's.

It is pretty clear that he moved to Alabama without getting Gaurd approval for the transfer. He applied after the fact for a postal unit, which was denied, since the Gaurd frowns on expensive pilots becoming postal workers. They finally transfered him to a reconnaisance unit though they didn't have the F-102's he was qualified for.

The only reason he got in to the Gaurd in the first place was family connections which moved him from the bottom of the list, and destined for Vietnam, to the top of Texas Air National Country Club flying obsolete fighters that would never get sent to Vietnam.

Re:This will get ugly

[adrianbaugh]

Normal spam is bad enough but when politicians start mass-emailing videos they're going to find some serious invective in their inboxes. In fact, what with the bandwidth it would require I'd be surprised if they weren't blackholed extremely quickly.

Re:This will get ugly

[the_mad_poster]

Nice troll, idiot. And, of course, stupid moderators didn't RTFA to realize that the entire block of text right in the center of your post is lifted straight from the article.

I ask, are you too stupid to be creative, or are you really just so fucking pathetic that this is the best troll you can come up with? At least be amusing... christ you trolls suck these days.

This is as close...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to an Orkut invite as I'm ever going to get.

Dean did this

[ObviousGuy]

Early on in the Democratic nominee race Howard Dean did exactly this same type of constituent spamming.

Now he's just about out of the race, despite his being the front-runner for so long.

Spam doesn't get you nowhere, idiots.

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!111!!1!

Re:Dean did this

[damiam]

Dean only mailed people who requested it, IIRC. If you can prove otherwise, go ahead.

Re:Dean did this

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread seems to indicate that people who never 'opted in' received the Dean spam.

Re:Dean did this

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread seems to indicate that people who never 'opted in' received the Dean spam.

Oooohhhh... A comment thread on a blog. Real reliable source there, you know.

But what I don't understand is,

[pheared]

With all this talk about how much everyone hates spam, even legislation supporting this idea, why would a candidate want to even come close to looking like they are spamming?

It seems like it's too dangerous. Although, I guess there is a reason why spammers continue to spam. They really want that walking-around-in-their-underwear-at-walmart-scopi ng-the-latest-penis-enhacement-pills crowd. It almost makes sense when you consider it that way.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[silentbozo]

Because nobody has beaten them in the head with a cluestick yet. Seriously - until the candidate experiences the direct NEGATIVE effects of spamming people, they will apply the rules that they know for telemarketing/junk mail to e-mail. I've already gotten recorded messages over the phone from the local bozo running for assembly (my only regret was hanging up so fast that the name wasn't mentioned - I'll need to get that down next time so I know who NOT to vote for), and the junk mail has already started arriving (including credit card offers from the Democrats - jeez, are they that hard up for money?)

Dean, I think, had the only team that really understood the internet - that it was a 2 way street. Most of the other candidates, I suspect, will treat e-mail and the web as "delivery" devices - I wouldn't be surprised if they tried e-mailing 30 second ad clips originally produced for TV. If they understood how much people revile spam, of ANY stripe, they'd think twice about triggering mass spam filters that will nullify important e-mails to staffers and die-hard party members. It's like triggering an immune response - a dose of political spam will innoculate the distributed filters maintained by admins and users alike, and future political e-mails will likely be rejected, whether they're legit or not.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[Guppy06]

"With all this talk about how much everyone hates spam, even legislation supporting this idea, why would a candidate want to even come close to looking like they are spamming?"

For the same reason they continue with political attack ads and the like even though nobody likes them: Everybody else is doing it, so why not? You may lose votes, but it certainly won't give votes to the other guy since they're doing it, too. Don't forget that many of the same members of Congress that supported the national do-not-call list still use telephone campaigning. Come to think of it, the "everybody else is doing it..." bit also explains much of their behavior while in office (re: USA PATRIOT Act).

Then there's the additional reason "Because it works."

"It seems like it's too dangerous."

It's kinda like "Mutually Assured Destruction." They'll all stop as soon as everybody else stops.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[MisanthropicProggram]

Two words: Cognitive Disonance
They think that their cause is just/right/whatever so they feel justified to spam people.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[nomadic]

For the same reason they continue with political attack ads and the like even though nobody likes them: Everybody else is doing it, so why not?

Political attack ads work, that's why they use them.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same purpose LBJ would have loved spam. Send the most offensive message possible in the name of another candidate--one so vile, the recipient would be certain to hate the sender. Make sure there is "plausible deniability", ie use forged headers pointing back to the opponent.

As Lyndon said, "Don't call him a *** ******, just make him deny it!"

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[Anonymous Coward]

You see being in politics is a bit like an anti-popularity contest. The aim is to piss off as many people as you possibly can while in office. It really makes no difference who you vote for cos the other guy will try just as hard to piss you off.

Either that or they are stupid.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[JuggleGeek]

Dean, I think, had the only team that really understood the internet

Dean's "team" got busted several times for sending email spam.

http://www.spamvertized.org/2004/dean.html.

That was enough to worry me about him - he obviously doens't understand the internet as well as he pretends to, or he wouldn't be sending spam. I have never given a spammer my business, so he pretty much shut down his chances of my vote at that time.

But when I read this article and the transcript of Dean's talk (.PDF format), the man really truely started to scare me. Expecting everyone to use an ID card every time they use a computer, or do damn near anything else? Requiring everyone to carry a national ID card? Sorry, no thanks. The man is clueless.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[Ikari Gendo]

WTF? Read the transcript of Dean's talk. For comprehension this time. Where does he say he would "require everyone to carry a national ID card?" STATES must lead... STATES must protect the rights of their citizens... and it is the responsibility of those of us with technical knowhow to balance security and privacy concerns where computers are concerned. HELLO???? "The man is clueless?" Methinks you protest too much.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[JuggleGeek]

He states that the individual state licenses we use now should change to a national standard, and that you should use them every time you log onto a computer, purchase liquor (and apparently anything else). And telling the government about every time you log on, every time you buy a 6 pack, and things like that don't sound invasive to you?

Maybe you just didn't read the article.

Been getting similar things for awhile(maybe)

[filtur]

I've been getting emails from the democratic party for awhile, or so sender is reported. I haven't actually opened them up, becuase there's no use. Has anyone else been getting similar emails?

Re:Been getting similar things for awhile(maybe)

[slavitos]

I have! I think I've been getting both democratic and republican emails... Yet another reason to vote LIBERTARIAN!

Re:Been getting similar things for awhile(maybe)

[nomadic]

Yet another reason to vote LIBERTARIAN!

Why would I want to vote for a party that manages to combine the worst elements of both the Democrats and Republicans?

Re:Been getting similar things for awhile(maybe)

[The Snowman]

Yet another reason to vote LIBERTARIAN!

Why would I want to vote for a party that manages to combine the worst elements of both the Democrats and Republicans?

The worst qualities, such as freedom of choice, freedom from government intervention in our personal lives, freedom from big government spending (and the taxes that go along with it), the freedom from pissing off arabs so bad that they blow up our buildings?

Or better yet, how about I vote republican or democrat, so I can my freedoms taken away? Be it fiscal or moral freedom, both of those parties wants to make my life miserable. It's a shame not enough people pay attention to the libertarians. This country would be much better off if they did.

Re:Been getting similar things for awhile(maybe)

[slavitos]

thanks, john! couldn't agree more.

Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

I've gotten 3 or so phone calls from *#$#$ Kerry supporters. When the last one started off on all the great things Kerry was going to do, I basically said "That's exactly why I'm not voting for him. Thanks for calling!"

Of course, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed if his platform didn't amount to nothing more than "I'm not Bush!" As a Senator, he's voted in favor of just about everything that Slashdotters despise. Why do you people like this guy?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you said why we like this guy.

"I'm not Bush!"

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

I think you said why we like this guy.

"I'm not Bush!"

I suppose the saying, "The devil you know..." would be kind of lost on you, huh?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you people like this guy?

Because he's not Bush, and seems to be the only candidate who can say that and actually stands a chance at winning.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the saying, "The devil you know..." would be kind of lost on you, huh?

No, it completly applies to us. We just think we know Kerry better than we know Bush.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

Because he's not Bush, and seems to be the only candidate who can say that and actually stands a chance at winning.

Is that really a good thing? Let's think about this for a moment. You want to elect someone into the highest office in the country based on the fact that you don't like the current office holder. Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks, you want to replace him with someone who stands a chance of promoting legislation and leadership that will give more power to long term copyrights, shut down the space program, enact more DMCA type laws, promote outsourcing of our jobs, etc., etc., etc.

You may like that idea, but some of us are a little more intelligent. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[DAldredge]

Because he will spend less than Bush and he is less liberal than Bush.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Guppy06]

Last year we here in Louisiana had a gubenatorial run-off. The year before we had an ugly US Senate run-off where both sides did copious amounts of telephone campaigning (canned messages from Bush, Daschle, et al) which pretty much got everybody angry (or so they say, there were still more voters in the run-off than the open primary).

At any rate, last year there was very little telephone campaigning, except towards the end there were a few calls here and there at annoying hours for one candidate, and when word got around that candidate accused his competitor of hosting the telephoning in order to frame him.

Are you sure those calls are really from Kerry supporters?

One of the two reasons I'm not happy about "campaign finance reform" is that focusing more on limits and less on accountability actually helps things like this happen. The more otherwise legitimate contributions are forced to be made in roundabout manners, the more chaffe the truly despicable campaign practices have to hide among.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[platipusrc]

well??

Is it better than a kick in the pants or not?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[DigiShaman]

And he has strong ties to "Fritz" Hollings...whom tried to slip the TCPA bill through. I guess that's why Kerry said to Dean about passing bills by not putting your name on it. Sounds like he picked up some pointers from Hollings.

Without a doubt, Kerry is a snake. I don't trust that condescending arrogant asshole! And neither should the rest of the slashdot crowd

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Guppy06]

"Because he's not Bush, and seems to be the only candidate who can say that and actually stands a chance at winning."

I find this point of view patently disturbing. You're not supporting him because you like him so much as because you think everybody else will like him. What happened to non-conformity and independence?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[nomadic]

Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks

My goals are environmental protection, government regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, and civil rights.

I don't think his voting record looks that bad.

When you say "us geeks" I think you mean "me".

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[LostCluster]

Yeah, I really think campaign reform is going to have to happen medium-by-medium. There's now effective rules for mass-media ads such as TV and radio that make it very clear whose campaign or which "non-partisan" group (defined as anything that isn't a candidate or mothership party) authorized and paid for a negative ad. However, things like phone calls and e-mails need to get better regulated...

Of course, here in the age of spam, there still isn't a tech way to verify that an standard e-mail that claims to have come from The Comittee to elect John Doe really did. Requiring it be digitally signed would be nice, but who would bother to read digitally signed spam...

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Legalize it maaaannnnnn...

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[DAldredge]

The Bush admin just released a report claiming that Outsourcing was good for America...

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[DigiShaman]

Environmental protection = USA too cost prohibitive. Let's move manufacturing jobs overseas to China, India, Africa, and Japan

Government regulation = throwing the proverbial monkey wrench into a free economy. Let's make jobs wages to cost prohibitive. Let's oursource our white collar jobs to China, India, Africa, and..elsewhere.

Universal Healthcare = You will be taxed so hard that eventually we will all be forced to suck on the governmental titty. And my health is fine, unless it's life threatening, I don't need a stinkin doctor.

Civil rights = Political correctness at the expense of US security.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[urbazewski]

Voting is a strategic decision. Get over it.

Last election, Nader ran under the slogan "vote your hopes, not your fears."

This election, I say "vote with your head and consider the likely impact of your vote on the outcome of the election." What's more important, preserving your "nonconformity and independence" while throwing away your vote on a candidate with no hope of winning to or thinking about your vote in the context of the current political situation and acting accordingly?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Brandybuck]

As a Senator, he's voted in favor of just about everything that Slashdotters despise. Why do you people like this guy?

Kerry is not SCO, Microsoft or Bush. 'Nuff said. Do you actually expect us to engage our brains?!?!?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[wmspringer]

Mostly, that he's not Bush :-)

Personally, Kerry wouldn't be my first choice for president. But for me, if it's between him and Bush, Kerry wins in a landslide. For the last 3 years I haven't been able to open a newspaper without reading about Bush/the republicans doing something I disagreed with.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[That's Unpossible!]

Personally, I like bush.

Oh, you said "Bush." Sorry...

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[meta-monkey]

I would so vote for any candidate who comes out in favor of legalization. I'm going to vote for Bush, but if Kerry came out with an honest push to legalize pot, he'd have my vote. America would be a much better place if everybody just calmed down and smoked a bowl now and then.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

Are you sure those calls are really from Kerry supporters?

Considering that the first two were recordings in Kerry's own voice, I'd say there's a good chance that they were legit.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[wass]

. You want to elect someone into the highest office in the country based on the fact that you don't like the current office holder.

Absolutely. IMHO the current office holder has moved in the opposite direction than I would like in many issues I feel strongly for. Looking at the records of the various contenders, they all are much more reasonable IMHO. And, again IMHO, they'll move the country back into the direction I think it should be going.

Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks

Sorry I don't follow the group-think that you apparently do. There are many issues beyond the geek-friendly ones that I feel strongly about and consider more important.

you want to replace him with someone who stands a chance of promoting legislation and leadership that will give more power to long term copyrights

Bush stands the same chance of giving more power to long term copyrights.

shut down the space program

The decision to cancel Hubble was made by O'Keefe, a Bush appointee, remember. And this is all really just election-year politics of trying to look like a reorganization of NASA is in swing. Bush Sr. tried the same thing.

enact more DMCA type laws

Bush did plenty of that, I don't necessarily think Kerry or others will be specifically worse in this regard

promote outsourcing of our jobs, etc., etc., etc

Bush hasn't been too helpful here either.

You may like that idea, but some of us are a little more intelligent.

Then go ahead and be more 'intelligent' than me. I personally hate the direction this country has taken in the past 4 years and I feel strongly enough about I will do everything I can to bring the country back the way I would like it.

Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

Sure, and any candidate is a devil that most won't know. However I cannot see Kerry continuing on Bush's destructive path.

FYI, I voted Nader in 2000 because I also hate the 2 party system and my state (Maryland) is solidly democratic. If it was a swing state I'd have voted for Gore. My priority was to firstly prevent Bush from getting office, but secondly to help the Green party attain the 5% of the vote.

And yes, it might not be wise to keep the 2 party system going by continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils. But IMHO Bush has done so much disaster that I feel it is far more important to swing things around in the next 4 years and keep Bush out of office.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[wass]

I suppose the saying, "The devil you know..." would be kind of lost on you, huh?

And I suppose the possibility that someone's quote can only be taken literally so far, and doesn't constitute a global universal truth would be kind of lost on you, huh?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[fossilstar]

I would normally agree that it's double-plus ungood to vote for a candidate only because one doesn't like the incumbent. But our current "President" has asserted some crazy "right" to order ANY American citizen imprisoned at his command alone- without any presentation of evidence, and without the "accused" having any right to ANY hearing or legal process whatsoever. His designation as "enemy combatant" is the final, unquestionable word, should the high court sign off on it (Padilla case). If the court gives Bush the permission he's formally requested (actually he's asserted and excercised this "right" and is leaving it up to the courts to try and stop him), he could simply let Kerry win, then have him "vanished." There would be no recourse via the law- none whatsoever. Few Republicans I know would have any real problem with that- winning really is everything to some people. It's not an election, it's a national emergency, so the normal rules simply don't apply. Assuming, of course, that Bush even permits an election. Should another 911-scale attack occur between now and election day, I guarantee you that he will suspend the election indefinitely.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an european I just hope the american people will throw Bush out of the White House.

He stopped the Kyoto agreement because the people giving him money is against it (that is called corruption in the civilized world) And the excuse for it was that "the pollution is not the problem, but the impurities in the air", what a nutcase. Pollution is a global problem and USA who is one of the nations creating most pollution should participate in reducing it.

He's using your peoples fear of terror to gain more power and reduce your freedom.

He's lied to you, claiming they knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said they knew where and that the UN-inspectors where incompetent who couldn't find it. So where are they? Sure, Saddam is gone and that's a good thing, but he still lied.
He lied to his alies, reducing the trust buildt up over years.

People outside the US propaganda machine see him as the biggest threat to world peace.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Gannoc]

Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks

MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT.

Jesus Christ. He talks about Mars for 15 minutes and suddenly you have a brain wipe.

It's OK

[Amsterdam Vallon]

At least this is IMPORTANT spam. Granted, it's still spam, but the fate of our great country depends on it.

I call on all Americans to not write spam filters for this. We should read what our candidates have to say.

I love my country more than anything else, and want this 2004 election to truly make a differences.

Re:It's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an official election website where there is a list of all the candidates, you click on a name and you can read a statement from the candidate?

- This is much more organized than ad-hoc spam.
- You know it's a real statement from the candidate, and not a fake e-mail.

Then it's just a matter of getting your rallying cry on TV or in the newspapers: "if you want this 2004 election to truly make a difference, go read what our candidates have to say on this website".

Re:It's OK

[timmarhy]

The parent REEKS of the same selfrightous crap that spammers use to defend their actions. They aren't talking about targeted emails, this is just a bulk send with end users footing the bill to support their campaings.

Re:It's OK

[JuggleGeek]

At least this is IMPORTANT spam. Granted, it's still spam, but the fate of our great country depends on it.

No such thing. Every spammer likes to pretend that *his* spam is important. Bull shit. In my mailbox, I decide what is imporant. Bulk email I didn't ask for is spam, and wastes my time and money. I don't care if it's for penis enlargement, George Bush, or some assholes favorite religion.

I call on all Americans to not write spam filters for this. We should read what our candidates have to say.

Why should we have it forced on us? Sure, if we *choose* to join their email lists, we should be able to, and they should take advantage of that. But if we choose to learn about them by reading websites, reading newspapers, watching them debate on TV, or some other method, then they shouldn't be forcing their crap into our email boxes against our will. And if we choose not to keep up with the issues that *they* think are important, that should be *our* choice.

I love my country more than anything else, and want this 2004 election to truly make a differences.

