Slashdot Mirror


Net War Room for Bush vs Kerry Debate

ancice writes "Article by Wired. Seems like Bush and Kerry are going to battle in cyberspace. The Bush Team is going to have a War Room to provide live rebuttals to thousands of conversative blogs. Not much info on Kerry's response though. This seems like a good use of the Information Super Highway. Would be interesting to see how this War Room will affect the election. Will this tactic be successful or will it be information overload? Worse still, will technology be exploited? Tune in on Thursday."

20 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. I'm Confused by GypC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Worse still, will technology be exploited?"

    I don't get it. What does ancice mean by this? Am I just being dense?

    1. Re:I'm Confused by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you read my comments elsewhere, it's pretty plain that I'm no Kerry cheerleader, but I think the concern here is that the "War Room" might really be just a tool for astroturfing the blogs, and that seems like a reasonable suspicion to me.

      You've basically got a whole army of spin-doctors who are going to seed all the conservative blogs (and maybe others, such as here at politics.slashdot.org) with RNC talking points.

      If that is the direction they choose to go, I think it's a bad idea for the same reason why it was a bad idea when Microsoft did it. For years after Microsoft got caught doing this sort of thing, nearly every pro-MS post (or FUD post about Linux or Apple) was suspected of coming from a Redmond employee, and how could anybody argue that it wasn't, once it was known that Microsoft actually did that sort of thing? It made it almost impossible for a fan of some NT feature, or a hater of some Linux build, to say anything without getting credibly accused of being a paid shill.

      If this "War Room" is used to respond to questions while carefully identifying themselves as Bush spokespeople, then it might be a neat new idea... but if they try astroturfing, then people like me had better get used to being accused of drawing a paycheck from Karl Rove every time we express the opinion that Bush was right to go into Iraq, because that's how it's gonna be from then until Election Day.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:I'm Confused by sartin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if you read my comments elsewhere, it's pretty plain that I'm no Kerry cheerleader, but I think the concern here is that the "War Room" might really be just a tool for astroturfing the blogs, and that seems like a reasonable suspicion to me.

      Of course it's a tool for astroturfing blogs. Compare to the Democrats efforts to get people to take online polls (a recent email from the Democrats urges party members to "Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them"), phone radio call-in shows, and write letters to the editor. The Republicans seem to do much better in the blog world. Apparently, the Democrats (as a party, and Kerry's folks in particular) didn't learn all that much from Dean.

      These debates aren't about debating anything at all, they're an equal opportunity platform for the two major political parties (and no other parties) and their sponsors to try to spin things to the public.

    3. Re:I'm Confused by (trb001) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this "War Room" is used to respond to questions while carefully identifying themselves as Bush spokespeople, then it might be a neat new idea

      I'm not sure how fond I am of this "War Room", but to answer your question, it's on Bush's website and is being heralded as a way for them to "address every lie that Kerry tells".

      It'll be interesting, though I don't think the bloggers need it. They've been pretty adept at spotting inconsistencies, if for no other reason than there are so many of them. Read a few of the conservative blogs and see how many are "live blogging" the debate tonight...I think all the ones I read have indicated they plan to.

      --trb

    4. Re:I'm Confused by Masker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

      "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
      "Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
      "We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
      "These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
      "We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
      "You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
      "We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

      It's so funny that I could cry.

      --

      ---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  2. new politics by cinemabaroque · · Score: 5, Insightful
    its not about issues anymore, its about image. I feel like i'm being sold two brands, do you want pepsi or coke in the whitehouse? (me, i vote coke, but thats cause i like hard drugs more than soda)

    i'm impressed with the alertness the bush team is picking up on ways to use the internet.

    --
    00010111 always try everything twice
  3. not too many swing votes will decided by blogs by wwest4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Would be interesting to see how this War Room will affect the election. Will
    > this tactic be successful or will it be information overload?

    For the blogosphere to be anything but a wash, civility needs to evolve to enable people with conflicting ideas to actually talk and listen to each other.

    Most mainstream political blogs are echo chamber fraternities for like-minded people to impishly vent about the "loonies" on the other side. For all of the stuff being written, there is very little over-the-center discourse. There is, however, lots of censorship, ill-will for stray visitors from the "other side", and groupthink.

    Give it a few years - as more people arrive on the scene, a basic sense of civic decency might emerge and make blogging a useful tool for actual debate, instead of a big petri dish for idealistic bigotry.

  4. Re:Conservative blogs... by panda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > I'm far more interested in the "real" live rebuttals that will be happening on stage.

    Except that there won't be any live rebuttals on stage. It's a scripted non-event. It's not a debate, not even close.

    It's more like a joint press conference where the two candidates get to say what they want.

    --
    Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
  5. GWBush argument fallacy by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Bush team keeps driving the point home that Kerry is a flip-flopper. Besides the obvious point that Bush and Co. twist facts and statements to smear Kerry, the more obvious thing is that the attack isn't logically sound. An ad hominem isn't a persuasive argument.

    The fact that some people take the Bush and Co. statements to actually mean something significant is just a sign of how poor our education is in this country.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:GWBush argument fallacy by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the more obvious thing is that the attack isn't logically sound. An ad hominem isn't a persuasive argument.

      Ad hominem is only falacious if you are arguing about an issue by "attacking the man" who opposes your viewpoint. Presidential debates are all about getting people to decide that you are the better person for the job, so the man is the issue.

      This isn't Lincoln and Douglas arguing about slavery, it's Bush and Kerry arguing about who would be the better president for 2005-2008.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:GWBush argument fallacy by christopherfinke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot #5: People who have educated themselves on the issues and agree with Bush more than they agree with any other candidate.

