Slashdot Mirror
Political Mudslinging Via YouTube, MySpace
An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek takes a look at how political campaigns are taking the time-honored tradition of political mudslinging digital. One notable example: In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead over challenger Jim Webb until one of Webb's camera-toting aides captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop. The video soon held the number 1 ranking on YouTube and gained national attention. Allen has since taken a steep drop in the polls, and Republicans now risk losing a seat they thought secure."
I haven't been able to see the video but if it's accompanied by some commentary like, "... George Allen's typical closed minded Republican speak
Muslinging still is rampant and there still are videos
My work here is dung.
Err, sorry to break it to you US MSM but informing people that someone is a racists POS, when that is the case and you have evidence to prove it, is not mudslinging. Also note, for future reference, presenting both to stories about "my sky budy says evolution isn't true" ... not objective reporting.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Sooner or later Republicans will try to categorize this as a breach of campaign finance reform and intimidate YouTube into making it impossible to do.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
When you have footage of someone doing something they shouldn't. Its not like it was made up, you should know their point of view oh issues of race. There is a differance between bashing someone with lies and exagerated truth but something like this I think is totally aceptable.
How about political conversation and information? YouTube is, without a doubt, one of the biggest boons to increasing the participatory part of the national conversation. I'm thrilled to see politicians, people, and orgs all over YouTube.
...it's "mudslinging" when some racist asshole gets caught on tape and this horrid abberation of a human is brought to the attention of the public so they can decide if they want a racist in office? But if politician gets a BJ in his office given by some reasonably 'OK' looking fat chick and it's plastered all over the media (would have been on the net too if there were video of it) it's "fair and balanced reporting". Sayonara assholes...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Yeah, this one isn't mudslinging. This one is George Allen being himself, on camera, without any doctoring whatsoever.
A classic example of real mudslinging would be the Willie Horton ad; it insulted Bush Sr.'s opponent, played off racist fears (without using any overt racism), and took an explicitly biased stance against Michael Dukakis. That's mudslinging.
This was just a politician hanging his own political career in front of millions.
the youtube video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9G7gq7GQ71c
something else random: http://www.neverending.tv/
Now, MySpace is owned by NewsCorp which also owns FOX News. How did Bill O' Reilly allow that??
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
How is that 'mudslinging?' The definition of mudslinger is "one that uses offensive epithets and abuse/insult especially against a political opponent." I mean, if you show a video (without doctoring it) of your opponent saying "macaca" and it really happened, how are you mudslinging? I'd sure like to know if the guy I'm voting for is willing to call a group of people something offensive.
I think mudslinging generally refers to the practice of negative campaigning, which the "macaca" video definitely was. Using that was tactical, but it didn't refute Allen's ideas or voting record. Sure, I don't want to vote for a racist, and it's relevant, but I'd rather hear Webb tell me why Allen's politics don't work. But he hasn't.
Not that it's one-sided, Allen's nailed Webb too. In fact, that entire campaign has been nothing BUT mudslinging, really. I haven't heard either one of those guys say what he's really going to be about when he gets/stays in Washington (besides the usual family values crap).
For reference, yeah, I live in Virginia. And I plan on voting for the most obscure independent candidate I can find in that race, because I can't stand either one of those clowns.
Now we have footage of some of his aides/operatives attacking a blogger who asked Allen if he had stopped spitting on his wife. Why would he say that? Because that is apparently what is included in Allen's divorce papers which are currently sealed.
As others on the media circuit have said, regardless if the question is valid or not, there was no reason to attack the person and the fact that Allen watched the whole thing and did nothing to stop the attack shows what a thug-based party the Republicans.
This isn't the first time that Allen's been accused of being violent. His one sister wrote a book in which she describes him beating and/or attacking the other children including dragging her by the hair up a flight of stairs.
And before anyone marks me as Troll or Flamebait, I am a Republican but people like Allen, or in my case Santorum, in no way represent me. I am thoroughly disgusted with what my party has become and I can't wait to see the results on November 8th.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I had to laugh at an NPR interview yesterday with Howard Dean's campaign manager, who's also the author of a book on how the web is changing everything blah blah blah. He went on about how YouTube, MySpace, etc. have changed everything since 2004 blah blah blah, without once mentioning that his client in 2004 was taken out by a video of him bloviating after the Iowa caucuses, but that the video of Dean's war dance was instantly available on-line (which is where I first saw it), even though YouTube was still a glimmer in some PayPal programmer's eye at the time. Everything changed? Not really, Dean was removed from contention in 2004 in much the same way Allen was removed in 2006, by shooting his mouth off in front of a video camera.
Have you read my blog lately?
This isn't any way to run a body politic.
Television means politics is now about the *appearance* of honesty, integrity, competence.
ACTUAL honesty, integrity and competence - who knows? how can you tell through television?
You can tell be learning the history of a candidate, by learning about his position on major issues and what he thinks could be done.
This doesn't happen, because it requires reading, and reading is no longer the primary communication medium in our culture. Television is. We turn to television to learn who to elect; and television is all about *apperance*. Television is all about *show business*. And we do politics through television.