Apparently, you love it more than you love freedom, because you would have our politicians make decisions for all the rest of us, regardless of how we feel.

If you want an US election to make a difference, then give us the right to vote "No". As in "There are no decent candidates on the ballot, so I'm voting No." Then, after they've held several elections where 85% of the people vote no, they'll end up being forced to allow decent human beings to run.

The only question is whether any decent human beings would be willing to deal with modern American politics.

Re:It's OK

[dave420-2]

This isn't some glorious attempt to spread the good word of Democracy(TM) across the country, but a cheap-ass shot to scrape the last few votes together they can.

Don't kid yourself - if a candidate has a good enough message, he doesn't need spam. Jesus didn't spam, and he still has more followers than Bush ever had (and Jesus has been dead for ages).

Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Skynyrd]

I'm not too impressed with anybody in the race, but if I'm getting spam from them - there's no way in hell I'd vote for them.

Their spam will be sent back. Their "voter feedback" form will be used to explain why I would never buy a product advertised by spam - including the President.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you're not planning to vote, then?

I can't say that I blame you all that much...

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Motherfucking Shit]

I'm not too impressed with anybody in the race, but if I'm getting spam from them

Going along with your nick, the Skynyrd lyric "gimme back, gimme back my bullets" comes to mind when anyone sends me spam.

[Note to overly paranoid Treasury Department staff: This is not a threat of physical harm to anyone.]

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about politics but RMS endorses Dennis Kucinich because he is the only candidate who voted against the "patriot" act.

Seems like a simple choice.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[LostCluster]

If we ruled out all the candidates who didn't use spam or phone messages, most of us would be forced to vote for only write-in candidates who aren't actively running...

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[DarkSarin]

There is only one solution in my eye...vote libertarian.

Of course, it really makes me want to form a new political party--the Technocrats. This party would focus on the use of technology to better the lives of everyone, and go by the philosophy that technology should be placed in the hands of as many people as possible. This, of course, can best be done by making sure everyone has the highest possible income, and that taxes are low. (I will figure out a way to justify it...don't worry).

All right. Who's in?

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[starm_]

Am I the only one who thinks that text is a much better medium that television for political campaigning? With television parties are force to blurt out only the catchy slogans that alure the general public because of time constraints.

With text, tey can explain much more what their vision is. They can put links to more information. They can educate the public on their views much better.

I mean it depends on what they do with it, but I think it could have potential.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[wmspringer]

Hey, it works in Call to Power II..

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Skynyrd]

Going along with your nick, the Skynyrd lyric "gimme back, gimme back my bullets" comes to mind when anyone sends me spam.

[Note to overly paranoid Treasury Department staff: This is not a threat of physical harm to anyone.]

Best laugh I've had all day.

Do you know how hard it is to find a pro-choice, pro-gun candidate?

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[betsywetsy]

*cough* Dean.
well, sorta. He's for keeping and enforcing the existing federal gun laws and letting the states
do their own thing if they feel they need something stronger. Vermont is a hunting state, apparently.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Just Some Guy]

I'm not too impressed with anybody in the race, but if I'm getting spam from them - there's no way in hell I'd vote for them.

So, the most important issue in your world is spam? Seriously? You don't care about foreign relations, or the economy, or health care, or tort reform, or the DMCA, or the Patriot Act, or anything else at all more than you care about whether you get a cold-call email from the candidate in question?

Where is this place you live, and could you tell me how to get there? In the real world, spam is annoying, but there are a lot of more important things to get wound up about.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Skynyrd]

So, the most important issue in your world is spam? Seriously? You don't care about foreign relations, or the economy, or health care, or tort reform, or the DMCA, or the Patriot Act, or anything else at all more than you care about whether you get a cold-call email from the candidate in question?

Where is this place you live, and could you tell me how to get there? In the real world, spam is annoying, but there are a lot of more important things to get wound up about.

I care about those things, but like I said - I'm not impressed with any of the candidates.

I live in California, and just like the election we had here a few months back, threre's no real choices. We had Davis (a crook) vs Bustamonte (a racist crook) vs Arnold (inexperienced). Who the hell do you pick? Every choice is a potential nightmare.

Perhaps there's one that you found and like. If so, more power to you. On the other hand it doesn't make me an uncaring idiot if I don't like any of the current crop of candidates.

As former sys admin, I cannot tell you how much I detest spam, and how hard I fight it.

who's paying?

[gtrubetskoy]

So are they going to make my bandwidth tax-deductable?

From the article...

[zegebbers]

"It's meant to mobilize supporters, raise money and create buzz."
Maybe, this would be better for buzz.

Oh please...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Which would you prefer:

1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or

2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?

Re:Oh please...

[kfg]

Can I trade them both for what's in Carol Merrill's box, Monty?

KFG

Re:Oh please...

[Anonymous Coward]

email, which has negligible cost

But it costs *me*. It's *my* server storage space I'm paying for, *my* time to download it all. I pay for it, even if I don't want it.

Which would you prefer

Neither. Leave me the hell alone. I don't want paper spam, I don't want electronic spam. Both of them are just as effective at wasting the time it takes to sort through and throw them away.

Re:Oh please...

[Motherfucking Shit]

Which would you prefer:

1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or

2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?

I think I'd prefer the one that actually costs the candidate some money to send. If you want to send me your unsolicited message, then by God you ought to be the one paying for it, even if you are the leader of the free world.

Re:Oh please...

[DAldredge]

Junk Mail. It give them less money to spend on other things and they can not send out an unlimited supply of it.

Re:Oh please...

[Fancia]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If, during a week's vacation, physical junk mail is delivered in such quantities that it overflows my porch and causes the post office to begin burning or returning to sender all of my mail, including actual personal mail *and* each piece of junk mail can end up costing *me* and not the sender, then I'll hate it more than I hate spam.

Re:Oh please...

[Anonymous Coward]

How can this post be 'Insightful'?

As far as I know e-mail may seem to have a negligible cost but is that really true?

In order to recieve e-mail I need access to a computer (and a server) which in it self is as env. unfriendly as paper and felling trees. Both use electricity and a large infrastructure to work. (Network + servers etc.)

Yes you can send lots of emails and the cost would be almost linear, but the medium seems to also foster a low quality of mass communication.

Re:Oh please...

[sploxx]

Does one have to choose the lesser evil?!

Re:Oh please...

[cyberformer]

This tradeoff would work if every spam message actually replaced a piece of physical junk mail. The problem is that a junk mailer can send millions of spams for the cost of one paper flyer, and they do.

Does anyone know if spam has actually decreased the volume of paper junk mail, or at least slowed its increase? My guess is that it probably hasn't, except in a few specialist areas such as press release distribution.

Re:Oh please...

[EMH_Mark3]

Do you really think the post office is FREE?!

Re:Oh please...

[st0rmshad0w]

1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees);

No. The reason being that NONE of it ever gives me any useful info. First off, if you want to mail me something, start with your resume or whatever, after all you do want me to hire you for the Pres job right? Secondly, include a fairly detailed platform and a method by which I could respond with questions and get actual useful answers. What we get now is good only for recycling or heating your house.

2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?

Negligible. Perhaps, but the cost to me is greater than receiving paper mail, which is nothing, except time. Email costs me that plus bandwidth, storage, and so forth. Not to mention that sorting postal mail is still easier (IMO) than dealing with email, especially if you get alot of it. (YMMV) And what do I care if they are saving themselves any money by using email, they still aren't giving me any more useful info than what they would by postal mail. And I doubt they would answer me if I responded with questions.

Re:Oh please...

[AndroidCat]

Yes, I'm afraid that's what elections are all about.

Re:Oh please...

[emtilt]

Except we won't get to choose. I'm sure they'll send out both.

Re:Oh please...

[Greyfox]

I would prefer that they just stay the fuck out of my life completely. I should not have to move to a shack in Montana with no power in order to have some peace and quiet in the privacy of my own home. I should not even have to take the extraordinary measures I do to insure that I don't get spam or telemarketer calls. If you want to alienate me as a voter or as a potential customer, go ahead and invade my privacy. It's the best way to guarantee you'll never see a dime (or a vote) from me.

If some candidate is going to E-Mail me himself and personally respond when I reply with the stuff I'm concerned with, then I might be willing to entertain the idea.

Re:Oh please...

[beforewisdom]

An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?

Is this true?

Emails mean

1. all of the minining, pollution of manufacturing, resources used, and garbage generated by builing comptuers, networks etc

2. Electricity, still produced by oil, has all of the environmental costs of obtaining it, using it, and protecting it ( foriegn wars etc )

Steve

Re:Oh please...

[ogre57]

> Which would you prefer:

Personally I much prefer ..

3. None of the above.

(OT?) If that same choice (NOTA) were on the ballot for each federal office (Prez, Sen, and Rep) I predict it would receive over 50% of the vote in each of over 50% of those races. Know I am very tired of .. walk in to the booth, be faced with effectively "which leg do you want amputated, your right or your left".

--
With regard to our schizophrenic IP laws, I vaguely remember somebody saying "America is in that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
-- seen on Groklaw

Re:Oh please...

[B.D.Mills]

Junk mail: at least the real world cost is borne by the *senders*. That's what the stamp or franking mark is for.

email: "negligible cost"? Yeah, right. That has a real world cost, too. Server space, bandwidth, time, most of which must presently be borne by the *recipients*. If the senders paid for all the costs of e-mail, then it would be acceptable. Until they are made to pay for all these costs, instead of stealing them from other people, they can go and fuck off.

PS: I notice your e-mail address is not shown publicly in your user profile. Why?

Re:Oh please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Junk Mail. What's that all about? Is it good, or is it whack?

Re:Oh please...

[Maniakes]

If you want to send me your unsolicited message, then by God you ought to be the one paying for it, even if you are the leader of the free world.

Federal elected officials get unlimited free (pronounced "payed for by taxes") postage, so you're paying for the paper junk mail too.

Re:Oh please...

[Motherfucking Shit]

Federal elected officials get unlimited free (pronounced "payed for by taxes") postage, so you're paying for the paper junk mail too.

You're referring to the franking privilege, but your interpretation is overly broad. Postage is provided free of charge for official business only, with restrictions, and campaign mailings do not qualify. There are more severe restrictions placed upon franked mailings during election years, and nearly any franked mailing within 60 days of any election in which the sender is a candidate is totally prohibited unless it's clearly official business, to cut down on "shadow" campaign mailings.

There are some exceptions. A lot of people know the factoid about Jackie Kennedy having free use of the USPS for the remainder of her life, but few realize that all first ladies have that privilege. So do all former Presidents. There are restrictions here too; oddly enough, the franking privilege for ex-Presidents and ex-First Ladies is only good for personal mail. Go figure, they have to pay for their personal postage while they're in power, but they get it free forever after that!

You can see some of the regulations in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual, S E050. The 60 day rule regarding elections and franked mailings is not mentioned here but I'm certain of it.

Full disclosure: I spent 5 years working for a commercial mail receiving agency (CMRA) and I mostly knew the DMM inside and out. That was 5 years ago, and things have certainly changed, but I was able to find the franked mail guidelines easily enough in the current DMM.

Re:Oh please...

[Steve B]

Who moderated this moronic "save the treas" spammer apologia as "Insightful"?

The truth is that spam has a higher cost than junk paper mail because the latter does not threaten to make the mail useless as a means of legitimate communication.

Re:Oh please...

[WIAKywbfatw]

I find it interesting that, not knowing me at all beyond my posts on Slashdot, you're able to infer that I'm a moronic apologist but yet are unable to spell the simple word "trees": how you thought it was spelt with an "a" in it is beyond me.

Nice intelligent post, by the way. Reducing a protecting the environment argument to one of protecting spammers and destroying email as a means of communication is a work of pure literary genius. People, I think we've found our generation's Mark Twain. If only he could spell though...

Re:Oh please...

[Maniakes]

I stand corrected. Either I misrembered from my high school social studies classes or they misinformed me. Either way, it wouldn't be the first time.

Re:Oh please...

[Steve B]

Anyone who is at all familiar with the issue will recognize the obvious parody of the "free speach" [sic] sigline used by a type of spamware that was in common use a few years back.

Of course, /. does not require one to be at all familiar with any issue before sounding off about it.

There is only one message I'll respond to:

[Bendebecker]

Na-na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na-na, Leader!
Na-na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na-na, Leader!

D'oh!

Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just like the "do no call" list. Laws which prohibit political speech will not hold up in court.

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[gcaseye6677]

Can I drive around in a truck with a loudspeaker on the roof making political speeches all night long in your neighborhood? It is not unconstitutional to have SOME restrictions on political speech. If the speech is made in a way that constitutes a public nuisance, it can certainly be restricted. Sending email in a manner that uses other peoples' resources without compensation, as spammers typically do, can and should be outlawed along with other spam. If candidates want to send email using equipment or services that they pay for, and using a reasonable unsubscribe policy, that probably could not be prohibited. Just like any other form of communication, some reasonable restrictions are constitutional, but a blanket ban would not be.

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[Senior Frac]

Laws which prohibit political speech will not hold up in court.

How about laws that prohibit theft of service under the guise of political speech?

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[Guppy06]

IMO, political campaigning is about as much "speech" as pornography. We're talking about Congress: if it won't hold up in court, then they'll change the laws to make it hold up in court. This is less that and more about Congress not willing to give up their little perks and privileges (like ignoring traffic laws!).

A little thing like the Twenty-Seventh Amendment doesn't seem to slow them down, so why should a silly little thing like anti-spam laws get in their way? After all, they just made sure you wouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing on your hardware with their CAN SPAM law.

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[damiam]

You mean like the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform?

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[timmarhy]

again, dribble. SPAM IS NOT FREE SPEECH!!!! free speech is the ablity to say what you want, not the ablity to force people to listen!!!

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[foidulus]

Can I drive around in a truck with a loudspeaker on the roof making political speeches all night long in your neighborhood?
They actually do this in Japan, it's very annoying(not only politicians, but people selling keroseone and Chinese dumplings too) Let's hope it doesn't happen in the US.

If they spam me....

[LordKazan]

If kerry spams me -- i'll send an email to his campaign HQ speaking about the evils of spam

If bush spams me - i'll send an email back bitching him out for sending me an unsolicited email and continue on to bitching him out for being a complete retard

so it's spam...so what?

[Jon_Sy]

The /.ter in me is offended that they're resorting to spam tactics. The Canadian in me wants to laugh. But the fact is, i WANT to see the ad at this point, just out of curiosity. I'll bet a lot of you do too, meaning this is a smart move for both representatives.

Other countries....

[RoadkillBunny]

Will this 'campaing' reach other countries or do they have a system where it will be only sent to USA residents? I can't imagine what will happen when someone in China learns that Bush is running for president in his country... Btw, I exept Hotmail to filter my spam, it does it quite good 'cause I haven't even seen a copy of MyDoom. I wonder if it'll be so good with this too.

Adult content filter

[Michael Crutcher]

Bush might try to send me some email to try to solicit a contribution but I'm reasonably sure that my adult content filter will delete it.

If I can devise a Lurch filter I might be able to avoid any messages from Kerry too.

Re:Adult content filter

[Valar]

Actually, i always thought Kerry looked more like caveman lawyer...

even if they are submitted to the rbl?

[Anonymous Coward]

they will be put on the rbl, that is kinda funny...

Agreed. MOD PARENT +1 INSIGHTFUL.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the election where we can make a difference. Let's not see a repeat of 2000.

I love our country probably almost as much as you do. Let's not let special interests dominate this campaign.

I want to see the candidates as they truly are. Nothing can do that as well as personal emails from them.

The final straw

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess politicians feel they have alienated the electorate enough. Wait until the spam starts propagating to your friends, installing zombies, etc.

Sure

[barenaked]

Sure it's annoying but it sounds like a good strategy to me.... Hell maybe Kerry oughta send out "VOTE BUSH" E-mails. Sure would get people riled up at Bush

Re:Sure

[Imperator]

Yeah, because people aren't riled up at Bush enough quite yet. Maybe they'll start burning him in effigy in America as well.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not - why do you think spam works in the first place?
Wow! The President sent me an e-mail!

The rest of the world(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

will just have to put up with even more American spam in our inboxes

thanks

Candidate spoofing

[irhtfp]

I can see spoofing (as in faking the source of) these types of emails to become very common.

In fact, it was the first thing I thought of! How will I know whether the email I got was really from the candidate who supposedly sent it?

Re:Candidate spoofing

[glpierce]

I don't think it will take long for worms/viruses to take advantage of this, either. "Attached is a special message from John Kerry!"

What Spam

[USAPatriot]

The article doesn't say anything about you and me receiving "spam", or unsolicited bulk email from these campaigns.

It only refers to their respective rank-and-file, I guess these people have signed up on some list to receive them.

Once again, Slashdot hypes and puffs something up to be more than it really is. No need to get worked up over "Your Rights".

Re:What Spam

[quintessencesluglord]

Do you think the rank-and-file have a clue as to whom they are voting for? Do ya think they need a last minute reminder as to how the hell they registered to vote?

And if every last one of those rank-and-file decided to forward said email to their friends, who then forward to their friends...

Could be a nice collusion with spamming for a better campaign, and the candidates look clean.

The article didn't say that either.

Old news?

[E_elven]

Er. They already did it.

Bush deficit visualized

[mr_majestyk]

What ever happened to fiscal conservatism?

Re:Bush deficit visualized

[Guppy06]

Stealing other peoples' bandwidth is even cheaper than non-profit mail rates.

Non-profit political parties... now there's an oxymoron for ya!

Filters

[Sklein382]

Luckily my filters are set up to catch all campain mail and file it in a special folder.

A Simple Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

Drown out 'legitimate spam' (if there is such a thing) with a campaign of misinformation and lies against all candidates. Sure it will be hell for a year, but the politicians will emerge from the battle so bloodied that they will never go near that Internet thing again. No doubt the politicians will do a pretty good campaign of lies by themselves, so the challenge is to go well beyond what the politicians will.

By the way, did you know Bush and Kerry are paedophiles?

What about regular snail mail Spam?

[Benw5483]

You folks do realize that Senators and Reps and anybody else in the government who is representing constituents has the ability to send postal letters for free?

