Slashdot Mirror
The Web as Political Weapon
cultrhetor writes "John Harris of the Washington Post has noticed that the three largest recent political controversies have stemmed from work done by digital inhabitants. In the article, New Media a Weapon in the New World of Politics, he notes the connections between the recent scandals involving Mark Foley, George Allen, and Bill Clinton were representative of the new, web-driven age of American politics." From the article: "Each originally percolated in the world of new media — Web sites and news outlets that did not exist a generation ago — before charging into the traditional world of newspapers and television networks. In each case, the accusations quickly pivoted into a debate about the motivations and alleged biases of the accusers. Cumulatively, the stories highlight a new brand of politics in which nearly any revelation in the news becomes a weapon or shield in the daily partisan wars, and the aim of candidates and their operatives is not so much to win an argument as to brand opponents as fundamentally unfit."
In other words, according to Clinton, Clinton did no wrong.
Gee. I wonder why I might possibly doubt Clinton when Clinton says he didn't cause 9/11.
Facts are facts. Clinton had the opportunity to take down Bin Laden. He refused.
The Foley thing is mostly a Democrat fabrication. Yes, he sent some emails in poor taste, but never to any minors. The pedophile thing exists only in the minds of Democrats.
Stop being tricked by the liberal media. Do some actual research.
Bill Clinton did miss several opportunities
When. And there's a difference between not being omniscient and ignoring reports plopped on your desk telling you that terrorists are determined to strike in the U.S., soon, and that they might use planes to do so.
was "weak" on terrorism in the same way that Bush 1, Regan, and, need it even be said, Carter were.
How so. Clinton was the first to bomb Al Qaeda, and the first to have a standing capture or kill order on Osama.
Ultimately, there was no political will on either side of the aisle to remove the terrorist threat.
It's not a matter of will, it's a matter of being impossible. We will ALWAYS have a problem with terrorism, just as we will ALWAYS have illegal drug use. This is why the "war on terror" is as asinine and will be as successful as the "war on drugs". What we need to do is go back to the simple policy that was talked about shortly after 911: we wont differentiate between terrorist organizations and the governments that shelter them. This was working great in Afganistan, until Bush let his obession with Saddam get the better of him, a cluster fuck that will probably claim more American lives than Osama did five years ago.
Can someone show me where "Mark Foley, George Allen, and Bill Clinton" or their supporters attacked their accusers solely on their motivations?
OK, Foley and Allen, but not Clinton.
How about where "Mark Foley, George Allen, and Bill Clinton" were attacked by their accusers solely on their motivations?
OK, Clinton but not Foley and Allen.
And how about showing me some distinction between Web vs TV criticism, more or less attacking solely motivations?
Right - about the same for both. Though Web criticism, even faster paced than TV (without a rigid broadcast schedule and filler commercials), does happen sooner. Especially because more of the process from the originators can be seen on the Web, rather than just the eventual "final product" on TV.
Looked at without the Republican corporate mass media agenda to confuse the issues, the actual trend is clear. Republicans attack messengers because the negative messages are usually true. And the Web is faster and more "raw" than TV, so those attacks start there.
The election of people unfit to lead is left as an exercise to the reader.
--
make install -not war