Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You

Posted by timothy on from the spam-from-the-pork-peddlers dept.

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."

3 of 505 comments (clear)

  1. From the article... by zegebbers · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

    --
    Unpretentious Sydney reviews by unqualified Sydney reviewers
  2. Re:Who cares, the election 'll be rigged by BCW2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  3. Re:Who cares, the election 'll be rigged by dethlejd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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