They use taxes to pay for the postage and send the letters out to as many people as they see fit. This brings up all kinds of problems besides the waste of tons of paper including incumbent advantage.

Re:What about regular snail mail Spam?

[Guppy06]

"You folks do realize that Senators and Reps and anybody else in the government who is representing constituents has the ability to send postal letters for free?"

Phased out decades ago because of the abuses you mentioned. Postage for letters with a Congressional signature is now deducted out of a dedicated postage fund for that Congresscritter's office. It's little more than a fancy postage metering setup now.

e-voting exploits

[maliabu]

wow, in an e-voting scenario, this can-spam campaign will probably run some windows exploits and automatically vote on behalf of you.

The most interesting question . . .

[Nakito]

. . . is this: Where are they obtaining the email addresses for these mass mailings? The article states that they have "millions" of addresses. I find it hard to believe that millions of people have opted in to receive political email. I wonder if they political parties are instead using the same kinds of purchased email databases used by other large-scale spammers.

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[Peyna]

Perhaps the millions of people that e-mailed them?

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[powerg3]

The parties have their own databases of member email addresses, and candidates have their own databases of supporter addresses. I signed up as a Dean supporter, and I get email announcements from the campaign. When I signed up, I fully expected and wanted announcements from the campaign. The big question is whether or not Dean will give his > 600K supporter database to the Democratic party for these purposes. I hope he doesn't, because I do not support the Democratic party in its current form.

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[qtp]

I find it hard to believe that millions of people have opted in to receive political email.

Your faith in the intelligence and wisdom of your fellow humans is admirable, and I hope that someday I too will be capable of such strong belief in in the higher qualities of man, despite such overmounting evidence to the contrary.

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[demaria]

Of course there are millions of people who have opted in to receive political email. I donated to the RNC online, and am now on their mailing list (which is mostly boring and uninformative to me). Howard Dean alone has half a million people who signed up for his list. If just one primary candidate in one year could get half a million, the RNC and DNC has to have a few million by now.

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[AndroidCat]

Did all those opt-ins use a confirmation system to make sure that it really was the owner of that email address signing up for it?

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[demaria]

Probably not. Most don't, which sucks.

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[AndroidCat]

Stupid then. Besides the usual pranks and mistakes, rivals could easily take a spammer's Millions CD and poison their list.

Dean didn't lose because of spam

[Amsterdam Vallon]

Remember back how during the .com boom, people always invested in the stocks that were gaining the most? Well, just because something gains quickly doesn't mean it's truly valuable.

Howard R. Dean's campaign is no longer a .com-style campaign. All the fucking momentum is gone. And momentum followers in the hippie crowd have jumped ship to Kerry, or the ultimate 9/11-spawned momentum man, President W. Bush.

If Dean doesn't make legit promises now, he's going to lose. The campaign will die. He will die inside. Many will mourn the loss of the only non-special interest candidate.

Granted, I'm a computer science professor, but I've taken many an econ and poly sci class; what we're seeing in campaign 2004 is not uncommon, and has happened before.

So don't blame anything or anyone for Dean's limp cock campaign but Dean himself. It's not spam. It's his fault, and I feel bad for him because he's fairly cute and seems nice and suitable.

bush has friends???

[xot]

bush with a million friends? No way.Forget close. But seriously if a country Bigwig starts firing off spam, god help us."Houston, we have a problem."

Re:bush has friends???

[Anonymous Coward]

bush with a million friends? No way

Well, that depends. How many shareholders does Halliburton have?

Caucuses and Spammaries

[corby]

I gave to a Presidential campaign during the 2000 cycle. Over the next few months, I was deluged with snail mail and phone calls begging me for more money. I found it very frustrating and invasive. This year, I tried to give to a candidate's campaign through his website, but the process required me to provide an e-mail address that was verifiably mine. I did not complete the donation.

I will give to a Presidential campaign that I support when I can check a box that says, 'Do not spam or harass me.' (Or when I can provide darl@sco.com as my e-mail address) But not before then, I'm afraid.

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[rongage]

Come on dude, this is SOOO easy to deal with....

• adduser tempusername
• use tempusername@domain.com as your email address
• wait for confirmation email to come in
• userdel -r tempusername
• let the idiots spam away at a non-existant address
• ???
• Profit.... (sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[buysse]

I think that identity verification is required by campaign finance laws. There are limits on each individual's contribution -- they need to at least make a good faith effort to enforce that.

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[laugau]

Keep in mind that there are capaign contribution laws. That is why they needed to verify it was you. Yes, you can circumvent this mechanism, but we all know that the laws are behind the times.

The smartest was to get them off you back quickly is to tell the campaign people that you have already given your legal limit.... They'll take you right off the list (until next year).

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[/dev/trash]

Shit. I didn't even give to the fucker who sends me shit in the mail, I wrote a letter, asking for some help in finding a job ( since that was his campaign, basically, making sure we all had jobs ). AND now I get all kinds of shit.

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[Hoser McMoose]

Easier still, go to Spam Gourmet and get temporary accounts for them. It'll do pretty much exactly what you listed but you don't need to have your own domain to do it (yeah, I know we're geeks and should all have our own domain, but some of us are poor at the moment! :> ).

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[Anonymous Coward]

There are much simpler ways. You can add a line to /etc/aliases, so you wouldn't have to go through the trouble of reading the confirmation mail from a different account.

My own preferred way is to use a yahoo! account solely for this purpose. I let it fill up with spam and blindly delete everything in it right before I sign up for something that needs confirmation.

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[Victa]

Or even better;

http://www.mailinator.com/mailinator/Welcome.do

But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[calmdude]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens, but what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system...you HAVE to vote for one of us!!

Man: He's right, this is a two-party system!

Second Man: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! (evil laugh)

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[pben]

The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win. If you don't think that he or she is the best, you are only encouraging policies that you don't believe in.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was meant to be a throwback joke to the Simpsons. Why do so many people around here take everything so literally?

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[24-bit Voxel]

I feel the same way about people that say that not voting is like votin for Bush. I don't get it, in one case I am supporting someone I don't like in the other i support no one. An enemies enemy is not neccesarily my friend.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

The problem with not voting is that you get lulled into complacency, rather than the only downside being that your candidate didn't get elected. It's VERY important to vote, even if your person doesn't win. Staying up on the state of affairs is what keeps politicians on their toes, no matter where you are.

--
Cast your vote for choice. Check out the link below, and learn about the nastiness in Linux politics.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the 13,000 Florida votes for Nader in 2000 were not thrown away? I know what you're saying, but c'mon man, you really want Bush for another four years?

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Bertie]

Can't agree. If none of the candidates deserve your vote on merit, don't vote. Otherwise you're giving these people a mandate to carry out policies you never approved of. And what's more, since you gave them their vote without them having to earn it, why should they take any notice of what you have to say either before or after the election? If you want politicians to take notice of what you have to say, the thing to do is to deprive them of your vote. Tactical voting is the cause of much of the complacency and arrogance exhibited by politicians - if they're confident of getting enough votes to get in, either because of entrenched voting habits or because the opposition are all idiots, why bother trying to appeal to people?

Vote for the people who represent you. If nobody represents you, don't vote.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[sk8king]

The only problem I can see with not voting for your given reasons is that you are then indistinguishable from the 50% that didn't vote because they're too lazy or didn't care.

I've heard of purposely wrecking your ballot. Do they count wrecked ballots officially?

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Paleomacus]

Is there an option on ballots for people who want to vote but can't bring themselves to vote for any of the candidates?

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[4of12]

The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win.

Sadly, many people vote "for a winner" or because a candidate appears to have "momentum".

Exhibit A: Democratic primaries in the U.S.

OTOH, how much comfort do supporters of Nader's Green Party Presidential campaign in 2000 take in their principled stand not to elect Al "Lesser Evil" Gore, especially now that the country has experienced 3 years under Geroge W. Bush?

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Green party is the Watermelon party,
Green on the outside, red on the inside.

Yeah his anti-capitalism, anti-property rights agenda has made all countries who embrace it prosperous beyond their wildest dreams...oh wait the opposite is true...

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Bertie]

Yes, they do, and this is a major drawback with electronic voting systems - how do you spoil your ballot paper? If they included a "none of the above" option, that would be fine, but the fact is, as they stand, they are not equivalent to a standard ballot paper because you are denied this option.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[karniv0re]

I really doubt we'd be much better under Gore. The only difference between a democrat and a republican is, one's going faster in the wrong direction.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[cayenne8]

And, I've heard it from old timers...and see some wisdom in it.."If you don't vote, then you really don't have a right to bitch about it all".

It just bugs me to hear someone going on, and on and on about how things suck. I ask if they voted, and I get this blank look..."No". I mean, whatever side you're on, before you bitch about things in the US, at least take advantage of the only method you have at swaying things somewhat your way. Vote. But, make it an educated vote. Learn the candidates, study the issues....don't just depend on sound bites...and vote.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[tbannist]

Can't you do a "write-in" vote? Vote for "None-of-the-Above". It should get the point across.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[El Camino SS]

If you don't think that he or she is the best, you are only encouraging policies that you don't believe in.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.


Apparently you're still in college.

The lesser of two evils is what freaking runs Bartertown, kiddo.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[SoopahMan]

This is a common misconception of American politics. Although multiparty systems are possible, the American Presidency - the only poll Americans frequently vote in - is not. It demands that any winning candidate receive at least 50% of the Electoral College's votes. This means that any number of parties more than 2 in America would enter us into a cycle where votes occur over and over until one party receives more than 50% - probably squashing out all other party votes except maybe just 1 other - and restoring our 2-party system.

So, yes, voting for an Independent really is throwing your vote away. If you want it different, vote for a Democrat or Republican who wants to ditch the Electoral College in favor of popular vote, who wants to ditch the 50% requirement, and who wants to allow you to assign your votes (plural) to more than one candidate.

Until then, take your pick - Republican or Democrat - or don't bother.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[Anonymous Coward]

How can anyone possibly say with a straight face that we would be in as deep as we are right now (assuming you are from the US) if Gore was President - You cannot be serious. Bush is running rampant across our friends and foes alike, our environment, our economy... This is the kind of stuff that people remember, stuff that will take years to undo if at all. I think we can all agree that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. If that is so then people who voted for Nader did direct harm to our country and wasted their vote. How can you see it any other way?

What to do?

[mhlandrydotnet]

Look, we all know that politicians are worse than scum. And I'm not talking about just Democrats or just Republicans or just Whatever Party You Like. All politicians are scum. If you would like some evidence, you can have this bit from the article:

And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad.

Its abundantly clear that the law doesn't apply to politicians. So what can we do? Change the law? Hardly. Vote for someone else? Another sleazeball. Rally the masses? Good luck.

About the only thing we can do about this is to ask ourselves one question: if I were in there position, would I do the same? Then you decide where to go from there.

Re:What to do?

[Guppy06]

"Its abundantly clear that the law doesn't apply to politicians. So what can we do? Change the law? Hardly. Vote for someone else? Another sleazeball. Rally the masses? Good luck."

How about instead of putting up with all this we get together in our states and nominate some poor saps to stand in for us. Instead of getting bombarded with all the smear campaigns and annoying phone calls and mud-slinging and yard signs and bumper stickers and "Daisy" commercials we can essentially forward it all to these poor shmucks. We could make it their jobs, in fact. They'll be the ones that have to put up with all the shallowness and selfishness and being flat-out lied to in their faces and they'll be the ones who have to put up with the "pollsters" that are really working for somebody's campaign.

And just to screw up the candidates even more, we let these people vote for anybody. Fill-in-the-blank instead of multiple choice. They'd be able to put the fear of God in these candidates because even winning a primary wouldn't mean a damn thing. Heck, you wouldn't even have to actually run for the office to get voted for! The (self-styled) candidates wouldn't be able to hide behind "Well, everybody else is doing it..." because "everybody else" just got a whole lot larger.

We could save ourselves from some of the worst abuses by the White House and those that seek it. And we could call it the Electoral College.

Vote for me and I'll stop spam!

[MariaK]

'I promise I'll use my power as President to protect your phones and inboxes from those horrible torrents of spam!' ...*delete*

well I won't need to worry about it.

[mAineAc]

I am writing filter rules now.

Perspective

[COBOL/MVS]

You could think of all the paper you won't have stuffed in the door to your apartment/house thanks to email.

Seriously, how could you argue that this is spam? And how is this any different than putting up a billboard, stuffing flyers in your windshield wipers or putting ads on tv?

Other than the usual "I'm for America and the American worker" blatherskite that either candidate will put out, you may find some substance if you dig deep enough. How else are you going to reach the public at large who would otherwise just as soon not vote? How else are you going to get an otherwise issue ignorant public educated on what you stand for and to get excited about your position? What's it going to take to get you to ask questions and find the answers about the next four years?

Spam? No. Candidate education? Yes.

Re:Perspective

[djmurdoch]

Seriously, how could you argue that this is spam?

I haven't seen any of it yet, but if I do it will certainly be unsolicited bulk email. It will use my resources without my permission.

Those are the tests that make it spam. I don't really care about the content. It's a property rights issue. Don't use my property without my permission.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the usual "I'm for America and the American worker" blatherskite that either candidate will put out...

How ironic that many of these messages will be bounced from corporate mail servers, because the addressee's job was "outsourced" to the lowest bidding off-shore job shop! How doubly ironic that the corporations paying for that wasted at-work server bandwidth are the same Fat Cats who support he politicians by paying for multiple $10,000 plates of fund-raising rubber chicken (and an autographed picture with the candidate)! The sharp CEOs support both sides, so they have pull no matter who wins.

Re:Perspective

[wmspringer]

eh...I don't know anything about the Bush emails, but from the relatively low number that Kerry is sending out, it looks like he's just sending to people who've signed up to get it. Presumably if you end up with a copy, it'll be because someone you know decided to pass it on. In which case, will it be spam?

Re:Perspective

[djmurdoch]

Presumably if you end up with a copy, it'll be because someone you know decided to pass it on. In which case, will it be spam?

Well, yes. According to the article, the campaigns send it out to their "rank and file" (which is presumably not spamming), but they encourage those people to send it out to all of their friends. It's spamming by proxy.

Maybe..

[craigtay]

Maybe they should take a look at the Dean campaign. Boy, Dean sure benefited from the Internet!!

OT: Political culture

[E_elven]

>I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...

Everybody thinks Kerry is going to get the nomination and that's why he probably will. Not saying he's any better or worse than any of the other guys, but he's played his media cards well.

I'd personally go with Kuchinich since he's the most sensible of the lot (crazy as hell, but sensible.)

My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents. Only if absolutely none of them appeal to you, vote *against* the person you don't want to win. And under no circumstances abstain from voting. Unlike some places, they won't cancel the elections because of low turnout.

Hell, even Russia has the 'none of the above' option. If 30% votes none, the election is cancelled.

Re:OT: Political culture

[nomadic]

My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents.

That's not how democracy works. Democracy has ALWAYS been about trying to effect change through your vote. Voting for a fringe candidate doesn't effect anything.

For example, I personally think Bush should be voted out of office, and I'd rather vote for someone who has a chance of winning than trading my vote for a little personal satisfaction.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd personally go with Kuchinich since he's the most sensible of the lot (crazy as hell, but sensible.)

I'd also go with Kucinich. I agree with him on a few key issues, and he seems the least likely to sell out.

I also voted for Nadar in the last election. And guess what? I live in Florida. Want to blame me (and some of my friends) for GWB being elected? Go right ahead, I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Gore.

I'll vote for Kerry if he is nominated, though. He would be my second choice after Kucinich.

Re:OT: Political culture

[HBI]

Everybody thinks Kerry is going to get the nomination and that's why he probably will. Not saying he's any better or worse than any of the other guys, but he's played his media cards well.

If that means sandbagging Dean with that stupid cheer sequence in Iowa, courtesy of Kerry's media connections, then yeah, you're right.

If you hear the original tape you can't even hear Dean.

I had a feeling an attempt like this would be made by the Democrat Old Guard. I'm surprised that it worked, is all. I once again underestimated the stupidity of the general public.

I'm not a Dean supporter at all, i'm a Republican, but this is disturbing nonetheless. Dean had some serious support that completely eroded away due to a single sound bite.

Re:OT: Political culture

[nomadic]

courtesy of Kerry's media connections, then yeah, you're right.

Wait, you're actually accusing Kerry of actively reaching out to journalists and asking them to replay the tape over and over again? How exactly does this occur? Does he like call them up and ask them point blank, and trust that none of them will let leak that he asked them?

I'm not a Dean supporter at all, i'm a Republican, but this is disturbing nonetheless. Dean had some serious support that completely eroded away due to a single sound bite.

Ahhh, now I get the anger. You boys were counting on facing Dean in the general election, and are furious that it's Kerry.

Re:OT: Political culture

[E_elven]

It's not just that.. somehow the American political culture is heavily bandwagony -a trend that's much less prominent in the other five or so cultures I've witnessed an election in.

The key is to have the media spin you as the likely winner. It will make you so. Kind of like if Greenspan says things are looking down, they suddenly do so because, well, Greenspan said so and it must be true so let me just put this money under my mattress.

Re:OT: Political culture

[QuasiCoLtd]

And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy. It is my personal belief that If all Americans voted for the candiate they truly want in office elections would turn out much differently. Unfortunately the media has brainwashed us all into believing that only the Dems and Reps matter. How often do you see any Newspaper or news show interview anyone from a non Dem/Rep party? And I'm not talking about Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Jesse Ventura, the only reason they were given media attention was because of their fame and their novelty, not because anyone cared to see them elected (and when the Ventura thing backfired and he DID get elected look how they treated him). People simply MUST start voting whats in their hearts and more importantly, LEAVE THE FUCKING HOUSE AND VOTE. As a Libertarian I see some problems with mandatory voting but its looking like the only way to get a real change here at home.

Re:OT: Political culture

[nomadic]

I don't know where people got it into their head that a 2 party system is somehow not democratic. Both parties have a wide spectrum in their members, far more than the political parties you find in other countries. People didn't vote for Perot because he was obviously unfit to fulfill his duties, they didn't vote Nader because they don't believe in his policies, and they don't vote libertarian not because they haven't heard of it but because the vast majority of the people in this country don't believe in the libertarian positions.