TFS cites this as an exception, because it's not mudslinging. I'm sure it woudn't take more than two fingers and three minutes to find plenty of business-as-usual campaign rhetoric. Not that I'm going to go look — I get quite enough of that already.
Just junk food for thought...
I agree; this isn't mudslinging, it is a video of a politician sticking his foot in his mouth. At one time I was leaning towards voting for Senator Allen, but not after that incident and his pathetic attempt to "explain it away".
Here's the wikipedia entry on the word "macaca" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaca_(slur)
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
The internet is just another (powerful) means for... for just anything.
...) can only be good or bad only technicalwise.
You have free knowledge, easy collaboration, multi-party communication.
And also dirty politics, lies, deception, crime, etc.
Internet (and YouTube and Google and Wikipedia and
From a moral standpoint only the human user can be good or bad.
It's interesting how the wide range of human hopes and opinions can be reduced to us and them by the US electoral system.
Deleted
Given that YouTube is unregulated, I bet we start seeing fake videos hit the networks. Some anonymous user posts a video of Joe Schmo canidate talking about some random topic. A bit of audio editing (think voice boards) later, some grainy artifacts in the right place, and some clever timing and suddenly Joe Schmo just got caught saying something bad. Will it matter if the politician refutes the video? Even if they prove it to be fake, the damage will probably already be done. No real account to tie the slandering back to. No one to sue, and all YouTube can do is take down the video and ban the account. Damage already done, and no real risk.
In the 50's we had the red scare. In the next election there migth be a YouTube scare.
No it doesn't. Mudslinging is a pretty well-defined term. You have to wonder about the motivations of people who want to blur that meaning.
Nobody in politics intentionally misuses words for any purpose, especially not for propaganda. Only a fascist like you would think otherwise.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. (NOTE: I am a conservative liberal who voted for Kerry and previously Nader. I will never again vote third party)
You bring up issues, but as all of us Bush supporters know issues aren't what count! It's CHARACTER! And it's apparent that this man lacks character by simply uttering such offensive terms. This is up there with that evil Democrat who called one of Bush's nominees to the supreme court that racist slur: Neanderthal! Anyone with a brain will see that even if the other candidate might be wrong on the issues, he has more character than this candidate and therefore deserves to be elected to office!
We now return you to your reglarly scheduled heckling.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Oblig Simpsons Quote "All the kids in Springfield are SOB's."
I'd sure like to know if the guy I'm voting for is willing to call a group of people something offensive.
It's somewhat hard to believe that there is any candidate for any office in the land who has never told a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke at any time in their lives.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
...or, if memory serves, the moveon.org ad trying to associate a republican candiate to the horrific dragging of an African American behind a truck.
OTOH there are 10 times as many videos that take liberites with context. Jon Stewart has been airing them nightly.
Last night, an ad said something to the effect of "Joe Blow would let this man walk free!" "This man" was just a picture of some random black guy, poory lit in OJ-on-Newsweek fashion. For all I know the guy was in prison for jaywalking and probably deserves to go free.
But this has nothing to do with You Tube. Just how sad US politics has become, where this issues don't matter and all that counts is whether you're an agressive fascist punk, no matter what side you're on.
For all you non-'Merkins, the Allen contest has been particularly nasty, like tow chimps throwing feces at each other, except one side has more feces than the other. Thankfully I live in California.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
What's truly unfortunate is that the people who were going to vote for him as a viable candidate may now have no where to turn in time for the election.
What I assume nobody else is going to comment on is what a complete fool you are for assuming the electoral process is still functional in the first place. This might give you a slightly more realistic perspective on the state of America's political health.
I'm not advocating doing nothing, at all...but the longer people keep pretending that the current system still works, the closer you go to a situation where Bush's dictatorship will become entrenched beyond your ability to remove it. You need to stop pretending once and for all that you are still living in a democracy...you are not. It is a delusion which, if you persist in it for much longer, could very well end up costing many of you your lives.
What I would advocate anyone and everyone in the US to start doing from this point on is to become as friendly with people in the military as they can...because when it comes down to the wire, your life is going to literally depend on whose side the military are on...
Bush's, or yours.
Had you actually bothered to check the history of this article you would have learned that it was created on August 16, 2006. Of course, I'm not an american so I don't know for sure, but I'll bet serious money that the actual incident happened on August 15, and the whole article's purpose is just to dig up obscure knownledge to use against someone who used what he thought was a general insult, without knowing its rascist history.
What if one were to show a short animated clip of an animated boar and meerkat singing "Hakuna Macaca" with George Allen's head floating around in the background? Could that be construed as "mudslinging"?
YouTube is simply a new tool to help inform the electorate. The content is a product of the available interesting stories to tell. And the GOP has many "interesting" stories...
Dominant Meme
No..this was pretty heavily played in the news for a few weeks after it happened. Today's reference is not digging up something obscure, but something that changed the dynamic of the VA senate race two months ago.