    3. Re:GWBush argument fallacy by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm Argentinian. Last night i caught the Kerry-Bush debate on CNN. I honestly have no idea about the backgrounds of Kerry, but he managed to give a coherent response every time, to the point, and made Bush sound like a 3-year old for most of the duration of the event. Most of the time it was personal accusations to Kerry about exactly that, changing his mind over time. Some people seem to beleive it's a sin.

  6. True. But blogs may help fire up the base. by elwinc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Blogs may not influence many swing voters, But blogs may help fire up the base.

    There are different election strategies at work here. The Bush strategy is to energize the Republican base. His campaign wants to get voters so angry about Kerry or some other issue (e.g. Gay Marriage) that they won't stay home on election night. One of the ways Bush fires up the base by demonizing and mocking Kerry. Blogs may help with that.

    Kerry's strategy is partly to sign up new voters (AKA "the ground game") and partly to reach for the center and the undecided voter. Blogs probably won't help as much with either of those approaches.

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  7. Kerry by Politburo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Bush Team is going to have a War Room to provide live rebuttals to thousands of conversative blogs. Not much info on Kerry's response though.

    That's because Kerry's team is more bottom-up than the GOP, which is clearly top-down. Talking points are distributed by the GOP to Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts, as well as the blogs. The democrats do this to some extent, but with no where near the uniformity that the GOP does. You'll suddenly hear Rush, Hannity and the President all use the same talking point starting on the same day. Kerry gets some of his talking points from the blogs themselves. It's a known fact that the Kerry campaign reads DailyKos and cherry picks the good material.

    1. Re:Kerry by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By which pundits? Democrats use talking points, I don't deny that. However, the GOP is much more effective at spreading and sticking to a uniform message, even when it's a blatant lie.

  8. Technology being exploited by Linux_ho · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Worse still, will technology be exploited?
    You make it sound like the Bush Administration are the only ones exploiting technology. (Warning: Link contents objectionable) Technology exploitation is a huge problem pervasively spread throughout the Internet. You can't just blame the Republicans.
    --
    include $sig;
    1;
  9. there's no instant winner by kajoob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The winner of the debate doesn't exactly have to come that night. For instance, in the Ford/Carter debate, everybody that night thought Gerald Ford had won, but it wasn't until the following days did the press report, and both Ford and the public realize how big a mistake Ford's "There is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe" line was. The "winner", as you would have it, was actually Carter - but only the preceding days after the debate told us that.

    I think this ties into blogs in that, as one blogger so famously put it, "We can fact check your ass!". The average Joe never really had this power before, we would see something said in the media and have little recourse but to talk about it at the water cooler, but now he can post corrections to bad journalism and candidate's claims for the world to see.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  10. Re:strange by damiam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the true conservative bloggers would be attacking Bush for running up huge deficits, expanding the government, and curtailing civil liberties. So Bush might want to rebut them too.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  11. Re:Kerry is getting taken to school by vomission · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could look you in the eye and tell you that you're full of crap.

    Kerry did not vote for the war. There was never any vote for the war. There was a congressional vote to permit the President to use force with the UN in order to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. You can read Kerry's full speech from the Senate floor here: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/ kerry-iraq.html.

    The resolution succeeded, getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq. They never found WMDs, so Bush invaded, without a congressional vote and without UN authorization--a violation of the US consitution and the UN charter.

    There were two votes, as you know, on the $87billion "body armor" vote. The first, which Kerry voted FOR, would have repealed those portions of the $1.3trillion tax cut that went to the richest Americans, so that the $87billion could actually be paid. Kerry voted FOR that. Congressional Republicans voted AGAINST that. The President threatened that he would VETO such a bill. Who's playing politics? The President would have vetoed a bill to actually pay for that equipment if it resulted in his cronies losing part of that tax cut. The President thinks it is better to borrow money than to actually pay for things. When it was clear that the next version of the $87billion funding bill would pass, since congressional Republicans could pass it themselves, Kerry gave a protest vote against the bill. There was never any chance that our troops would go without supplies as a result of Kerry's voting. Bush was the one who threatened to veto the bill outright if he didn't get his way.

    Your 90-second response? :)

  12. Re:Kerry is getting taken to school by chitownIrish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Kerry sponsored an amendment to the funding bill that would have rolled back the tax cuts by an equal amount, a more responsible move than borrowing the entire amount.

    George Bush threatened to veto the bill if it contained any rollback of the tax cuts, as if the $87 billion would just materialize out of thin air.

    The Republicans defeated this version. The original version, which was to borrow the entire $87 billion, then passed over Kerry's "no" vote.

    Lots of Republicans voted against the first bill and for the second.

    So like Kerry, they all cast two opposite votes on this issue.

    Unlike him, they voted to pay for the war with a credit card.

    That $87billion will have to be paid back someday, with interest. This won't happen before the election, though, so Dubya's not worried about it.

    The vote in late 2002 was not an up or down vote to go to war. It was supposed to give authorization to Bush to wage war if all other avenues were exhausted. The timing was right before the midterm elections, while hysteria over 9/11 was still high, and the Republicans could use any no vote as a club to beat opponents down as 'soft on terror'.

    Bush was going to war no matter what. He never had any other intention, and fighting a war on terrorism was just an excuse. And in doing this, allowed Bin Laden to escape.

    Incredibly, Bush said in the debate tonight that Bin Laden is 'isolated' and apparently, no longer a concern for him. Following 9/11, Bush is on record with his famous "dead or alive" proclamation, but claimed a year later that Bin Laden was 'not a priority'.

    But let's not forget that Kerry is a flip-flopper.