Re:OT: Political culture

[HBI]

Campaigns employ press people to influence coverage. Stop being so naive.

Re:OT: Political culture

[gcaseye6677]

Dean's support being eroded by the scream is a myth. He never really had all that much support. Remember the scream came AFTER losing the Iowa primary by quite a lot of votes. Dean made a lot of money early on, but pretty soon all the people who were going to donate money on the internet had donated already. His actual numbers were pretty low, in spite of media hype. Its not surprising, considering Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue.

Re:OT: Political culture

[DAldredge]

What are the differences between the GOP and the D's?

I do not mean what do they say the differences are, what are the differences based on behavior?

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Both parties have a wide spectrum in their members
until it comes time to pick a presidential candidate. After the primaries, you find that the choices have narrowed... considerably.

Re:OT: Political culture

[The Snowman]

And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy. It is my personal belief that If all Americans voted for the candiate they truly want in office elections would turn out much differently.

Our presidential election system is oligarchy. Congressional elections are not quite so bad, but close. The sad truth is, most people do not realize that there are more parties -- the republicans and democrats have dominated politics for so long that people assume they are the only ones out there. Yes, people realize there are other ones, but usually just parties like the green party that are viewed as a bunch of hippies who don't bathe. They are not to be taken seriously.

I'd like to have a "none of the above" option, abolishment of the electoral college, and multiple votes -- vote for all the guys you like, none of the ones you dislike. Whoever has the most votes gets elected. And change the ballot rules to make it easier for third parties to get on all the states' ballots.

The problem is, these changes would dimish the two-party stranglehold on elected offices, and they are the same people who would have to approve it (most likely as an amendment). That will never happen.

Re:OT: Political culture

[The Snowman]

I don't know where people got it into their head that a 2 party system is somehow not democratic.

Democracy is about choice. As it stands right now, the only way I have to show my displeasure in both viable options (republican and democrat) is not to vote -- which is undemocratic.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now official - CNN has confirmed: The Dean campaign is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Howard Dean campaign when he recently placed 3rd in the Iowa Caucus. Coming on the heels of the latest Zogby survey which plainly states that Howard Dean is losing support in New Hampshire, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Howard Dean is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by his recent statements that Osama Bin Ladin was probably not guilty.

You don't need to be Tim Russert to predict Howard Dean's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Howard Dean faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Howard Dean because Dean's campaign is dying. Things are looking very bad for Howard Dean. As many of us are already aware, Howard Dean continues to lose popularity in opinion polls. Red-faced rants erupt like a Mount St. Helen.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi states 18% of Democratic Iowa voters prefer Howard Dean. How Many John Kerry Supporters are there? Let's see. The number of John Kerry supporters versus Howard Dean supporters at the Iowa Caucus was 2 to 1. Therefore, he is preferred by 36% of Iowa Democrats. This is consistent with his 38% results at the Iowa Caucus.

Due to the troubles of Carol Mosely-Braun, abysmal polls and so on, she ended her campaign and endorsed Howard Dean. Now Dick Gepheardt is dead, and Howard Dean is next.

All major polls show that Howard Dean has steadily declined in popularity. Howard Dean is very angry and his long term survival prospects are very dim. If Howard Dean is to survive at all it will be among extreme anti-war freaks. Howard Dean continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Dean at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Howard Dean's campaign dead.

Fact: The Dean campaign is dead

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is about choice. As it stands right now, the only way I have to show my displeasure in both viable options (republican and democrat) is not to vote -- which is undemocratic.

Where do I begin? Yes, democracy requires choice, but it doesn't require more choices. The problem with US elections is that we are presented with a choice between a Republican or a Democrat, both of whom hold positions so close together on so many issues that there is no difference. That's because deviating from a certain small territory throws the election to the other party. The choice we are never given is whether to take powers away from the government entirely. We only get to choice who will wield them.

Having only Democrats and Republicans to choose from isn't undemocratic. It just emphasizes the flaws in democracy. Personally, I support a constitutional democracy/monarchy/republic/whatever. Constitutionally limit the power of government to defense, police and courts. Create a separation of powers between branches that don't ever answer to each other. And then the only differences between the choices of people to run it will be simple. First, are they actually competent? Second, are they corrupt, handing contracts to buddies? Since incompetence won't benefit anyone, it should be avoidable. And since corruption benefits a few at the expense of all the tax-payers, there's an incentive to keep it to a minimum.

Re:OT: Political culture

[ogre57]

Er, spelling? Clearly there is less practical difference than exists between ketchup and catsup.

Re:OT: Political culture

[UserGoogol]

No, we're going to always have a 2 party system because we use "First past the post." The spoiler effect is too damned strong there. Third party candidates tend to help the party of the big two that it resembles least.

Although maybe if the Libertarians and the Greens could manage to take votes from the Democats and Republicans equally, third parties might be able to rise in power. (Although there are probably quite a few more Democratic-Libertarians than there are Republican-Greens.)

Now, if we used "Instant Runoff Voting" or "Approval Voting," this problem wouldn't be as big a deal.

Re:OT: Political culture

[petabyte]

I disagree. I think the only way to change the 2 party system is to amend the Constitution in the way elections are run. I'd like to see run-off elections for President and Senator, and the replacement of elector districts within a state with proportional representation. The latter being a way to eliminate the problem of Gerrymandering which has basically marginalized voters.

People don't vote because they see no incentive for voting. The perception is that elected officals have little interest in their constitutents. Combine this with the general notion that "my one vote doesn't matter" and people find other things to do with their time.

Also, I don't find your "the media has brainwashed us into believe they only Dems and Reps matter" to be extremely enlightening. Voters practice strategic voting (well the majority anyway). They may want to vote for Nader but realize he doesn't have a chance. As such, they'll vote for Kerry. The other thing to consider is the Mean Voter Theorem (yes, I too have a degree in politics and can flip burgers). People who gain the most votes in elections are those that can basically stand in the middle of the crowd and pull in the liberals and the conservatives. Thats why there is such a little difference between Dems and Reps. They both basically have to stay in the middle of the voter pool to win.

Oh, and my last bone to pick is about the Oligarcy. While I agree with you, you could just as easy have a Oligarcy with 3 parties or 4. Just so long as the same people have a presence and power in government. Term limits would seem to be the logical solution to this (indeed the founders of the Constitution thought of this although 228 years later, nothing has been done). Thomas Paine outlined the best reasons for term limits in Common Sense in 1776.

Anyway thats just one PolSci geek's ramblings. So , uh, all we need is to re-write the electoral system - NO PROBLEM! :)

Re:OT: Political culture

[wass]

Hi, I agree with you 99.9%. I hate the 2 party system, and voted for Nader in 2000, although if my state (Maryland) was a swing state I'd have voted for Gore.

The unfortunate thing is that in reality one often has to prioritize, in this case voting out Bush vs promoting a system beyond the 2-party system. And for this current election there are so many important issues at stake. IMHO, Bush has led the country in many wrong paths and IMHO made some dangerously poor choices. IMHO, for the benefit of not only the USA but the entire world, I consider it more important to get Bush out of office than advocate a 3rd party candidate.

Yeah, it means I'm not the dreamy-eyed idealist that you'd like, but in reality there are just some decisions that you have to set your priorities straight for. IMHO, this is one of them.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Telastyn]

No, the solution should be making voting day a national holiday.

And as a Libertarian, I'll get out and vote once the Libertarians put out an actual libertarian canidate and not some anarchist nutjob.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's so much better to use Instant Runoff, because then I can vote for a candidate to cause them to lose, where if I didn't vote, they would win. Instant Runoff always seems to have the most mindshare of the alternative voting systems, and it is also the only system seriously being looked at that works worse than our current system. Condorcet is a much better system, and Approval is a close second with the advantage of simplicity. IRV is dead last. Check out http://www.electionmethods.org/ for more information.

Re:OT: Political culture

[demachina]

"Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue."

This is an odd assertion. I think its widely recognized that Dean was the only Democrat with the hutzpah to:

- attack Bush
- oppose the Patriot Act
- oppose the Iraq war both for the deception used in selling it and the mess its proving to be
- denounce special interests and the way they are outright purchasing our government

Dean's fortunes really turned because Kerry, in particular, stole his message when he realized it was resonating with the majority of Democrats if not half the electorate as a whole. This leaves us with a bizarre hypocrisy where Kerry is now critical of the war in Iraq though he voted for it. He is critical of the Patriot Act though he voted for it and may have written predecessors of it. He is criticizing special interests though he takes more special interest money than anyone in the Senate.

A real plus about Kerry is, if you don't like his positions on the issues, you can just wait a while and he will flip sides to the one you like. Of course he also flips from positions you like to ones you don't with equal randomness. He is completely devoid of conviction which means he is "electable".

In all fairness, Dean did a lot of damage to himself when he stuck his foot in his mouth a few times on things like Saddam and Bin Laden. Its real hard to be a loose cannon, and take controversial positions, and also not stick your foot in your mouth sometimes.

If it hadn't been for Dean the Democrats would have gone in to this election cowering in fear of Bush's invincibility and they would have gone down in flames. Now they at least have a chance since Dean gave them a backbone. Dean also made the first attempt in a while to actually restore democracy to this screwed up country by getting ordinary people involved in politics again, especially with the aid of the Internet which is likely to be the only thing that might save democracy in America. Unfortunately all those people are tasting the bitter pill of how the establishment and the media destroy anyone trying to restore actual democracy, with a little d, to this country. End result is we will have two wealthy aristocrats, both Yale grads, both members of Skull and Bones squaring off in November, to see whether we will have an establishment Democrat or an establishment Republican taking their turn in the White House.

Dean might have said stupid things about Bin Laden, but its not quite as bad as the Bush family having intimate ties to the Bin Laden family. Bush also hushed up the extent Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11 at the same time they were trying to pin it on Iraq which was probably the country in the Middle East that had the least involvement with Al Quaida, Bathists being secular socialists, not fundementalists, who claim to be Muslim mostly out of convenience. It still seems to be completely lost on Americans, smart people that they are, that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi for the most part. There were no Iraqi's.

Re:OT: Political culture

[demachina]

Problem is all the third parties tend to operate on the fringes and don't have a prayer of pulling together enough votes to win. I often dream of a realignment of American parties like this:

- Put all the wealthy, executives, corporate special interests and establishment politicians in one party, lets call it the Aristocratic party. They deserve each other.

- Put all the ordinary working people in the other party, lets call it the Ordinary Joe and Jane party.

The aristocrats would have an advantage since they control all the wealth, the traditional media and the big corporations.

The ordinary Joe party would have a vast advantage at the ballot box because there are a whole lot more ordinary people than there are elitist aristocrats. They would use the Internet to communicate and defeat corporate control of the traditional media.

- The ordinary joe party would take what used to be a Republican mantra until they actually gained power, keep the size of government to a bare and essential minimum. The only twist would be to usurp the Democratic/Progressive mantra which is make the wealthy pay for it. Part of this would be to completely eliminate the staggering sums the government spends on pork. The dreaded pork laden Ombudsmen bill and farm subsidies would never again grace the halls of congress.

- The convoluted tax code would be abolished in favor of a simple and progressive tax to prevent concentration of wealth in the hands of a few corporations and wealthy families and to make tax accountants an endangered species. The ordinary joe party would no longer try to encourage or discourage behavior with a million gimmicky tax breaks.

- Maintain a military just big enough for defense instead of spending the ridiculous sums we spend on our current aggresive and offensive military, sums as great or greater than the rest of the world combined.

- Provide universal health care coverage for the simple reason that people shouldn't die or be bankrupted because they can't afford health insurance. Its also becoming obvious that our for profit medical, insurance and drug companies are going to bleed our country white if they are left unchecked.

- Keep just enough CIA/NSA to watch for foreign dangers but keep them from spying domesticly or toppling governments to install ruthless dictators.

- The FBI could stay around to bust criminals but it would not be used as a tool to rob people of their basic constitutional rights.

- Provide seed money for science, research, space but always strive to keep the work out of the hands of corrupt big corporations and bureaucracies.

- Then you have all the thorny wedge issues like abortion, equal rights and affirmative action. The ordinary joes would have to agree to disagree on all those. It would be a color blind party. Everyone's welcome but no group is courted based on ethnicity. The only caveat is we would strive to keep government from interfering in or dictating peoples private lives. We would be against discrimination but would not be for affirmative action. We would have to tolerate but not encourage abortion. Gays would have the right to civil unions but perhaps not marriages to avoid treading on the religious.

- Our education system is broken. How do fix it though. Presumably find a model past or present that works and implement it. Encourage free thinking in children but also make sure they don't come out of the system stupid.

- As for free trade and globalization, well how do you solve that one. Best I can think of is to be fore free trade but when a place like China stacks the deck in their favor you level the playing field.

Re:OT: Political culture

[betsywetsy]

The Problem with Instant Runoff Voting

Approval or Condorcet.
Preferably Condorcet.

Re:OT: Political culture

[dave420-2]

It's scary and true - how a popular campaign (whether you support it or not) can be effectively destroyed by a sound bite. Not even a bite containing racist slurs or threats against nuns, but some shouting. Not even lone shouting, but shouting in a crowd. It makes no sense. If every politician who shouted with a crowd was forced to quit their campaign, there would be no-one in office.

I happen to support dean, but if it happened to anyone else I'd be just as annoyed. This is no way to settle a general election.

Re:OT: Political culture

[dave420-2]

Score:5, Bullshit

Seriously - do you believe that? Have you seen the deanforamerica website? If you spent more than 5 seconds on it, you'd see the support for Dean is widespread. The only reason you don't know, is because you watch Fox, where dean supporters are called "deaniacs", and he's written off every time he's mentioned. The republican candidates are seen as being buoyant simply because their supporters are the media, and influential people with power. It's not hard to trash opponents when most media outlets are on your side, and it's not hard to look good with those same friends.

Claiming "Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue" is sheer ignorance. Dean is committed to protecting peace, freedom, justice and the core American ideals. The only things he doesn't share with other politicians is the fact he doesn't have a price, and he respects the lives of everyone. This man is a real politician, not just a professional one. If you're an American, you should agree with Dean. If not, go vote Bush.

Don't just hear what people are saying, but figure out why they're saying it, and to whom they are accountable.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Dean might have said stupid things about Bin Laden, but its not quite as bad as the Bush family having intimate ties to the Bin Laden family.

This is misleading in painting the Bin Laden family as a bunch of terrorists who live in the mountains with AK47s. In fact the Bin Laden family is your typical filthy-rich saudi family, who have denounced Osama Bin Laden. After 9/11, members of his family were advised to leave the country. Were they building bombs? No, they were students in prestigious universities!

Re:OT: Political culture

[nomadic]

You can get a full list of bills passed on http://www.senate.gov. Considering how many major pieces of legislation are voted mainly among party lines, it seems quite obvious that there are huge differences between the two parties. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise; how are they the same?

Re:OT: Political culture

[overunderunderdone]

And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy.

I get tired of the complaints about the two party system, it has it's problems but I think it is superior to most multi-party schemes. A multi-party system where only a plurality is required to win would give us elected officials that only had the support of small minorities. A system which features a run-off between the top two candidates is back to a "lesser of two evils" situation BOTH of which may represent only a small fraction of the population. The two party system provides for a wide array of factions to put forward their candidates (in the primaries) but to emerge with a consensus candidate with broad support and an eventual winner with (in most cases ;) the support of a majority.

There were 9 different Democrats running representing a reasonably wide variety of viewpoints. You have (or had) a choice of a moderate hawk (lieberman), a super-leftist (Kucinnich) a liberal pacifist (Dean), a southern populist (Edwards), a northern liberal (Kerry), a black populist (Sharpton), a union candidate (Gephardt). Over the course of the primaries where each faction will have the chance to support their favored candidate they will end up with a consensus candidate who is at least palatable to each of the factions.

The Republicans of course don't have such a range of choices this time around but they DID last time around (McCain, Baur, Keyes, Forbes et al) and Bush was the consensus candidate - you might think of him as either the greater or lesser of two evils, but face the fact that he was the first choice of some people and at least acceptable to a lot more. If he was wildly unpopular with any significant faction within the Republican party he would face a primary challenge.

The dissatisfaction with this system I think has less to do with it failing to provide voters with choices but with voters failing choose the way you want them to.

Re:OT: Political culture

[FroMan]

Remember that sound bite did not happen until *AFTER* he lost Iowa. Far too many think that Dean lost momentum from his screech, but he lost momentum before that. Iowains (is that a word?) simple looked at Dean's platforms and views and said he is either not electable, does not represent their views, or is not fit for office.

Re:OT: Political culture

[martone66]

I'm surprised more hasn't been said about the fact that both were members of the Skull and Bones society... especially with all the tinfoil hat types around here. It's also interesting to note that Bush said he didn't know Kerry, even though they were only 2 years apart and the Skull and Bones society apparently only initiates 15 people a year.

Re:OT: Political culture

[mOdQuArK!]

And as a Libertarian, I'll get out and vote once the Libertarians put out an actual libertarian canidate and not some anarchist nutjob.

By the standards of "typical" U.S. citizens, strict Libertarians _are_ anarchist nutjobs by definition.

Re:OT: Political culture

[4of12]

"Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue."

This is an odd assertion.

Not really.

IIRC, demographic profiling of New Hampshire voters found a pronounced skew in Dean's support; he was more heavily favored by those with more advanced college degrees (Kerry still winning among less educated, but Dean winning among the more educated).

Not your average Americans at all. Go figure.

Re:OT: Political culture

[HBI]

He wasn't campaigning in Iowa, officially. he had gone the Clinton route and not campaigned in Iowa.

The assumption then, as now, was that the farmer and union votes would determine Iowa and it was fairly likely Gephardt would win there.

Kerry's showing in Iowa was the only surprise.

Re:OT: Political culture

[zerocool^]

The real problem, as I see it, with the two party system is that most people believe that the two parties are diametrically opposed. In a roundabout sense, yes, you have to be either for or against an issue, such as (let's say a really politically devisive one, like) abortion.