Prior to the incident, Allen was solidly ahead in the polls... afterward, he stumbled badly... especially after his poor attempts at explaining it away.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
The YouTube revolution has more to it than just a shift in the location of old-style campaign mudslinging. What's going on now is that when a politician makes a blunder, like Allen did, or, as another commenter noted, Dean, it's immediately available for evaluation by everyone. The carefully-crafted facade that these men and women put up inevitably cracks, and we get to see the real person. Dean is an overeager nerd, Allen is a violent racist, John Kerry is an elitist, etc. Of the three things I just mentioned, only one would make me vote against someone, but what do I know? I'm a Democrat, mostly because we don't tend to put people like Allen up for election.
The rapid access to information is going to make campaigns more and more about the actual person campaigning, because they'll be watched every moment of every day and the slip-ups will instantly be available to everyone. I think that's good, but I'm happy to drop the pretense that politicians don't have unpleasant aspects to their personalities. I'm also happy to toss out the ability for someone to have repugnant beliefs and keep them quiet except when talking to his or her base. But, again, what do I know? I'm sure it's more fun to pretend that racists aren't really racist while in public and then vote for them.
The George Allen case isn't mudslinging -- this is mudslinging: (taken from here). The worst is that the 100 Democratic officials can't be accounted for, the mayor is a Democrat in name only, and best of all Simon was not the president of the ACLU but only worked for them as a lawyer on a single non-NAMBLA-related case!
Now you're mudslinging, because your statement is pretty vague. The details are important. For example, was the candidate driving the truck? Or was the candidate unconnected completely? The details mattere here.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
That "M" word... according to the Wikipedia article (which, given current events, may well be full of shit) says this:
and further:
Uh, sure... That's one family dedicated to preserving their rich heritage of obscure racists terms!
Still, it sure looks like he meant it in the derogatory, rather than just trying to remember the guys name. But if you're against Allen to begin with, it doesn't take much to view his actions in the most negative light.
Now it's coming around that Webb, Allen's opponent, may be a plagiarist.
Dark Reflection
It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
I don't think race was behind Senator Allen's comment, but rather his annoyance and revulsion that the opposing campaign would send a political monkey to videotape his campaign events.
Slick Willy did the office of President great damage and tarnished his own legacy with his disgusting acts and subsequent coverup. Indeed the old media failed to protect their darling, as new media outlets (Fox News, conservative talk radio) kept America informed. The event was certainly newsworthy.
Probably the House. The Senate is less likely. Senator Allen's campaign is a toss-up. This trend should hold if the demos don't deliver anymore gifts like Senator Kerry's arrogant insult. Hopefully Howard Dean in on the campaign trail. But I trust Na-Speaker Pelosi, Jack "Cut and Run" Murtha, Dick Durban, Hillary and others to quickly offend mainstream voters and ruin their chances in 2008.
an ill wind that blows no good
Telling a joke doesn't make you a racist. Calling people macaca to their face, putting deer heads into the mailboxes of black families, and standing up with the members of the Council of Conservative Citizens (a KKK front group) makes you a racist.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Everything HAS changed.
The established Democrats wanted to focus on a handful of races in a few safe states. BFD -- the Democrats might have won a few seats but been totally unable to pull of a landslide.
In contrast, Dean insisted on rebuilding the party in all fifty states, even "when hell freezes over" states like Montana and Wyoming, and the "webroots" gave a forum for candidates (and way for them to raise money $5 and $10 at a time from hundreds or thousands of small contributors). Almost all of the "red to blue" races started out on the webroots, and every established pol would have insisted you were crazy if you told them that Cheney AND Bush would be in WYOMING, of all places, the week before the election to shore up the Republican candidate. People were openly ridiculed for suggesting that 80 seats would be in play, not 15 or so, yet the last I heard the number of seats in serious contention was 72 and climbing.
The world has changed. Get used to it.
BTW, go to the corner and put on the dunce cap if you think Dean shot off his mouth in 2004. He was trying to speak over a loud crowd after a long day, of course his voice was hoarse. The thing that Faux and ABC didn't bother telling you is that the mike was right in front of him and somehow able to filter out the crowd noise. (I don't know if it was mechanical shielding or if they did it electronically.) How do you think you would sound if someone had miked you in a crowded and extremely loud bar? Now multiply that ten-fold since you weren't talking all day. The mainstream media long ago decided to focus on 'reactions' instead of actually covering the news and they ran with the story primarily because the Republicans were oh so happy to make a strong contender look like an idiot.
P.S. Olbermann (MSNBC) Rocks!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Difference being that most political candidates probably tell these jokes in private, away from the private eye and certainly not anywhere a video camera might pick it up.
If I were a supervisor I can go home and say anything I want about my incompitent employees to my wife, kids, friends in the privacy of my own home. However, it is highly unethical to say the same things in the presence of other coworkers.
I got nothin'
Gurmant Grewal, a Canadian member of parliament, already edited a voice recording and released it to the media to embarass his opponents. (Not during an election campaign, though.)
Fortunately, it did not go well for him.
Linky.
There is far more to this story that the footage on YouTube. How about this Mike Stark forcing/pushing his way past staffers. This was not some nice quiet person who walked up, asked a question, and was tackled. This was someone aggressively forcing his way to a confrontation with a candidate, and this is before the footage that has been seen on TV.