But, what most people don't think about except subconsiously is that they extend this to parties as a whole, i.e. if you are against abortion, by definition you're also against social welfare programs and for tax cuts for major businesses.

The parties come in where one person doesn't meet all the criteria you want in a candidate. But, a lot of people just take the bad stances on issues with the good.

Re:OT: Political culture

[demachina]

Well it sure would be nice to know what exactly was in all those pages of the report on 9/11 that the Bush administration censored in order to protect the Saudis.

You also fail to draw the connection that a lot of those wealthy Saudi's are the ones pumping massive funding in to Wasabi madrasas which are the sole schooling system for millions of Muslim children around the world and are widely recognized as the real training camps for fundementalist Islam and hatred of the west that will yield future generations for Al Quaida.

Its hard to sort out which wealthy Saudi families are intimately tied to Al Quaida, especially since the Bush administation suppresses all the information on this, but it is certain there are a lot more ties to wealthy Saudis than there has ever been to Iraq.

I can't give the Bin Laden family much credit for "condemning" their wayward son. They have a multibillion dollar global financial empire to protect. Its kind of given they wouldn't publicly support the head of Al Quaida. It is just bizarre beyond believe that America's enemy number 1, still at large, comes from a family so intimitatly tied to our first family, and our President is trying to tag Saddam with complicity in 9/11 with no obvious basis in fact.

Re:OT: Political culture

[demachina]

Your conveniently glossing over the fact Dean was far ahead in every national poll last year until just before Iowa when he starting sticking his foot in his mouth and the media started crucifying him. Clark was up there too and Kerry was an also ran.

I'll grant you Dean does have a lot better traction with the intelligent and well educated than he does with NASCAR dads who "buy the stuff on the side of the cars" and pick their candidates the same way. Of course you have to doubt NASCAR dads will vote for Kerry either.

I wager if you play Dean's stump speech from a year ago side by side with Kerry's today you couldn't tell the difference in the rhetoric. If you played Kerry's stump speech from a year ago I'm guessing he wasn't bashing Bush, Aschroft, the Iraq war, special interests or the Patriot Act like he is today.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Telastyn]

Well, generally yes. The basic ideals of libertarians is that the government should act within their rights granted by law. The problem comes when the government has done things outside the law, such as entities like the FDA.

The Libertarian party canidates I've seen would lean towards eliminating the FDA, where as I would lean towards making the FDA an government right by law. Certainly the government is too large and unwieldy, but some parts *are* necissary, even though they lay beyond the scope of current constitutional allowances.

Sorry if that didn't make a lot of sense, it's early...

Re:OT: Political culture

[CatPieMan]

Wait, is this a well written, well thought out, political argument on slashdot? Can't possibly be. All most of the comments here are "Party X Sucks" or "Candidate B is a luser".

Although I am not a Democrat (nor am I really a Republican, I am only registered as such b/c in my home town you can't say you are an 'independent' and actually have people listen to you) I would have rather seen a Dean vs Bush race (as Dean actually had some original ideas), but knew it would never happen.

I think (although I may be wrong on this) that one of the problems with Dean is that he was seen by most people as the 'anti-Bush', and while this may get a lot of extreme leftists out and shouting 'Go Dean', the extremes scare away normal people. Beyond that, to be the anti of something, the something must exist. Most people felt that Dean is nothing without Bush (how's that for irony). Before you call me names, hear me out on this.

Perception is the key here. If I see a candidate that I feel is the anti-Bush, as soon as Bush isn't around, what does he stand for? While you have to admire that he would so vocally issue a challange to the current president, without the +, what do you have to compare the - to (talking about electrical charges here)? '-' can not exist without '+' (or, what is 'good' without 'bad' and vice versa), and thus for many, it was percieved that Dean could not survive without Bush.

Take it however you want, even make me an enemy if you wish. I still want to say good job a well written argument.

-CPM

Re:OT: Political culture

[gcaseye6677]

A candidate can make the world look as rosy as they want to on their own website. You could read just about any candidate's own position statements and come away with a great impression of them, if that is your only source of information about them. Nobody runs for public office without claiming to stand for freedom, justice, taking care of Americans, bla bla bla. Even Al Sharpton claims he would "take back our country". Dean is just too far out there for most people. The most important issue to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not, is national security. Dean has made it perfectly clear that he does not see terrorism as any real threat, and I have no doubt that if he were president when 9/11 happened, he would expect the UN to handle it. As for Dean and the Patriot Act, he can just thank his lucky stars that he didn't have to vote on it, because there's no way he has the guts to be one of the very few to vote against it. Any politician who rails against Bush for the Patriot Act is a hypocrit, since they voted for it. Then there is the economy. Dean would do one of two things. Business as usual, or try to enact regulations that strangle economic growth under the guise of helping the people. This of course would cause even more unemployment as businesses would have difficulty expanding. As Vermont governor, Dean was Mr. Special Interests himself, although he is really hoping people won't remember this. I'm not saying Dean has no redeeming qualities, and his idealism is encouraging in a way. Its just that it won't get him elected. People realize that his idealistic answers to complex social problems will not make things better. He would be much like Jimmy Carter if elected; meaning well, but falling way short. Dean simply does not connect well with the average American voter, and that is showing in the polls. As an aside for slashdotters, anyone who is in the tech industry should never even consider supporting Dean. Do you want someone in office who even has the idea that people should be electronically and uniqely tracked whenever they use any computer? That combined with his anti-business attitude will kill the American tech industry.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush Sr. is Skull and Bones. Bush Jr. was offered entrance, but instead entered a different society. Something like "Gin and Tonic" I think. It was more of a laid-back party secret society than anything.

So, we have one dude in a secretive party society with connections to a secretive power society and a dude in the secretive power society.

Re:OT: Political culture

[E_elven]

>a super-leftist (Kucinnich)

You don't get out (of the US) a lot, do you? :)

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah .. politics are bit more complicated than just "we got to do the right thing".
Thanks for enlightening us .

Fucking genius.

PS.
The funny thing is that the guys who like to play straight ( whatever that means) invariably end up on the losing side. Given this fact, I am happy Bush is up there as opposed to some naive albeit well-meaning idiot.
I do enjoy living in a stable country, you know .. fuck, forget the stable country part - I just enjoy being alive.

Re:OT: Political culture

[overunderunderdone]

You don't get out (of the US) a lot, do you? :)

I am of course speaking about an American politician in the context of American politics. Kucinich is as far to the left as you get in America. His positions as they stand would probably make him a centrist in Europe, but then again given that "politics is the art of the possible" and he has already "buried the needle" over on the left hand side of the meter do see him adopt positions even further to the left if there were a constituency for such positions.

And afterwards...

[MikeXpop]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:And afterwards...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, ROT13 sig... I have just violated the DMCA :(

Jingoism.

[readpunk]

Maybe along with being able to pass laws that directly effect how they are able to run their campaigns they should also be allowed to give themselves pay rais... nevermind.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the most fucking insightful thing I've seen in a long, long time on this fucking website.

What we need...

[calmdude]

Is a governments.blackholes.us

It will not only help to filter out the spam, but it's a good alternative to covering my NICs in tinfoil.

one can't be too surprised by this...

[zeruch]

...political campaigning has historically been exempt from any of the restrictions put on other forms of advertising (with the possible exceptions of 'truth in advertising' laws). it is pitiful, but from from a shocking development, and I am surprised that it hasn't happened sooner, although one would get the impression that -especially at the local and state levels- that it will actually be more targetted, seeing as many campaigns use db's like Voter Vault to build actual lists based on people who donate to campaigns or are registered and active voters.

The good thing about this...

[sofakingl]

... is that they are only going to do this until the campaigns are over and someone is president. After all, they don't have any reason to spam you outside of election time.

Anyone here "closest friends" of those two? ;)

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Anyone here "closest friends" of those two? ;)

If not, don't worry about the e-mail. You are too unworthy to receive it ;)

If you are, let's talk. Want to take over the world with me? We all know how much of an influence Bush's closest advisors have had on him so far. Maybe we too can influence them ;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

damnit...

[segment]

I wonder if I could get one of the candidates to pay me to use one of my pimped domains...

kerry@shafted.us

kerry@bush.shafted.us

kerry@defrauded.us

bush@victimized.us
and finally...

bush@misunderestimated.net

Don't do it

[thirty2bit]

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

(I should talk. After all, I'm politically agnostic)

This is dumber than spam

[DeathToBill]

Spammers don't need you the way a candidate does. Most spammers have already annoyed most people, and expect that their emails will get deleted/filtered by 99% of people. Candidates need a large percentage of the population to support them, so campaigning in a way that loses you more people than you gain (such as spamming them) is not a Good Thing (TM).

Thank God Australia hasn't gotten this far... yet...

just trolling about...

[segment]

When I receive those types of phone calls i generally troll with them as if I didn't have a clue... e.g: Well sir, I switched from Kerry lotion to Vaseline sensitive because it made my feet softer. You know I used to have these huge bunions...

That'll make em think twice about randumbly calling me...

Re:just trolling about...

[swb]

They're fun to play with, since they're usually pretty inexperienced (call-center wise) amateurs. I usually speak in a very slow, semi-confused tone of voice and ask kind of inane questions.

My favorite with highly liberal candidates is "Do you favor any kind of socialism?" Sometimes they say "Yes." And I say "I'm glad we agree. I like socialism, especially the national kind." If they're really gullible they'll agree to this and I'll finish the call by saying "I'm glad the candidate has national socialists working for him -- he'll get my vote."

At which point I hang up the phone and laugh, wondering if the guy understands he just agreed he's a national socialist.

It can also work during this cycle to ask them if the candidate supports the do not call list. If they're simple, the caller will agree that he does. At that point you can ask them why the candidate doesn't support the spirit of the DNC list and not just the letter of it, and leave me alone.

I feel bad sometimes, because I know these people are all just honest-abe citizens wanting to get out the vote and participate in something, but then I remember they're mostly zealots or stooges of the powerful and realize they probably need or deserve a good trolling.

Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole"?

[admiral-v]

IAAL

The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.

Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.

"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.

"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.

Mass forwarding

[st0rmshad0w]

They want to spam us eh?

What say we each set something up along the lines of forwarding each email to all of the respective candidate's opponants, with a little sig about how we all hate spam?

Worry about your friends... not the campaigns

[usn2fsu03]

I am active in politics (volunter for campaigns, member of campus political organization, etc.)

I've never received unsolicited e-mail directly from any campaign, political committee, think tank, etc.

I do, however, receive at least a forward a day from my other politically active friends from one of the lists their subscribed to. And yes the incoming rate has increased substantially since the presidential campaign has started.

Like the article says "Sent out as links in e-mails, Web videos can easily be forwarded by the original recipients to scores of people, unlike direct mail that may end up in the trash."

The campaigns do not need to spam people directly, so they won't. It will be the campaigns followers who will do the spamming.

pseudo-political spam and other abuses

[shanen]

How long until the spammers put a political comment on the front of their spam and claim it's just a political ad sponsored by the penis enlargement people? Of course the reality underlying the claim is that they don't care if they cost "their" candidate votes. The spammers main concern is with finding the candidates with the dumbest supporters and the greatest "need" for their products. Is Dan Quayle running for anything this time around?

By the way, none of this political spam is new, though it looks like they are much better organized than usual. For severals years BushCo has been orchestrating issue responses through mailing lists and mass fax systems to keep their supporters "on the same page" as far as the latest spin is concerned. For example, the latest attempts to spin the AWOL Bush issue as "old news" are being orchestrated that way. And you just thought all of the brilliant dittoheads were spontaneously reaching the same conclusions? Sorry, but great minds do NOT all think alike.

I've already been targeted by a couple of the Democratic candidates. As much as I hate spam (see http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/s_jacobs_2.html) , I think this political stuff should be tolerated, though it's a rather tough call. On the one hand, I think it does open up the political process to more participants. On the other hand, it can certainly be abused. For example, a rich candidate could do a Joe job by spamming lies in the name of his opponent.

Then again, my political philosophy is fundamentally in sync with that crazy liberal Winston Churchill. I agree that democracy is a terrible system, except for the little detail that it's better than all of the others.

Bush and Kerry didn't *write* the thing!

[ragingmime]

As a senator, John Kerry may have given his vote, and as President, George Bush signed it, but these two wrote it, not Bush or Kerry. The CAN-SPAM act may be pretty bad, but Bush and Kerry didn't put loopholes into it to help their campaigns. If you're going to put political jabs into news posts, please do a little research first. :)

Re:Bush and Kerry didn't *write* the thing!

[DAldredge]

They fucking voted for it or signed it. It doesn't matter that they didn't write it their actions show they agree with it.

Politics by Engineers

[motiv8x]

"It's All Politics" is a World and National political discussion forum. Discuss global politics and political issues in your country and others around the world. All views are welcome!

Re:Oh please... redux

[gilroy]

It's a false dichtomy. Why should I have to accept either?

BTW, spam has a real-world cost, too. Burrning all those electrons ain't free, after all. (And how much nasty environmental stuff has been done to make the bigger hard drives required to store and forward all this crap?)

I just hope...

[generationxyu]

...that Kodos doesn't spam me. I really want to vote for Kodos.

Personal Info

[Solokron]

I can see it now,
Vote for [insert name here] by clicking here

Slightly OT mini-rant

[bersl2]

Don't like any of the presidential candidates? Here's an idea: don't vote (as in do abstain)!

If they're not going to put a good enough candidate on the ballot, don't vote for the Big Two, unless you really wanted to.

Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote, but this has been lost to America because of some two-party system in which the having of actual viewpoints has been replaced with such generality that what our parties actually stand for is mixed up and buried in misused jargon.

So join me. I'm going to register to vote. I will vote on all state, parish (county), and municipal issues. But I would... do something really really bad... before I would vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate for president!

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most slashdotters are abstaining right now, but not necessarily by choice.

Oh, wait, _that_ "abstain"...

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[/dev/trash]

How will that fix the problem? Really.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[chromatic]

Just look at voter turnout rates in the past several decades: so far, so good.

(My inner historian also wants to point out that the two major parties in the U.S. right haven't been around since 1787, so there's hope for change.)

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[wmspringer]

eh..

First off, I'll agree with the poster above who said we need a "no" option to express that we don't want any of the candidates, rather than letting them think we're just too lazy to vote. (Although we do at least have the option of voting for a 3rd party candidate. Sometimes they even win)

But of all the democratic presidental candidates I'm aware of, I would vote for any except Sharpton rather than see Bush stay in office another four years. It's unlikely that my vote is going to matter (Colorado most likely will go for Bush again) but I'd rather my vote be wasted at least trying to stop Bush than trying to make a political point that, since "abstain" votes aren't counted, will have no effect whatsoever.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[patternjuggler]

Great, you've rationalized your inability to make hard choices.

Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote

There isn't any penalty specified in the constitution if voter turnout is low- 10% percent turnout doesn't make the winner 10% president. Therefore, the only result you and people like you not not voting is that no major party will care about things you and people like you care about.

The thing is, in a free country there's bound to be a huge diversity of incompatible world views- the chance that you and a candidate or party agree 100% is pretty low. Refusing to choose is just a cop-out.

If the incumbent is a corrupt incompetent moron who can't string two unrehearsed sentences together, and the other candidate may be no better, what do you do? Kick the incumbent out- at least the guy coming in will be a little more humble and thoughtful about whether they're doing the right thing if they know the public will judge them harshly.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[bersl2]

It doesn't. It shows that we're not happy with the status quo.

People ask why voter turnout is even lower than usual. Everyone answers that there wasn't anyone they'd vote for.

The point is to not participate in the part of the system that's going to screw you over no matter what.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[bersl2]

Tell someone that you're not going to vote for president. See what the reaction is.

I'm curious about the reaction myself. Maybe when we are closer to election day, I'll actually try this out.

Hey, at least it shows the shock value of what I proposed. Or am I misinterpreting the replies?

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[betsywetsy]

I've been calling and canvassing and suprised at how many aren't voting in the primaries. It makes me slightly sick, because so many of us are really invested in this race - but I know the whole mess can be very depressing where there's noone you think you can back, or when you think your vote doesn't matter.

That said, I think there's some reason to vote third party rather than abstain. At least that way your vote shows up in the count. And it may do some good - getting the third party public funding or debate invites, or at least an ear for its agenda.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[Lost Race]

What about the Libertarian? or the Green? Socialist? Reform?

There will be dozens of candidates for president. If you can't find one you like, write in someone you do like. Write in your mom, or yourself!

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[/dev/trash]

No. it shows that you are lazy.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[jsebrech]

How is that going to get non-republicrat parties on the ballot next elections? There are always independant choices in the presidential elections which are at least "ok." People just don't count them as legitimate because they're not republicrat. If you really want things to change, start voting outside of the two parties. Otherwise it's going to be same old forever and ever.

Let me state it very clearly: the democrat and republican parties DO NOT care if only 1 percent of voters turn out. They only care whether they win or not among those that do vote. Low voter turnout will not change their viewpoints one bit. Abstaining from voting WILL NOT bring about change.

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[bersl2]

Maybe I did not articulate my point well enough.

This is not directly aimed at the readership of Slashdot. This would be aimed at straight-party voters and those who say, "Well, I don't like Bush, so I'll vote for $DEMOCRATIC_NOMINEE."

I think I got caught up in defending my point when I indicated that I was not going to vote. What I should have said was that I'm going to look at all the candidates, and if I don't like any of them, I won't cast a vote just to vote.

Yes, the parties don't care about voter turnout. But many many people do care. You always hear them when turnout is lower than average. So you would talk to that group about your reasons for not voting. They seem to care enough to ask...

Of course, maybe I didn't get my point across because I'm just generally discontented with national-level politics...

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tempted to vote for "Kodos" in the write-in line.

Then, no matter who is elected, I can say "Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!"

Of course, some nut would probably hear about this and change their name to that just for the hell of it, so...

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[wmspringer]

Doesn't the majority of the population fail to vote, though? That's why I don't think it would be much of a statement.

Granted, me personally not voting would be a surprise to those who know me...but they know how I feel anyway.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.

I agree completely. This is totally analogous to the decisions wherein the Court said that political activists can come uninvited into my home and staple campaign posters to all my walls...
Oh, wait...

If they were smart...

[l0ungeb0y]

They would set up P2P servers and host their campaign ads from there. They could even be sneaky and give them catchy titles like: JLOPEZ_HOMEMADE_PORN_TEENIEBOPPER_ILLEGAL_WAREZ.wm v

Just remember!

[Anonymous Coward]

Spammers always lie!

Candidates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Candidates and John Kerry?

When did John Kerry become a combination of multiple biological organisms?

damn, I missed that.

Have yo uread the article?

[signe]

Before we start jumping all over people for spamming, are we sure that they're spamming? The article says that they are sending emails out to supporters. This would seem to say that they are sending emails to people who have signed up to receive emails from them in one way or another. Whether that's from people signing up on their websites, or people signing up on the RNC/DNC websites, or something like that. Now, you may not believe that millions of people signed up to receive emails from W (or the RNC and other associated groups), but that doesn't mean it's not true.

So, has anyone here actually gotten spam from Kerry or Bush? And not email that looks like it's from them, but is actually forged. I'm talking about the emails talked about in the article.

-Todd

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.

Um, how about, say, candidate web sites? Those are workable alternatives to spam. Why does "expression" have to include the right to invade my space?

Blacklisting

[bobthemuse]

What happens when major providers start blacklisting their servers? Will they a) give up, b) resort to the same underhanded server-hopping techniques as the rest of the spammers or c) find a way to make blacklists illegal.

If they have the right to spam me, I reserve the right to spam them back. On to the game of 'how many religion and porn lists can I sign up their staff for?

Hint: it's scripted :-)

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[ScooterBill]

The first amendment does not allow for pornography, illegal activity or harassment. Bulk spam can and should be considered harassment.

Imagine if you came home and your snailmailbox was completely full of junk mail, so much so that you had trouble getting your legitimate mail. Is this protected by the first amendment?

We have a junk fax law, why not a real junk email law?

M

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Guppy06]

"I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression,"

I think you're looking at it wrong. The laws as they are now define "political speech" as being "more equal" than other speech, a concept that seems to "abridge the freedom of speech" on its face (essentially dictating what you can and cannot talk about).

The laws against obscenity revolve mostly around the idea of "It's not really speech," and even that essentially requires a case-by-case evaluation by the courts.

IMO, anti-spam laws are (or at least should be) based on the idea of "It's my computer and my bandwidth!" In that respect spam is the electronic equivalent of graffiti: just because it's art doesn't automatically give you the right to paint it on my wall. But the CAN SPAM act lets politicians do just that all in the name of "free speech."

Whoever sends me election spam....

[Rick Zeman]

...will get reported to Spamcop and then badmouthed "Yeah, KerBush said he could make my dick bigger..."
Seriously, they have the law on their side, but morally they're no different than any other spammer.

Re:Agreed. MOD PARENT +1 INSIGHTFUL.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to see the candidates as they truly are.

If you're that interested then there are any number of other ways to find out. Try listening to what they say in those interviews, or reading up on their policies or doing research on their history.

Spam is spam. I don't care if some moronic politician thinks he has a right to force some politically-correct, information-neutered e-mail into my inbox, I don't want it. The internet is not supposed to be a "push" medium, as we discovered in the 90s.

It's pull. The information is out there. You want it? Go find it. And you'll get a much more balanced and thorough viewpoint than some e-mail put together by the candidate's marketing floozy.

proportions ;-)

[Scrameustache]

Leave it to slashdot to have people completely overreact and blow things out of proportion.

WHAT!? I will do NO SUCH THING!

I will overreact AND blow things WAY out of proportion whenver I please!
I won't let a facist like YOu dictate how I am allowed to react! That is the absolute worst thing I have ever heard! You sir are a monster! I'm adding you to my enemies list and I urge all slashdotters to do the same! You won't get away with such OUTRAGEOUS controlling statements!
Our ancestors died to protect us from people like you, you MONSTER!

HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!?!!!!

IF our Politicians respect the law

[Knight55]

they will inspire me to do the same!

Please email your email address to sickler245@yahoo.com and join my patriot team!

hey joe! FREE pr ES agura?

[MattyCobb]

I can see it now: "Need a better preSIdeNTT!>???!? Our pills make your president 25% better in as litte as 3 months*. CLICK EHRE! GET FREEEEE congress reports**!!!!!! ANDD make MONEYY at home offff CONGRESS-BAY!" *never ** porn" I for one welcome it though. At least it will be spam that won't refer to my special member, the rack i don't have, or a cable descrambler. That and I imagine any spam GW sends out will fill my heart with laughter.

I don't think that will help

[roystgnr]

If enough of us do what you suggest, we won't receive any more spam from candidates advertising themselves. After all, a commercial spammer who pisses off only 99 people for every purchase would be a roaring success, but a political spammer who pisses off 4 people for every new convert would be a horrible failure, since 1 or 2 of those 4 people probably vote and will now vote against him.

This won't do anything to stop negative spam, though. If you get an email talking about what an idiot Kerry is, does that make you want to vote against Edwards, Dean, or Bush?

What's worse, if people like you are vocal enough and numerous enough, you'll just start to see a new type of spam: obnoxious emails purporting to support Candidate X, but actually sent by one of his competitors.

You can try and strike a balance in which your reduced support for the candidate in an unsolicited email exactly balances out the increased support he might get from others, but that just sounds hard. I suggest treating political spam like any other variety: filter it, ignore it, or delete it.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[JuggleGeek]

The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons.

Excuse me, but what anti-spam law are you talking about? Are you refering to the "can spam" act which *never* says that you can't advertsie by spam?

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Anonymous Coward]

The first amendment does not allow for pornography

Really? What part of "shall make no law restricting freedom of the press" addresses this interesting point?

An article from CNet

[ObviousGuy]

Dean Campaign Says It Spammed

Re:An article from CNet

[Anonymous Coward]

how did this get modded down?

I just have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

that American politics is incomprehensible. Is there any site where the poltical process of the USA are explained?

NOW it makes sense!!!

[SmoothTom]

Now we can fully understand why the new federal CanSPAM law overrides existing state laws that alowed individuals to sue spammers for spam (often at about $500 per received spam).

The politicians built in not only a specific exemption for their own SPAM, but at the same time took away from the victims the ability to sue on their own.

--
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my clothes."

The parties already do this

[dacarr]

If you so much as put a contact email on either republicans' or democrats' website, they start sending you junk emails telling you what's going on. I did that once on both, and had to fight like hell to get removed.

As such, these are people who just send the emails to you if you're in their pools anyway. It's not really "spam", as the messages are generated for a list they collect (and they have the flyspeck-3 click-through I-agree-to-get-spammed clause somewhere), but it is annoying as hell.

Ah! National do not call list....

[slashname3]

I think we found out just how they will use the information on the national do not call list. I figure most people used the internet to sign up for that, hence they have your email address confirmed.

How nice they can use it to send spam for political campaigns.

So was the do not call list just a shame to collect valid email addresses for this use?

Referrer spamming

[fatwreckfan]

Disturbing as this is, a friend that has a blog has been getting referrer spam to candidates' webpages of all things.

If you're unfamiliar with the term, referrer spamming is when fake HTTP Referrer headers are used to make referrers show up in webserver logs so the webmasters think they are linked to by that site.

He was getting only porn spamming up until about a month ago, when the presidental candidate pages started showing up.

Re:Referrer spamming

[kris]

The aim here is not to make the webmaster think that they are linked by that site, but to boost page rank.

Referer stats are often part of stats pages that are made available under the original URL of your site. For example, if your domain is http://example.com/, your stats may be made available to you from http://stats.example.com by your hoster. The hope is that your stats are available without password protection and are found by Google.

By showing up in your referer stats, the spammers are essentially creating a link from your stats domain to their site, boosting their general google page rank tremendously.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[serutan]

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.

Really? The idea of the First Amendment was to protect people's right to express themselves publicly without fear of persecution, not to give them license to demand other people's attention in their own homes. There is a big difference between making information available and inflicting it on people. I doubt that the framers of the Constitution would have had any trouble making that distinction, had they anticipated email or even cheap mass postal mail.

Forget email...

[harikiri]

I just can't 'get' why you guys put up with the automated phone messages from candidates..

History shows

[iminplaya]

that no matter how abusive a candidate becomes, he/she still gets plenty of votes. Certainly explains the...what? 95-98 percent re-election rate. And since 1960 at least(candidates discover tv) the election is little more than a "miss america" show. People are now just voting for the best looking...qualifications be dammed. This is why Dennis won't get elected. Even though he's by FAR the best person running.

Re:History shows

[Zakabog]

People are now just voting for the best looking...qualifications be dammed.

Wow and I thought I was the only one having wild fantasies about John Kerry. He's deffinitely the best looking of all the candidates, but then again I like to stick sharp objects into my eyes so I wouldn't know what he looks like, but the black and whire blur I see of him is by far the best black and white blur I've ever seen!

Sending death threats as reply is a bad idea here

[EvilLiberalGuy]

People who react to this spam with profanity laced rants and/or death threats can now be jailed in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison for threatning the President or a presidential candidate. Good way to stop the opposition.

Hey you editor assholes!

[c0dedude]

Hey! The primaries aren't over yet! Quit picking who's electable and who's not! Kerry and Bush are not the only possible candidates for President! It's exactly this kind of coverage, when you don't even think you are doing it, that contributes to the elitism of politics. You want to support the little guy, the average joe, give him a voice! Don't just assume that people will nominate Kerry because he's winning! Dammit, I expected better of you /. editors.

Re:Hey you editor assholes!

[Mr. Pillows]

Has anyone else noticed that the schedule of when each Democratic primary takes place is all wrong? The way the current system is set up, it is almost always the case that the earlier primaries, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, have more of a vote than later primaries. This whole concept of "momentum" should not be a deciding factor in who will cinch the Democratic presidential nomination. It makes no sense that a Union would back out of supporting one candidate simply because another candidate is building this so-called "momentum". Huh? So is the union saying that it had no clue as to why they supported the candidate in the first place? Is this supposed union backing away from its core values and shifting their money to the front-runner? Whether we're talking about a union or an individual, isn't momentum such a strong phenomenon that the system should be changed? The status quo has it so that states with later primaries have less of a say in such an important election. The status quo has it so that votes in states like New Jersey, with their primary in June, have virtually no say in who claims the nomination because there is only one candidate left by the time people from that state can vote. In this year's election, most people's votes after New Hampshire's primary didn't seem to matter as much since a front-runner had already been decided. I think all this is said best by the following: "Front-loading extravanganzas such as Super Tuesday and Mega Tuesday are the WMDs in presidential politics. They kill candidacies by the score. In the last three contested Republican presidential nominations, 1988, 1996, 2000, the campaign season began with 6, 10, 12 candidates respectively, in each case the race was conceded to the front-runner by the Ides of March." I propose that the primaries are all held on the same day or that the results are not made public until after the winner is determined. It's a failure of democracy to see a candidates message being drowned out or silenced simply because he/she is running out of money (for ads and ground worker help to get their message out) because people jump ship to support the front-runner so their resources aren't wasted. Every vote in every state should count just the same. It's no secret that states have been trying to move their primaries up earlier and earlier. California, with a whopping 400+ delegates, in 1996 moved their primary from the first Tuesday in June to the second Tuesday in March. Being discontent with that, the state moved its primary again in 2000 to the first Tuesday of March. Now, they are part of Mega Tuesday and Californians have more of a say. North Dakota made a similar move this year since candidates mostly never campaign in that state as if it didn't matter. Now, with an earlier primary, candidates actually visited North Dakota this year.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy is fallacious and deceptive.

There is nothing analogous between being sent messages through a public messaging system to which you have subscribed and having your house invaded and your possessions subsequently defaced.

If you're so pissed off that Internet email allows unsolicited messages to be delivered to you then you can choose to not participate. If, on the other hand, you choose to participate in a messaging system that you know permits -- at the protocol level -- unsolicited messages, well, you've got to accept the fact that you might get a few of those messages.

There is absolutely no connection between your voluntary participation in a system that you know will lead to the delivery of unsolicited messages and people breaking into your home and trashing your things.

better spam than mass-mailings

[TheGuinnesseur]

Would they be more likely to get your vote if they sent you a piece of cardstock in the mail with some witty slogans and a pretty photo?

I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email. While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.

Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to hear it, I'll go to their website. Saves the trees, and keeps my inbox clear.

They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.

So fuck um both. I hope someone brings a class action lawsuit against them if they do this horse-shit.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[adler187]

Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email?

Absolutely! I could use that paper to help start my woodstove so I don't have to pay the outrageous natural gas prices.

(BTW, we plant around 100+ trees a year, so don't get all Tree-Hugger on my ass! Or else I'll have my tree-hugging friend to calm you down)

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[TheGuinnesseur]

1. They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.

Let's get real. People don't run for president because of the salary and benefit package. They do it for power. Now, in an ideal world the Presidency would be a selfless job (I'd still like to believe it is), but it's not about "paid if elected."

If you're idealistic, it's about upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws enacted by Congress. If you're cynical, it's about cronyism, nepotism and using the people of the United States for fun and profit. Whatever way you slice it, it's not about the $250K salary.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Anonymous Coward]

(paid if elected) is not automatically referring to the fact they get a check.

they are receiving something that makes up for hte pay. thats the benefits to them.

i think political speach should be classified as commercial speech.

hey if they are spending upwards of a hundred million dollars to get elected, they are selling something.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right...and wrong. Sure it's not about the presidential salary... but did the original post claim that? The Prez is just a front man. Someone to do the dirty work for those that really win the elections.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single one of your arguments has been used by spammers to justify sending unsolicited bulk email, which according to them, isn't really spam.

The bottom line is that I will block the IP addresses of any SMTP server that spams me or any user on my system.

That said, I'll be more likely to vote for the candidate who is least likely to destabilize world politics by waging preemptive war against sovereign nations for no good reason, whether or not they send unwanted crap in electronic or paper form.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[pwagland]

I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.

Maybe to you it isn't spam, but what happens if I get it? I can't even vote in your election. So if I get it, it is most certainly spam, and most definitely unwanted.

Not saying that I will get it... maybe they have a real opt-in list somewhere, but if I do get it, it will be spam.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[iwein]

So you can do anything you want as long as you tell me it is for the best because i should remember you could do much worse?

I would *rather* get nothing if you don't mind.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you havent caught up with the times, or have been too caugnt up in environmentalism, but trees used for paper (and lumber) are not cut from a rainforest as im sure you beleive. Trees are grown on large farms similar to corn fields. Wood is a replenishable source and using it does NOT hurt the environment.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[gnu-generation-one]

"If I want to hear it, I'll go to their website. Saves the trees, and keeps my inbox clear."

Or go to their blog. I mean, all serious candidates have blogs, right?

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Fear the Clam]

The president of the United States is actually paid $400,000, but your point stands.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[pdxluddite]

Two points here: one, there's a problem with only wanting to be exposed to what you seek out. People's methods and sources for seeking out information are usually influenced by the human need to be reassured, meaning that most users seek out perspectives that match their own. The consequence is a polarized debate where the public selectively hears only the messages they want to hear. Political Balkanization, anyone? Read Cass Sunstein's Republic.com for more on this.

And secondly, the reward isn't the salary, the issue is the ability to influence the business climate to the liking of your business constituency while in office, then the ability to peddle your subsequent 'influence' as a extraordinarily highly-paid lobbyist once you've left high office.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[admiral-v]

The correct analogy would be a law that prohibits political activists from knocking on the door for the reason that it's a bother to turn them away.

in a way I am happy

[beforewisdom]

I'm not excited about spam, but politics by email seems like it is leveling the playing field a bit.

Someone who isn't a rich, "preapproved" canidate can stand toe-to-toe in emails.....well, at least come closer to it.

Steve

Effect on individual politicians' and US' image

[Fruny]

Sure it's annoying but it sounds like a good strategy to me.... Hell maybe Kerry oughta send out "VOTE BUSH" E-mails. Sure would get people riled up at Bush

Also think how much good it would do for Bush's image the world over. If you think he (and the US, by association) has it bad right now, just wait until we all start to believe he (and again, by association, all of you) condones spam...

More seriously, in your opinion, what is the likelihood that they'll restrict their recipient list to registered US voters? Did they ask for your email when you signed up?

So What Happens...

[Ieshan]

So Suppose I'm John Kerry and I cleverly design a million emails that look like Penis Enlargement Spam, but instead, I urge the recipient to vote for Bush?

You know, I give it a weird title, I include a funky paragraph of garble, etc, to make it appear as if I'm trying to get past your spam filter (which I am), and then advertise for the OTHER GUY.

What then?

Vote Greenspan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Greenspan is an excellent candidate. He rarely says anything that is understood well enough to offend anyone. He's served as Fed chairman under both Republicans and Democrats. Even with his image severely tarnished by blame for handling the end of the bubble and the beginning of this recession, he's more trusted than any politician.

We'd have 4 or 8 years without a war. After all, all he'd have to do is threaten to learn your language and make a speech about what lousy shape your economy was in.

That's it. I'm writing in Alan Greenspan in November!

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[MagFox]

I'm sorry, but there are a number of alternatives to spam, such as what was used for the number of years that allegedly existed prior to email.

But it does

[bluGill]

The most effective way to affect politics is run yourself and win. Next is to go to the caucuses of one major party and get some resolutions passed, and then work to get your canidate elected. However you can't run for all positions, or might not be elected, your next option isn't of much use if the rest of the party members shoot it down. So you have one more options: third party votes.

Voting for a third party gets noticed, perhaps out of proprotion. These are people who took the time to vote and were informed on the issues. Those who vote because they should: vote party lines because "dad was a democrat so I'm a democrat and I don't care if the party has changed"; "I'm a republican, and it is better to help a party that agrees with me partially than throw away my vote". Note that these are two groups that you don't have to worry about, they will vote for you, and make up a large part of the voters. Polititions have to worry about those who can be persuaded. Many voted for Kennedy because Nixon sweated on TV, not for serious reasons, so you don't have to worry about serious issues to get a nother group. Who is left? A very small group that you have to influence, because they

Of course polititions are also aware some people will always vote libratarian. (or whatever) However they care about those who might vote for them, if they were just a little more "left" or a little more "right". The only thing stopping them is there are those in a the middle who also will change votes, so it is a balance, get as many fringe votes as you can without scaring away the middle voters.