3 1allen/index2_html?qstart=1
Look in particular in the first few photos at the left side of the pictures as Allen exits a room.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2006/102006/10
By the way, most political analysts think Allen's problems are more from trying to make an issue about some of Jim Webb's novels than this.
Yes. Telling an ethnic joke is the same thing as referring to someone as "macaca".
It starts at the top, and all the way down they are rotten
Whew! It's a good thing that the democrat's leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, is clean as a whistle . Not counting good old fashioned $90k-in-the-freezer bribe-taking by a congressional democrat, or president who hands out pardons in exchange for cashflow or sells access in exchange for illegal donations from China , it seems that high-end real estate transactions are a favorite pastime for the traditional representatives of the poor working slobs of the country. *cough Hillary*
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You're just somewhat less likely to get fired for it.
This is a perfect example of the Internet working exactly as it is supposed to - informing the masses in a way that was never possible before. It is becoming increasingly difficult for government and corporate America to lie through their teeth and get away with it. The guises are falling and everyone is invited to watch.
I watched the clip and didn't hear any slur; is this all marketing? What did folks hear?
He also used to have a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office (note: Allen was born in California and did not demonstrate any fealty to the Confederate "culture" prior to moving to Virginia), and two flags - the American flag (quite appropriate) and the Confederate battle flag (see previous note). Finally, he named his son "Forrest" as well. One could argue that his son Forrest could be named after anyone, but the fact that Allen himself had a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office definitely gives a strong clue as to who his son was named for.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Hey politicians!
Whether you are doing the mugslinging or getting it done to you, you are still covered in filth.
No amount of whitewashing can clean you of the stench of filth that you reek of.
You all need to be booted from office and we need to start from scratch to get some honest citizens in your place that will actually do the job for the people instead of for the money.
"VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE!" -Montgomery Brewster (Brewster's Millions)
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
I can see sites like YouTube and later incarnations of the same being used far more heavily for political purposes. I have used it to promote my friend's music and also to make political music videos (two of which are listed below). In the future, I plan to utilize it as my video blog and just link to it from my normal blog. It's only a matter of time before politicians, their supporters, and their opponents catch on to it in an even bigger way than now. Look for it to happen as more of the younger generation matures to the point of being serious candidates for office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoSnTHB7hZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW-E_svcwDo
That's hilarious. I'm bookmarking this and returning in 2010. I just want to see how "insightful" this is. Oh yeah, and the Army? They're waaaaay more beholden to America than the sitting President. Don't go putting crap on their shoulders.
You do realize that we have you to thank for George Allen, don't you? He was born in Whittier, California. (This is not meant to be any kind of "carpet bagging" slur, as Webb was born in Missouri, and as for me, well, I was born in (West) Germany - as an army brat.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That's just slinging mud at people who want to blur the meaning!!!
/head asplodes
Or is it?
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Though commenting on your sig, I'd say that the current administration is more an indictment on liberal fiscal policies than conservative. Bush's policies certainly aren't a platform of states' rights and fiscal responsibility.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Bush's dictatorship? Never really lived under a dictatorship, have you? Either your disingenuous, or criminally naive. If this were truly the place you seem to believe, you DO understand that you, for holding such views, would be dead? Or the black helicopters would be on their way, at least?
Only the hysterically-emo, hang-wringing naive suburban leftist could POSSIBLY equate the current political structure of the US with a dictatorship, the same kind of person that would have no trouble slinging the terms 'genocide' or 'holocaust' at whatever happens to fill their 'fear-o-meter' for the moment.
You're a palpably insane, with paranoid delusions. It's a sordid comment on the audience of slashdot, and the no-holds-barred political climate that sees value in feeding your particular phobia rather than getting you the professional help you need, that you are rated 'insightful'.
-Styopa
Historically, the ruling party loses seats in the 6th year of a presidency. A loss of 40 seats is average. The projected loss of 15 is no big switch. America likes divided government. It is really only imperative that the GOP keep the Senate so that it can continue to stock the supreme court with conservative justices.
Yes, scandals like this, and this turn my stomach.
With vaudvillians like Kerry, Dean, and Hillary loose in the land I expect YouTube to stay well stocked!
an ill wind that blows no good
I fail to see how using an epithet makes you a racist. It may be a symptom of racism, but it may also be a symptom of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge. There was one guy not from the US that I worked with who used the n word, not because he was a racist (which he was not), but because he was unaware that it was offensive. The bottom line is that the use of words doesn't make you anything. Conversely, not all racists use epithets. My dad never used the n word, but he wouldn't let us watch Family Matters or the Jeffersons. He didn't have any black friends and he didn't seem inclined to make any. He may not have even realized it, but he would say things about how bad such-and-such group were and didn't think twice about it.
The "Mudslinging" was refering to other instances in the article...
I cant believe you got modded up, just RTFA...
What is a Macaca anyways? never heard of it before...
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," -My Senator John Kerry '1972
the no-holds-barred political climate that sees value in feeding your particular phobia rather than getting you the professional help you need, that you are rated 'insightful'.
Maybe. Or maybe they know something you don't.
You're also not the first person to tell me I'm insane. I don't let that discourage me. My theory is that it's a lot more comforting to simply assume that I'm insane than to consider the alternative. Although you could be right...I actually hope that for a lot of people's sake, you are.
Look the guy who was filming this was for the opponenet and TRYING to provoke/catch/etc. a slip so the other side could use that digitial blurb in their mudslinging campaign. What i see is a guy on a stand point out this provoker and calling him what he is a bastard mutherfucker.
I'm sorry regardless of which side is a POS is indifferent in this race becuse both are POS's
politics is so fucked up these days.
That's hilarious. I'm bookmarking this and returning in 2010. I just want to see how "insightful" this is.
Sure...Bookmark my journal as well. We can compare notes.
Funny how "conservatives" are trying to distance themselves from the GOP/Bush now by claiming these clowns aren't true conservatives. Even a brief examination of the data shows that Democrats are better at making government more efficient and improving the economy, which isn't saying much considering what is possible, but anyone who votes for the current GOP thinking they are voting for a more efficient government or a better economy is a total fucking idiot. The current administration is an indictment of what happens when you put Republicans in charge of a government. They loot it as they run it into the ground. I'm never voting Republican again until the party has been completely purged of these people and the stupid religious fanatics we have pandered to for far too long. The past six years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only true conservative choice is to vote Libertarian when possible and Democratic when it isn't.
No it doesn't. Mudslinging is a pretty well-defined term. You have to wonder about the motivations of people who want to blur that meaning.
According to whom? I looked it up and found this: "An attempt to destroy someone's reputation"
The key thing is, it doesn't say it has to be *false*. Is Webb trying to destroy Allen's reputation with the mileage they've gotten from the macaca thing? You betcha. Thus, mudslinging.
I'm guessing that you're supposing that "macacca" as monkey could refer to "political monkey" and have no racial connotation. Not a bad explanation - too bad that Allen didn't think of it. He said that he had no idea was "macacca" even meant and it was a made up word to sound like "mohawk" since the Siddarth's haircut looked kind of like a mohawk (if you squint your eyes, shake your head really fast, and put your fingers in front of your face). It also happens to be a derogatory word that people from his mother's background use. So, I see three options here: (1) he meant it as political monkey but was too embarrased to admit it (not very likely), (2) he was trying to say "mohawka" and it came out "macacca" (yeah, right), or (3) he meant it in the way he's heard other people from his mother's culture use it and was too embarrassed to admit it. I think it's clear which one I think is most likely.
Seems like someone's been drinking from the fountain of Fox News a little toooo deeply. I'm not saying it's not possible for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - it's their specialty - just that you're using the catch phrases that suggest you're not doing too much of your own thinking.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There really has been too much mudslinging, but there are issues in the campaign, though you wouldn't know it from most media, because mudslinging sells them papers, not responsible coverage of the issues.
Note: I don't live in Virginia, so I haven't been following the race that closely.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
Alright smart guy - define "unitary executive."
Exactly what does a rave getting raided have to do with the electorial process? If anything, those looked like SWAT rather than the military.
A Human Right
Where do you liberals learn to speak like this? I am proud of our military's performance in Iraq. The lightning attack, the shock and awe, prying Saddam out of a hole. You can't blame them for the civil war.
If that is what you have on Vice-President Cheney, I'd say he's done pretty well.
an ill wind that blows no good
George Felix Allen used standard old fashioned email to call his opponent James Webb a pedophile.
There was no youtubing involved at all, he just cut and pasted a few sentences out of a war novel Webb wrote many years ago that is considered recommended reading by the US Marine Corps.
Isn't that good old fashioned mudslinging? Just because he used email doesn't make it particularly new.
I prefer to think of it as "staying on message". Politics is about consensus.
an ill wind that blows no good
Let's give a warm welcome to this casper hick or whatever his name is, welcome to America.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
Actually, Webb hasn't mentioned that incident as far as I know. Not even obliquely. G. Felix Allen is fully capable of ruining his own reputation without any help.
Res ipsa loquitur, dude.
I was referring to the Wikipedia's article contents. Did you know, prior to this incident, that, ehm... "Macaca[1] is a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population. "? If you heard - prior to this incident - someone shouthing "You macaca!" (is that even gramatically corrent?) would you automatically think that the recipient of these insults must be of colour, the way you would if you heard the 'n' word?
Reporting something that actually happened is not mudslinging.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It does still work.
See, he will be gone in two years.
The problem is not the system, it's the apathy and people who vote mased on the letter next to a candidates name, not on the canadate.
It's a cutural problem, but thats ok, beause that is changing as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I can accept that explanation, and I apologize for what could be considered an insulting comment.
I guess the important question is: why is it important for you to stay on that message?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I think jackbooted paramilitary thugs persecuting a peaceful festival smells like fascism. I'd sure hesitate to express any nonmajority political views in Utah.
Man, you really need that seminar!