They may not act like it, but polititions always care about third parties, because their job is to get re-elected. And therefore you vote counts. If you can get a lot of others to vote with you your vote counts even more. (actually if you can get a lot of people to vote one way you have more power than even the richest man in the world)

Authenticity? . . .

[Mr. Pillows]

How can we tell the email is genuine? It's not that hard to spoof an email.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Idarubicin]

If you're so pissed off that Internet email allows unsolicited messages to be delivered to you then you can choose to not participate. If, on the other hand, you choose to participate in a messaging system that you know permits -- at the protocol level -- unsolicited messages, well, you've got to accept the fact that you might get a few of those messages.

I should know better than to reply to an anonymous coward, but here we go.

If you would like a direct analogy that is exactly on point, here it is: laws already exist banning junk faxes. These laws have gotten the thumbs-up from courts, despite advertisers trying to raise First Amendment questions.

The receiver of the message necessarily bears some of the cost of the message--toner, paper, temporary loss of use of the line for fax machines; connection and bandwidth charges for spam.

The First Amendment rights of others end when they start charging me (directly or otherwise) so they can express themselves. The First Amendment guarantees one the right to speak--it doesn't guarantee that I will pay to listen.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[bluGill]

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect

Look closely at the latest (or any really) campaign finance reform bill and tell me how it differs from a restriction of the people's right to free political expression.

Oh, I agree that some people went to far, and I don't like that money influences politics. These laws are not the solution.

First Amendment most certainly not a "loop hole"!

[triclipse]

Your sarcasm is noted - of course there is no case holding that activists can come into your home uninvited.

However, there is plenty of case law that hold that freedom of political expression outweighs the minor inconvenience of hearing/reading that expression.

"The government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions 'are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)

The distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree, and the government's content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.

I would think, when weighing the burden on the listener in this case, that the "bundle of rights" you have in your real property is far more significant than that of your email inbox. I think the latter would be scrutinized in a way more analogous to digital cable channels. In such a case, the First Amendment is much more protective of the speaker. See, for instance, U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 120 S.Ct. 1878.

YHBT HAND

[Anonymous Coward]

The way you show you understand that a post is a troll is by making your reply shorter than the troll. Just be direct and to the point next time. If you use more keystrokes than the trolls, then the trolls are winning.

What I wouldn't object to

[lkaos]

I certainly wouldn't object to receiving one email from each candidate stating their stances on important issues and why I should vote for them.

This email should contain embedded flash or any of that nonsense. Basically, it's like a candidate coming to your door. As long as they are respectful, polite, and only do it once, I see no real problem with it.

Re:What I wouldn't object to

[iso]

Well I wouldn't want even *one* email, as I don't care about their election and I can't vote anyhow: I'm a Canadian living in Canada. How will these candidates ensure that they will be sending their "one" email only to American voters and not the rest of the world?

Being on a party email list

[Baron_Yam]

I joined one of the major political parties in my province... and once you're on the list they NEVER forget you, even if you ask them to. I stopped getting snail mail when I moved and left no forwarding address, and I stopped getting email updates when I changed email addresses. Thank God I never gave them my cell number, because I kept that.

Maybe because

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a Miserable Failure?

Although he still has some friends. AOL specifically filters this one result, but chose not to take out the other links to Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, or Hillary Clinton. AOL good ol boys? See here for more info

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Steve B]

The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons.

Nonsense. The Constitution does not give you a right to steal stuff, and no court has ever upheld any supposed "right" to (for example) spray-paint political grafitti on other people's walls.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[JuggleGeek]

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.

How does saying "You can't send that message via spam to unwilling recipients" inhibit free speech? They can post the message to a newsgroup, stick it on a website, run an ad in a newspaper, or simply get a report for the NYTimes to interview them. They can even use email - as long as they send it to people who are receiving it voluntarily. They have a lot of ways of getting their message out. They've done it for over 200 years in the US, all without having to send email spam.

Spam inhibits free speech because people are afraid to post their email address (you yourself don't have an address available here on /.) It costs ISP's, businesses, and eventually most users both time and money. Legitimate messages get filtered out along with spam - but spam filters are necessary because without them, email becomes useless. (My spam filters toss over 500 spams a day, on average, and the number has been rising fast.)

in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent.

If you ignore the fact that sending a million snail-mail ads has a large cost, while sending 20 million email ads has a very low cost, then it's kind of analogous. Of course, if you don't hide from the truth, you have to recognize that the reason you can send 20 million messages cheap is because you are forcing the costs of those messages onto the unwilling recipients.

laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.

TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, newsgroups, opt-in email lists, websites, snail-mail. Claiming there are no alternatives, and that spam is the only way the poor mistreated politicians can tell us lies about how great they are and how slimy the other guy is, is bullshit.

You claim to be a lawyer, so you should understand the issues better than you apparently do.

U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
"[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands."

Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person?s domain."

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Steve B]

No, the correct analogy is a law requiring political activists to obey "NO SOLICITING" signs.

Such laws have been tested, and passed, in court.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Go away, spammer.

Microsoft's black penny bypass?

[gmerideth]

1/2 a million emails, Microsoft's 10 second delay math-calculation mechanism (does 1. implement method 2. xxxx 3. profit fit at this point? ) would make that say...

500,000 x 10 seconds = 5,000,000 seconds
5,000,000 seconds @ 3600 secs/hour = 1,388 hours of non stop emailing
1,388 hours = 57.8 days of straight emails ....

If they time it wrong the damm election will be over by that time.

Voting Decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

If you vote for someone you think is going win, then why does he need your vote? You're basically throwing it away if you vote for the guy you think is going win the landslide, so go with who you feel could do the job even if they happen to be in that third party people talk about.

Aww he doesn't have to do this

[Stonent1]

I was gonna vote for Bush anyway. www.protestwarrior.com If you're a conservative you'll like it. If you're a liberal, you might just learn a thing or two.

Oh well.

[Viqsi]

Not exactly a new experience for me. The Joe Liberman campaign was spamming me at work for months, until he finally gave up on getting nominated. Rather pissed me off.

(Of course, I do work for my Jewish synagogue, but frankly none of us there were about to vote for the guy anyways.)

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[JuggleGeek]

So you are claiming that child porn is legal?

This makes deciding easier...

[CaptainTux]

If I hadn't already decided who I am going to vote for in the next election getting spam from a candidate could definately help me decide. If I am not signed up for a mailing list of my own volition and I get mail then that is one less candidate in the fray for me to vote for.

Who is 'Them'?

[Mateorabi]

From the article, it sounds like they are only sending out to party loyalists / people already on distribution lists in order to create a 'buzz'. So you probably won't get one directly but it will be forwarded from a 'friend'.

It'll probably even say something allong the lines of "Forward this to 10 friends or you'll be cursed with 4 years of bad govornment."

Re:Who is 'Them'?

[kabocox]

It'll probably even say something allong the lines of "Forward this to 10 friends or you'll be cursed with 4 years of bad govornment."

It'll be worse. Those that forward it will be cursed with 4 years of bad government. It will be really bad for all those forwarding the e-mail to everyone they know. Or how about the first one that takes an uses Outlook to assist in spreading, but tells the user click here to send to those you think may like this? I'd be surprised if some one else hasn't thought of it.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Anonymous Coward]

loophole 1. [n] a small hole in a fortified wall; for observation or discharging weapons

Sounds about right.

got emails last year

[Zed2K]

I got emails last year from candidates that I replied to telling them how pissed I was to receive their spam and I will never vote for them because of their spamming me. They replied but just said sorry.

I can't wait for campaign folks to try and call me so I can yell at them.

Re:got emails last year

[rock_climbing_guy]

I heard a funny story. They said that there was a campaign manager who called people, purporting to be doing a pre-election survey. If the person said that they planned to vote for his candidate, he would say something along the lines of, "Well thanks for your input. Be sure to get out and vote tomorrow."

Otherwise, he would say, "Well thanks for your input. Be sure to get out and vote day after tomorrow!"

They're sending me WHAT?

[Crypto Gnome]

After all the years we've spent bitching and moaning about SPAM sucking up the last vestiges of space in our inbox - these presidential candidates think they're going to win votes by emailing out a VIDEO attachment?

"The format is a Web video message e-mailed to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file."

You have GOT to be kidding me!

You have to wonder WHY are they DOING THIS?

"And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law"

No surprises here: Politicians find new ways in which The LAW does not apply to them. Details at 11.

For the record

[NoseSocks]

When Hillary Clinton was running for Senator, I received multiple spam messages in my hotmail account telling me to vote for her.

The true irony? The picture of her attached to the email was her surrounded by a community of african americans. I am 100% irish and not of african american lineage. Interesting ad.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Anonymous Coward]

I should know better than to reply to an anonymous coward, but here we go.

Yeah, so much for the free exchange of ideas ;P I forgot about Slashdot's caste system: shudras in AC, vaishyas at +1, kshatriyas at +2 and the brahmin editors.

If you would like a direct analogy that is exactly on point, here it is: laws already exist banning junk faxes. These laws have gotten the thumbs-up from courts, despite advertisers trying to raise First Amendment questions.

The issue isn't whether or not the law can regulate technology. The issue is your claim that spam is somehow equivalent to home invasion. Such hyperbole is false and unnecessary -- it serves the same propaganda purpose that the RIAA invokes when they whine about "theft" and starving artists.

misdirection spam

[humankind]

No matter what, you can expect more than anything, a barrage of deliberately misdirected spam (i.e. a bunch of fake pseudo-pro-democrat e-mail done in such a way to create bad publicity for the party, likely perpetrated by republicans).

it's the system

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country I can vote for whom I will because the voting if preferential, and I can decide who gets my vote next if my first preference doesn't get it.

But in a non-preferential system such as you have in america you can be damned sure that I would vote for Kerry even though I don't totally agree with him.

The funny thing is Democrats would win every American presidential election under the sun if you had a preferential system, because the TWO MILLION Ralph Nader voters (he might get more under a preferential system) would put him on their first preference and then the democrat candidate next. The democrats already get more RAW VOTES than the republicans, but adding a 2% or more across the board in every state (500 nader voters in florida perhaps?) would send the republicans out of office.

But then there is the "progressive alliance" who would flow to republicans, and I don't know much about the natural law or that christian group - but all of the others barely add up to 1% if I recall only half or less than half of Naders votes. Sad I know more about america's politics than most of it's citizens do....

Perhaps Nader should make a deal with the democrats....step down for one election in return for a constitutional referendum to reform the presidential voting process at which point he can run again in the new system and will get more votes due to people not feeling they are "wasting" their vote.

bah, sad times we live in.

Re:it's the system

[Anonymous Coward]

True about the 2000 election. However, this cuts both ways. With IRV or some other multiple-choice system in effect, Bush would have won in 1992 (from Perot run-off), and other elections back to Woodrow Wilson in 1912 would have changed hands.

Re:it's the system

[Veridium]

"But in a non-preferential system such as you have in america you can be damned sure that I would vote for Kerry even though I don't totally agree with him"

If that is what you thought was right, then I would expect you to do it and agree with you doing it, even if I didn't agree with who you were voting for.

"bah, sad times we live in."

Cheer up. At least Hitler doesn't run things. :) It could always be worse...

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[beakburke]

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, Which is why they ruled that "campaign finance reform" was constitutional? Or why we have the DMCA, or the PATROIT act.

Re:adding ".gov" to spam filter....

[cball2k]

easy enough to add to the servers spam filter...I don't give a damn who is serving it, I DON"T LIKE SPAM!

"spam, spam, eggs, and spam with a side of spam...(spew, like "DubYa's" daddy)"

The cost of spam...

[sheapshearer]

A little math here, assuming people spend an average of 10s (1/360 hour) looking at one spam message.

(Yes, the average /. reader spends less than 1s, but not everyone is that fast).

Further assume that the average computer uses 200w (0.2kw) on average. (Probably less, but probably much more when you figure in all the routers, servers, etc that it traveled through).

1 Million Spam Messages / ( 0.2/360 ) = 555 kW*h per Spam

Doesn't seem like much, but keep in mind that is 2 YEARS of electricity (with copious use of A/C and electric heater) for my U.S. located home.

If there are ~200 Million voters, then sending 1 campaign message to each of them would burn enough fossil fuels to power my entire high school graduating class's homes for 3 YEARS...

And who is to say that only one candidate will send one message?

Unfortunately slashdot is even worse. The time I have spent reading articles.... Well, better not go there...

Re:The cost of spam...

[sheapshearer]

Little typo above, but the result is correct... 1 Million Spam Messages * ( 0.2/360 ) = 555 kW*h per Million Spam

the lesser of two evils

[betsywetsy]

You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Lieberman is conservative, not liberal.

Sharpton is a very charming and acute speaker, but he's a GOP shill! Let me repeat: Sharpton is a GOP shill.

Kucinich is the most liberal remaining candidate, and the only one who's too liberal to get elected, because of his tax policy and because of his single-payer health policy - something even Clinton could not get support for, something Dean initially tried in Vermont and couldn't get through.

Electability is a false issue in the primaries.
Primary voting strategy should focus on the immediate goal: the convention.
The guy who shows up there with the most delegates is by definition electable, even if everybody voted their conscience.

Vote to either get your guy nominated, or to get him influence defining the platform, or to stop someone else, but vote for the convention, not November. November is far away, we know little about the candidates, and we don't know what Bush will do in the meantime.

Now, voting for the convention may not always mean voting your conscience. I think a lot of people's conscience leads them away from the current frontrunner, but they're fractured into separate camps. I know Kucinich voters are fighting for delegates, but I wish they'd consider whether they have a preference between the three more mainstream candidates who are still running.

And the Dean and Edwards camps need to take a good long look at each other and ask themselves what the heck they're doing. They're splitting an anti-Kerry vote, and I don't think either will cede it to the other because they're too different and too determined.

Re:the lesser of two evils

[cayenne8]

I think Kerry is gaining primarily from the 'jump on the bandwagon' syndrome. And, he may well NOT be the most electable candidate. He's got a lot of senate voting history to haunt him. He also seem to let polls dictate his priorities and opinions, which always bothers me. Although I disagree with Dean, I respect that he seems to say what he believes, and sticks with it.

I think Edwards would be the better Dem. candidate. Only one year in Senate, so not much to to haunt him. Also, being a former trial lawyer, he's a fantastic speaker, and quick on his feet. I think in a debate, he could tear President Bush a new one...and he's more centrist.

Between Kerry and Bush, I really don't see much difference. Both are corporate owned, and pander to the special interest of month...

My $0.02...

Re:the lesser of two evils

[macdaddy]

I probably should have clarified myself better. I'm not talking about the primaries when I say vote for the first step in the grand plan. I'm referring to the actual 2004 Presidential Election. You know, the one that matters. The primaries have already been won. No one will beat Kerry now. The only question now is who will be his VP? Clark maybe. Maybe even Edwards. His VP could be someone else we haven't thought about too. What about Hillary Clinton? That'd give Kerry a boost in the female vote. Hell that'd boost the female voting turnout period.

Re:the lesser of two evils

[key45]

Kucinich is the most liberal remaining candidate, and the only one who's too liberal to get elected, ...

And back on topic: After I donated a couple of bucks to Kucinich, the amount of spam I got doubled. His campaign sends multiple messages a day telling me where he's gonna be, or which media slight I should be writing the editor about, etc... It's more than a little annoying.
I think his position should be heard in this nominating process, but spamming his contributors might not be the best way to do it.

Re:the lesser of two evils

[macdaddy]

My mother likes Edwards. My only qualm with him is that I was told he was "a Bible thumper." I don't mean to pick on religious people but I don't want someone pushing their (or a) religion on me anymore than I plan on pushing my beliefs on him. Asscroft is bad enough as it is. I don't need someone else's alleged morals to dicate the law to me. Does anyone know if the comment about Edwards was right? I've listened to a lot of what he says and haven't necessarily heard more religious-speak from him than anyone else, although I might have missed something. Other than that I think he would be a fine president.

Won't get worked up, will report as spam

[Kris_J]

Spam is spam is spam. If it's unsolicited and bulk, it gets reported using Spamcop. Don't care who it's from. Won't get all thingy about it.

Re:Won't get worked up, will report as spam

[werepixie]

I guess this means that I will have to rethink my standard NOT BUSH vote from the previous election. Perhaps we should go with which ever candidate spams me the least.

Thank god for spamassassin

the main three

[betsywetsy]

I think you might fairly say the media has played their Kerry cards well, rather than the reverse. See this: Media Chiefs back Kerry campaign

Anyway, there are still three main candidates.
Some count Dean out, but he's still got plenty of money and is second in delegate count. Some count Edwards out, but I don't think that's fair either.

72 delegates tomorrow, 60 a week after that, and some 1200 on March 2nd, when California and New York finally get to weigh in. None of the home states of the three main guys has even voted yet!

Everybody pile on

[betsywetsy]

Dean was attacked all last year, and brutally in Iowa going into the caucus. Gephardt attacked him with total distortions, Kerry attacked him, Kerry and Gephardt supporters together attacked him under cover of the ironically named PAC "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare, and Progressive Values" - the conservative "Club for Growth" attacked his supporters (Are the Bush people afraid?!) and the press was highly negative all year, see:
the Center for Media and Public Affairs

I'd love to see you try to support that statement on the average American, or on the internet donors. Dean's fundraising continued strong into the new year and past the IA and NH losses.

Advertising, dude... advertising

[myowntrueself]

"That's not how democracy works. Democracy has ALWAYS been about trying to effect change through your vote."

No, democracy has always been the quest, by those who desire power, for an effective means to influence 'vote spending patterns'.

Advertising substantially overlaps with this; advertising for commodities etc is all about influencing 'cash spending patterns'.

Democracy is, today, Advertising.

Text for issues, television for character

[Anonymous Coward]

Text is fine for issues. Leadership isn't all about issues, though. It's also about character. And visual/auditory media are better for showing character.