What I would advocate anyone and everyone in the US to start doing from this point on is to become as friendly with people in the military as they can...because when it comes down to the wire, your life is going to literally depend on whose side the military are on...
My sister (navy) and her husband (marine) are both in the military. You are an absolute moron if you think they are going to revolt for Bush. Hell, you are a blazing idiot if you think Bush is even going to ask for a revolt, much less get one. You are so fucking stupid that you make dirt look college capable if you think the US military could control the US. They can't control Iraq. You think they could possibly control the US? Ha! Even if by some magical voodoo you could get the military revolt (hint: you couldn't), you ASSUREDLY would have a massive portion of them defect. Even more would defect when they are told to shell New York. You might not realize it, but the military is drawn from the population, and are not exactly itching to slaughter their own family members. Further, the military would have zero popular support. If you think your government is really that powerful, well, pass me what you are smoking because it must be the good shit.
Seriously, the military can't occupy the tiny nation of Iraq even without mass defections. You think the military could occupy the US WITH the mass defections that would happen almost instantly? Grow up kid.
I'm not advocating doing nothing, at all...but the longer people keep pretending that the current system still works, the closer you go to a situation where Bush's dictatorship will become entrenched beyond your ability to remove it. You need to stop pretending once and for all that you are still living in a democracy...you are not. It is a delusion which, if you persist in it for much longer, could very well end up costing many of you your lives.
*yawn*
"Dictator" Bush is going to leave once his term is up. "Dictator" Bush is just as easily tossed to the curb by the secret service, police, and military as any other idiot who runs around on the White House lawn uninvited. You live in a sad and delusional world if you think the men and women of every other branch of government are going to leave a guy in power who has over stayed his constitutional welcome. You are even more delusional if you think that the government, even if by magic could convince the military and police to overthrow its own constitution, that they would stand a slime chance in hell of holding onto power in the US.
Go back onto your psyche drugs buddy.
you are going to give them a slap in the face.
I hope all republicans are as conscious as you.
Read radical news here
See, he will be gone in two years.
I hope you're right. Look at it this way, though...If he decides he doesn't want to go in two years, what are you going to be able to do about it?
To me that's the point...that Bush and other such types around the planet are realising that with the military forces they have these days, governmental checks and balances are devoid of teeth. He can decide he doesn't want to go, have the few people who want to object to that detained and/or shot, and then rely on the fact that the vast majority of the population will be too busy watching Paris Hilton, American Idol or Survivor to want to mount any kind of resistance to him after that...either that or they'll simply be too scared to do so. The proverbial IPod generation couldn't give a shit about politics. Bush could do whatever he wanted, for all they cared...and even if he by some chance did start doing something that they objected to, they would be completely at his mercy. He has the legal framework now (with the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and other such wonderful things) where he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants. If that isn't dictatorship, then pray tell...What is?
So that basically is my point...from everything I can see anyway, Bush has set himself up as the contemporary, real world answer to Sauron. We're all screwed.
Can you imagine what the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Olbermann could do with a Republican with $90K in the freezer? They'd wet their collective panties!
Dark Reflection
Go back and re-read what I wrote if I wasn't clear. I think you're right, and it's completely conceivable that someone could use an epithet and not be racist. In Allen's case he's got more evidence against him that he's a racist.
Anyway, I do agree with what you said.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
How is that 'mudslinging?' One abuse/insult a political opponent, show a video saying "macaca", are you mudslinging? I'd like the guy I'm voting for to call a group of people something offensive. I haven't been accompanied by George Allen. What's truly unfortunate is that the people might vote for an ignorant American. Muslinging still is rampant and there are videos ... but they're not lies. I'm interested in coming from the candidates mouth. It doesn't matter if it's my best friend, I'd still want.
I am sure you can see how a selected choice of video clips can misrepresent reality without being falsified or being "lies".
OK then, I'll agree with you on the commercials. Definitely mudslinging.
The thriftiness of Republicans isn't on-topic here, but I encourage you to examine the growth of the debt under some recent presidents.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Other than that - your post is dead-on. Not only are the founding fathers collectively rolling in their graves right now; they are weeping over the fact that their creation - arguably the greatest country the world has ever seen - is now enjoying an inevitable slide into mediocrity. I honestly don't know how it can be reversed. No one with any capability would ever take the job. Can we find our own Zaphod Beeblebrox? Of course, one could argue he's already holding the job...
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
A general insult? He learned it from his mom, who knew what it meant. You think he never asked her what it meant, or noticed that she only directed it against certain people?
ooh I wish I had mod points, that's funny.
Further, the military would have zero popular support. If you think your government is really that powerful, well, pass me what you are smoking because it must be the good shit.
Fine...I'm delusional. Then please, explain to me the "unitary executive" stuff. Please also explain to me how the ability to have anyone (either domestic or foreign) arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant and water-boarded at will fits within a democractic framework, especially given how such an ability would stand legally in relation to the Geneva Conventions...I am assuming that since you have military relatives, you would be far more intimately aware of that than am I. Explain to me how side-stepping the FISA court for surveillance warrants is above-board, democratic behaviour. We can also look at Bush's use of signing statements when enacting laws, basically clarifying which parts of said laws he will or will not abide by.
Then there's the whole can of worms surrounding how Bush got into office in the first place, not to mention the vote fraud issues that have taken place since.
You might be right that there is no way that Bush could orchestrate a coup...I can accept that...but I am interested in knowing whether or not you are able to deny that Bush and his administration have worked tirelessly to dismantle the American political system since practically the moment he arrived in office. Hence, while he might not actually be able to get an outright coup, he arguably *will* have been able to get everything short of one.
Using racially offensive terms makes you a racist (unless you're ignorantly repeating some new word you just heard, in which case you're simply a moron). Just not as bad as one who uses them to the people's faces.
And putting a deer head in anyone's mailbox simply makes you a dickhead.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I think you both have a very naive few of what it would take to truly establish a dictatorship in the US. The easiest scenario:
1) "Someone" hax0rs the vote to all hell
2) GOP says it was the DemocRATS who did it
3) Continuous propaganda across all traditional media outlets
4) GOP/Whitehouse refuses to comply with the "tainted" election results
5) Violent crackdowns against the "anarchist" protesters
6) Arrests of "ringleaders" (i.e. anyone with power who poses a threat, including top Democrats).
6) Bush = Dictator
7) Profit!
You don't need to convince the military to overthrow anything, they just need to stay out of the way and they will because the Joint Chiefs are already cowed and the command structure has already been purged of anyone who asks tough questions. Some of the grunts might be pissed enough that they would actually be willing to follow someone in open revolt, but anyone willing to take a leadership role won't have command over anything significant and any units that do go rogue will be spun into the propaganda campaign and only perpetuate the dominant narrative that the GOP must be allowed to maintain it's control of the government.
Easy there cowboy... if you put anyone in complete control for more than one term you're going to get the same results. It's how the system works. I think it would be great to have democrats in control, but only for so long before we start seeing the same types of power grabs and pork barrel spending. What we really need is to get rid of the two party bullshit. They're two sides of the same coin anymore.
You're nothing; like me.
The Merriam Webster's Collegiate Edition entry for mudslinger reads as follows: "one that uses offensive epithets and invective esp. against a political opponent." Mudslinging does not imply making false claims, but representing the truth in a manner that is intended to shock. The posting of the Allen video to YouTube is a fine, albeit modern-day, example of mudslinging. Please give my whole article a read before jumping to conclusions from a paraphrase.
Indeed, the cameras everywhere makes candidates a bit more boring, but you have to consider how things used to be.
An example: Nixon, when he ran for his senate seat in 1950, would routinely call Helen Gahagan Douglas a Communist, claim that she was having an affair with Harry Truman, while other times insinuating she was a lesbian. He would do this indoors with friendly Rotary Club and Republican audiences, while the LA Times reporters covering the event would omit anything offensive from their coverage. Norman Chandler, the publisher of the Times at the time, was the Republican Party in California at the time (the Times would change its tack under Otis Chandler and became a major player in covering Watergate.
Politicians shouldn't be boring, but when they speak, they should be able to account for their statements. When they play to a friendly audience and pretend they're Rush Limbaugh, shootin' from the hip and damn if someone is offended, they aren't "connecting" with their audience, they're just pandering. Nixon was a poor people politician who relied on friendly media, and pandering to a rabid base of support. When he lost control of his image, and people could see him in the open, he was at his weakest.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Hey, that's what this "ownership society" is all about...
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Amplifying its significance into a 24/7 "news event" shows evidence either of a sick fixation on something that should remain private, or just political opportunism. I was arguing about this with a co-worker just a few days ago. He was complaining about the morality of kids today (something no previous generation has ever had cause to do, I'm sure) and (of course) it was all Clinton's fault. It was that damned blowjob that sent western civilization into a downward spiral. Bullshit. Men like women, and women often like men, but Bill Clinton, even if he diddled around, was not the one who made his BJ into part of the national consciousness. Republicans did that, by fixating for years on an essentially private matter. They made talking about oral sex more acceptable, even glib, than Oprah could do in 20 years of trash TV. Republicans pushed it to the forefront and kept it there, and they are why it was on the news every single day. It was NOT important, not nearly as important as redefining torture and habeus corpus, which is what our current President has done. I don't find any Republican protestations of superior morality persuasive, or even entertaining.
If you really think that Clinton sullied the nation by getting a blowjob, but you don't bat an eyelash over Bush waffling over us torturing people do death, then you're about the worst possible source of moral guidance I could ask for. Either you're just a political hack, or there's something wrong with your priorities as a human being. It's pretty sad when the best-case scenario is that you just have no integrity. I find myself hoping that you're just a liar, because that's the less bleak of the alternatives. What kind of people are deeply disturbed by oral sex but is okay with people being tortured to death? Is that even possible? Where do these people come from? And I'm supposed to accept that moral outrage as authentic and even (I laugh!) deserving of respect?