If you haven't done so, read up on the 1960 American presidential election, the first election with televised debates, and think about the role that face-to-face debates have in a presidential campaign.

Also study the debates in 1992 with Clinton/Bush/Perot. In a three-candidate race, there is more positive campaigning and less negative campaigning.

If you have a government at all, then you're on the horns of a dilemma. On one horn, if the government is democratically elected, then the people who choose the government have all kinds of stupid shallow criteria which can more and more be manipulated. On the other hand, if your government is *not* elected, then it's subject to control by smart, powerful, corruptible, evil elite people. So I guess I'd rather have Joe Sixpack who can't even punch a chad making that choice, rather than Anthony Scalia or the would-be Minitruth duckspeakers at the New York Times.

(Or you can have less government in the first place, which is my choice. But unless you go all the way to anarchism -- which I don't, not even close -- then you have to figure out how to choose the people who lead the government that you do have).

Bonesmen...

[dbCooper0]

I for one, and probably thousands, don't want to see the election between two Yale Skull and Bones (do your own googleing, you'll see what I mean) persons.

People, we have to take this country back. Period, Exclamation Point.

How we actually let it become Dubya's playground is one thing...how we get back to *sane* rule in the US is up to US - yes - U an uS.

Sorry, but a rant was in order. Kerry is also a Skull and Bones member, and those SOBs are interested in a "New World Order" which pretty much means we are still under the influence of the British Crown! Worse than that, it's caused most of the wars we've had in the last 40 years. Read up on it?

No problem for USA! Bush is responsible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fellow americans:

I know how concerned ya'all are about the problems a few hackers have caused by abusing our fine countries internet technologies.

Because I am deeply concerned about these issues I have chosen to use this advanced technology in an american responsible manner.

I believe it is every americans duty to respect his neighbors property, and in that spirit our fine american party will use the domain designated for political purposes.

Fellow americans, our campaing will use the domain designated for candidates. We believe this is the most respectful and responsible way to use this new technology.

We will use the .ca domain to send our message out to those who truly need to hear it.

Vote Cthulhu in '04

[Entropy Unleashed]

This is exactly the reason why you should vote for Cthulhu on November 2. Why settle for a lesser evil?

Good

[geekoid]

Anything that lowers the cost to run is probably a good thing.

The really interesting thing si, they have to be polite. Nobody will take mud slinging seriously. The only way you can be confident that a political advertisement comes from the candidate it says, is if it only talks about what they are going to do, and its in a positive light.

If you get an email from candidate@whatever and it says "I'm pro NRA, and I think children should carry guns" then you know it's not from who it says becasue it would be political suicide to say it.

Majority, minority?

[bacchusrx]

Democrats, Republicans, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks.

I hate to break it to you, but, the Democrats and the Republicans are little more than the two wings of the Capitalist Party.

The USA is no more a plural democracy than the USSR, in that regard.

spam

[Anonymous Coward]

stop whining. you elected him. thats democracy.

Keeping it US only???

[advocate_one]

I just hope they've gone over their lists with a nit comb to remove all non-US email addresses... cos I for one do NOT want to receive any...

Anyone got the URIs and IPs??

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know the IPs/netblocks of the mail servers that'll be used to send this junk so I can add them to the blocklist? Also, anyone got a set of IPs/netblocks which will be linked in the bodies of the spam? I'll add them to our spamassassin bigevil.cf list and squid block list.

Thanks.

Like all spam, just block it and filter it and block access to all the linked sites. Makes you wonder why these &!@*# !@&*#@ spammers keep sending this muck.

Wes Clark already spammed me a few weeks ago

[IRNI]

Twice in fact. A new low in politics. Is that even possible?

Not a pipe dream but not a perfect world!

[zoney_ie]

> It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job. However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want.

Umm... here in Ireland that is exactly what you do. Preferential voting using the PR-STV system. Your vote ALWAYS counts. If your higher preferences are no-hopers or get elected without your help, your vote is transferred down your list.

Works reasonably well - but unfortunately politicians are politicians. Plus we have the cons of some radicals/extremists elected and the major parties still being same old same old.

Oh yes, and without being too repetitive (see my earlier posts) our govt. is going to screw us all with e-voting and neither the public nor the powers that be in Brussels give two hoots.

Remember folks, vote early, vote often.

Re: Very OT mini-rant

[quintessencesluglord]

Would you rather be fucked in the ass or ass-fucked?

I'm pleased you've rationalized your ability to make the tough decisions when someone else has presumed what your choices are allowed to be.

It would seem no major party does care about the same things I do, hence the desire to ignore them completely (I forget, which party is for heavily restricting the DMCA again? Oh.). Voting for either would only validate the fact that neither is much different from the other. It's just a question of which political favors will be returned this time. It has nothing to do with me.

The thing is, it isn't a free country when I'm forced into voting for vanilla over chocolate or not having any ice scream at all. What about mocha-ripple? What about daiquiri ice? And in this grand wide world of incompatible views, it is doubtful two party system would be able to encompass even a portion of those views except for those who support a two party system and those who do not. And those who don't are very much the majority. In that respect, hoping the challenger won't wear the super-sized strap-on that the incumbent does isn't "the ability to make a tough decision"; it's political suicide.

Truth is both parties would be terribly afraid of a "none of the above" option. It would call bullshit on the entire operation, and then those bribes aren't quite as effective anymore.

Your vote vs. billions of dollars and the media framing all of the issues for you. Either way, you lose.

Vote INDEPENDANT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't see them Spamming you worrying about money with the millions of dollars in campaign bank accounts and personal bank accounts.

I used to not post Anonymously, then morons started getting mod points.

Only in the US...

[jarran]

I would never buy a product advertised by spam - including the President.

Only in US would you hear the democratic process described as "buying a President".

They Automatically provide the filter information

[rodney dill]

Filter anything containing the candidate names and party names

Re:Who cares, the election 'll be rigged

[BCW2]

You might want to include ALL the facts.
1. Big labor always votes Democrat.
2. Big labor is owned by the Mafia.
3. Chicago is the best example, rigged
elections for over a hundred years.

If I were an idiot and I were a member of congress, but I repeat myself - Mark Twain

Re:Who cares, the election 'll be rigged

[dethlejd]

Why do you infer that it is only possible that the REPUBLICANS would rig an election?

Are you implying that they are less ethical and more intelligent, and that they are the only party with the technical capacity and motivation to do so? Where do you come up with these facts that on which you base these gross inferences?

Last time I checked, these were the facts that I know:

1. Color me cynical, but all people are garbage.
2. All politicians are people.
3. Ergo, all politicians are garbage.

Or are you implying that Republicans would be the only party that would need to rig an election?

The last time I listened to the pundits, the common thought was that the reason that Kerry is gaining so much support in the caucuses was because he is perceived to be the only candidate that can truly compete with GWB.

If GWB is such a lackluster, painful, and heinous President and is so universally reviled, even that block of wood, Al Gore, should be able to beat him. Oh, wait.

All this implies a certain sense of inferiority for ALL of the Democrat candidates, and if that's the perception, wouldn't it be safe to admit that they would have just as much motivation to "cheat"?

- Jim

The terrorists will have won

[overunderunderdone]

You forget to say that if you DON'T overreact then the terrorists will have won.

Just wait until...

[CrimsonTemplar]

...someone decides to spoof one (or both) of the candidates email addresses and begins sending out viruses. I'm sure that'll be a boon for their campaigns.

Is it the Manchurian Candidate or Primary Colors?

[1iar_parad0x]

I know it's off-topic, but it relates to this thread. I've got some Karma to burn so please indulge my drudgery.

Hillary Clinton will be the 2004 Democratic nominee.

Wesley Clark will be her VP.

At the beginning of the primary, Bush looked strong. He had just caught Sadam. The economy was in an upturn. Deaniacs were raging strong. However, in a shrewd move, the primary caucui decide that they need a viable candidate. So, the tides shift from Dean to Kerry.

Let's flashback to 2000.

Gore eyes John F. Kerry. He's a better campaigner than Gore. Plus he can bring in some of that Boston Democratic money. One is a man from the south; the other is from the northeast. Both are Vietnam vets, so it would be a surprisingly strong match. Kerry couldn't run on Gore's ticket. He smacks too much of a Clinton-style candidate. Plus, Gore's trying to cast off a shadow, not step into a new one. Kerry has been known to be a rabid philanderer for years. Heck, even the I-man (Don Imus) has been known to make jokes about Kerry's unfaithful ways. These messy infidelities make a Gore/Kerry ticket improbable. However, good old honest Joe makes for a great fit. He's the ying to Gore's yang.

Now, back to the 2004 campaign.

Hillary Clinton fills out the paperwork to be a formal candidate. The ball is in her court. She surprisingly has a solid and moderate voting record. She starts to make a smattering of public appearances. She starts to speak around New York. She even gets some good publicity from her book. Plus, she made Tucker Carlson eat crow. That's always good. It's just a bonus that the all big money comes from Manhattan and Chicago anyway. She's a New York senator, so some of the big money is in her back yard.

Clark is a Clinton man. Both are good old Arkansas boys. Both were Rhodes Scholars. Both grew up from moderately humble backgrounds. If it's possible, Clinton actually has a bit of fondness for him. Perhaps that is because he sees a little of himself in Clark. We all know Bill's favorite sight is his own reflection.

Gore knows that Clark is a Clinton man. Clark has the money and the strong military record. In the pre-caucui primaries, he's a reasonable contender. Gore's never forgiven Clinton for ruining his shot at the White House. Gore might not be the best campaigner, but he's a shrewd behind-the-scenes guy. He's a Washingtonian through-and-through. He backs Dean, and even sees this as a chance to shed the Clinton shadow.

A week ago, in an "off the record" interview, Wesley Clark plants the rumor [makes it public] that Kerry's got an intern issue. He cleverly plants a little seed before the next media cycle. He maintains plausible deniability and publicly makes nice with Kerry.

Bush's staff wouldn't use this type of material until the primaries are over. Why use the good poison during the primary. If the candidate survives it, it only means the Democrats have a stronger candidate. Plus, why did Clark make the public (yet "off-the-record") statement.

Dean's campaign chairman sees the battle for the Democratic Party. He desperately wants to see the Democratic Party break free of the stranglehold of the Clintons. Dean's a smart guy. He knows the battle is raging. Despite the pressure, he figures it's better for him to stay in.

I love the smell of strategery in the morning. It smells like war.

So the battle begins. It's Kerry versus Clinton. It's the battle for the Democratic nomination and perhaps the White House.

Re:First Amendment most certainly not a "loop hole

[Steve B]

I think the latter would be scrutinized in a way more analogous to digital cable channels.

So, you think that the law would support putting a spammer who used filter-evasion techniques away for as long as a pirate broadcaster who spliced into the cable and substituted his own signal for one of the channels?

Works for me....

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Steve B]

The issue is your claim that spam is somehow equivalent to home invasion.

Sneaking into my house to glue flyers on my walls is a theft of my property in order to spread your message at my expense.

Sneaking past my spam filter to plaster junk on my screen is (all together now) a theft of my property in order to spread your message at my expense.

Precisely equivalent.

So Saith The Kshatriya.

Re:First Amendment most certainly not a "loop hole

[triclipse]

I don't know about "for as long as," and I don't think these two scenarios are wholly analagous - but you can regulate "unsolicited commercial email" (spam that sells stuff) more stringently because it is "commercial speech."

I think it's an easy argument to say that filter-evasion techniques are, in most instances, fraudulent, and as such outside the protection of the First Amendment.

Re:First Amendment most certainly not a "loop hole

[Steve B]

I don't know about "for as long as," and I don't think these two scenarios are wholly analagous

On further consideration, the best analogy for spam filter evasion is computer cracking (both are attacks on a security system for the purpose of gaining access to a computer against the express prohibition of the owner).

but you can regulate "unsolicited commercial email" (spam that sells stuff) more stringently because it is "commercial speech."

It seems to me that the best approach is based on property rights. That removes the need to finely scrutinize the details of the message the trespasser is attempting to convey unto an unwilling recipient.

I think it's an easy argument to say that filter-evasion techniques are, in most instances, fraudulent, and as such outside the protection of the First Amendment.

True, and in fact I can't think of any exceptions that support the "in most instances" caveat. If I bar you from my property, and you have been put on notice to that effect (as the spammer who uses filter evasion clearly has, or else he would see no need to use such measures), the details of how you attempt to disguise yourself when sneaking in anyway are irrelevant.

Re:Is it the Manchurian Candidate or Primary Color

[macdaddy]

That's an interesting theory. We all knew that woman would be back eventually. Do you really think she'll try it now or in the next round? Interesting....

Voting for the winner not so stupid

[Morosoph]

I always thought that one should if anything vote the other way as your vote really counts in a close contest, but I realise that there is another factor: the president has a job to do, and he has more force with a solid backing, especially when acting internationally. Better to exaggerate his showing in order to give him more of a mandate.

I'd be inclined to reduce the lead if anything because I don't believe in focussing power, and I think that presidential power on the world stage in not in my interests; American ideology is not necessarily right, and I'd want to encourage internal diversity and experimentation by deliberately weakening a single focus of power. For other powers to be overwhelmed with American force means that a potential to learn and experiment would have been lost.

This does not meant that we shouldn't act to influence others completely, but rather that international policy should come from consensus and a general agreement as to what needs to be stopped or encouraged. So that one should in fact be forthright in opposing hardline communists.

Disclaimer: I am not American. I am British; I imagined what it was like to be an American to generate my response.

SPEWS

[CowboyBob500]

Am I the only one who would find it funny if whitehouse.gov ended up on e-mail blacklists?

Bob

Riiight.

[El Camino SS]

In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system.

You, you nepotistic, self-imposed king! Go away! I will do nothing to stop you! I refuse to vote in aims that you will stop what you are doing! I will now lie on the floor in front of you!

Great plan.

Please.

[El Camino SS]

These are desperate times.

They call for desperate measures.

There is a man that is sending American sons of to war because of personal reasons, and they are dying. This is not a good thing.

Screw your little fiscal policy issues. In war (and we are at war, people) often you have to make decisions that are not in the perfect interest to accomplish a greater goal.

My greater goal is to end this war and the man that started it long before I worry about some B.S. intern scandal and mudslinging.

Re:Please.

[Veridium]

And when Clinton was president, he sent Americans to war for reasons that were not later justified. In fact, he bombed Iraq for reasons of WMD.

And fiscal policy issues are hardly my major concern. I have protested this war, I have spoken up, I have come very close to getting arrested. The thing is, Kerry might stop certain aspects of this war, but it will be no time at all before we're bombing someone again. How many years did we go under clinton without bombing someone? We ran sorties over Iraq throughout the Clinton years. We went into Somalia, Yugoslavia, and other places. We used depleted Uranium. We used the UN when we could, and went with NATO when we couldn't.

"before I worry about some B.S. intern scandal and mudslinging"

Yes, that's a load of crap. With all the other bullshit going on, and people focus on that? Pathetic. Couldn't agree more, in this one little instance.

Best. Post. Ever.

[Anonymous Meoward]

Mod parent up to 6, please..

Bill Jones, CA Politician spamming -- again!

[Joe Wagner]

• In 2001 Bill Jones started spamming for his (eventually failed) California election campaign.
• Nice!
• The spam was even relayed, IIRC, through an elementary school server in Korea.
• Nicer touch!
• When the story originally broke about Bill Jones campaign admitting sending spam, I proactively sent via a fax and via the contact form on their website a formal notice to not sent any Unsolicited email to any of our users. Funnily enough the Billjones.org's website only offers a webform for email...I guess they don't want spammers finding _their_ email addresses and spamming them. How classy. Even their web contact form, when it sends a confirmation copy of your message back to you, they used _your_ address as the sender. I never received a reply to my notice, but I did start receiving Bill Jones spam...
• Nicest touch!
• Our notice included a $1000/message fee for additional email addresses, though we never sent an invoice
• 
  
  Fast forward to 2004. Yesterday we received spam for Bill Jones' new campaign -- for Senator of California.
• New nice touch!
• In fact, not one, but two spam on the same day sent to the same address
• New nicer touch!
• Both spam were sent to our email abuse address.
• Nicest touch of them all...

I think it's time to finally send an invoice...

Re: Very OT mini-rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you rather be fucked in the ass or ass-fucked?

Yes, please.

Nobody For President

[Mizery De Aria]

http://www.nobodyforpresident.org
http://www.nobodyforpresident.net

How is this a problem?

[Ryosen]

I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."

Apparently, someone neglected to tell my spam filter about this loophole.

Re: Very OT mini-rant

[patternjuggler]

no major party does care about the same things I do

I think health care and the economy and environment and frivolous overseas military adventures affect nearly everyone, and therefore it's the sort of thing the two parties usually talk about. The DMCA is important, but not in the 'people are dying right now' kind of way. Also, understanding why it's important presupposes a certain level of slashdot readership or technical competence that makes it something only a few politicians will take a stand on and only in more specialized forums,

it is doubtful two party system would be able to encompass even a portion of those views

Yeah, a European style proportional representation would be nice. But how does not voting make that happen? How have the past few decades of low voter turnout made any positive changes in our system- we haven't reached some magic threshold (1%? 0%?) for instant political change yet? I think the less people that vote the easier it is to focus those billions of dollars and media framing of issues to manipulate the few who do.

Re: Very OT mini-rant

[quintessencesluglord]

As much as I respect your position sir; no.

Initially neither party opposed the Iraq War. Neither side has even come close to addressing root concerns with the healthcare system, and neither have been particularly adroit with environmental concerns. It almost sounds as if you are making an argument for supporting the Green party.

I see a great deal of posturing from each party, and not much of substance. People will continue to die and complex problems will be dumbed down into an ineffectual for/against mentality long after the final votes have been tallied. That is the heart of the problem. If I fail to vote, I will have a very limited effect, true. But by voting, I am complicit in maintaining a system that allowed all these injustices possible in the first place.

Quite honestly, you and I both know the game is rigged. Does in seem logical to play a fixed game?

The less people vote, the less credibility the current parties have. In the former Soviet Union, they had near 100% turn-out for elections. How did voting change much of anything there?