Let me clarify something--if Bush were caught in flagrante dilecto 25 minutes from now, flagrantly lied about it under warrant, and got impeached--I'd still find it trivial, and I'd be pissed that he was impeached (successfully or otherwise) over something so unimportant, after authorizing torture, warrantless surveillance, ignoring written law at will, and so on. I'd be embarrassed as an American if we impeached Bush for oral sex (or any sex) with a consenting adult, because that would be petty and small-minded. Putting that on the news every day for months would make us as a nation look like fools, and even though I oppose many of his policies, I would not want to embarrass my nation by something so, well, tacky.
A classic example of real mudslinging would be the Willie Horton ad; it insulted Bush Sr.'s opponent, played off racist fears (without using any overt racism), and took an explicitly biased stance against Michael Dukakis. That's mudslinging.
True. But it's also worth noting that the subject of Willie Horton was first brought up during the primary battles, by Senator Al Gore.
The definition of dictator is a : a person granted absolute emergency power; b : one holding complete autocratic control; c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.
While you could argue whether Bush, technically, meets the definition, there is plenty of evidence that he is trying to evade Congressional oversight, elimination of habeas corpus for detainees and immunity for torture, the use of signing statements to effectively nullify legislation, NSA spying on U.S. citizens and so forth that are clearly moves in that direction.
Further, he is definitely claiming power and using it based on a framework of emergency that goes by the label of the "war on terror". He, and especially people under him like Cheney, believe that that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries. That's pretty close to an understanding that believes itself to have absolute emergency power, i.e., a dictatorship - given certain conditions (which in this case are vague).
This article on electronic voting suggests that the whole election will be a total debacle anyway. It makes horrifying reading. For example, voters discovered that anyone using a Sequoia voting machine (apparently the third largest supplier in the country) can vote multiple times. No hacking required - just hold down the button on the back of the box. WTF???
Why hasn't there been more coverage of this? Why does no-one care?
I'd say mudslinging is the least of your worries....
That Webb was a Reagan Republican.
"I encourage you to examine the growth of the debt under some recent presidents."
Here's a chart up to 2003: U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party. The Republican party is NOT "conservative".
Some parts of the Republican Party are respectable, but other parts are like organized crime. I wrote an article about that: George W. Bush Comedy and Tragedy.
The first section of the article, Funniest George W. Bush comedy videos, examines the facts that show George W. Bush is the most disrespected president in U.S. history. Did you know that the song "American Idiot", about George W. Bush, was at or near the top of the musical charts in several countries?
This section, Remarkable occurrences involving the Bush family, is not funny, but it is interesting that George W. Bush knew a brother of Osama bin Laden before the attacks on 9/11/2001, and there are other equally remarkable events.
For those who can handle very intense horror movies, there are several links in the article to free movies that are guaranteed to keep you awake at night.
WHA? If you think any part of the democrats is conservative, buddy, you're smokin' crack.
Apparently. This covers it.
Less cynical Americans call them heroes.
an ill wind that blows no good
Any business executive would be fired for being caught doing this. The rest of your post is the standard relativist diatribe.
an ill wind that blows no good
The parent's point was not that the Democrats are a better choice than the current Republicans' brand of conservatism.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
So he must be stopped!!
If Webb is such a wonderful character, why has Webb not distanced himself from the dailykos and other democrats who are making an issue of his Jewish heritage?
From a debate, local TV reporter Peggy Fox:
It has been reported that your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?
Where the hell does a "reporter" get off asking someone about their religion during a debate? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
"Our Constitution, for good reason, bans religious tests for public office. It may nonetheless be legitimate under some circumstances to ask a candidate how his or her religious views might affect decisions (as Mitt Romney no doubt will be asked many times). But what legitimate basis can there be for injecting the religion of a candidate's grandfather into a campaign? And if that is legitimate, what's next -- a question about whether a candidate's forebears include African-Americans?" (because Paul at powerlineblog.com has perhaps said it best.)
I see you are trying to do the same thing.
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Major typo.
Remove the word "not" from my post above and it will say what I meant.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
What? You're...oh...using sarcasm. And then slyly misusing the word fascist.
-6, Way Too Clever For Slashdot
In this case, I don't hate to say "I told you so!". I have been ranting silently and aloud about the collapse of the mighty republican empire for years. Their crooked ass-ed and ignorant inter circle have been selling all kinds of bullshit to the American people for the entire length of the Bush administration. The sad part is that a bunch of dumb-ass republicans that are not crooked jumped on the ban wagon, instead of standing up for what is best for the nation and the world. Now their house of cards is coming down on top of their heads.
The laws of nature say that one extreme is usually followed by another, particularly in the political world. So in the coming years, we will probably get to see the Democrats fuck-up too.
So who is going to pick up the pieces and work together do get some important stuff done. My guess is that in the halls of power few can see the middle ground.
And then we have Sen Allen's opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, who has been sexist innumerable times in print and on camera.
Strangely though the Washington Post, Democrats and many women's organizations are deafeningly silent about any of that. You've got to wonder if women's issues only matter some of the time (wrong). Further proof that, in politics, your warts are abhorrent crimes against humanity whilst mine, if anything, are merely odd quirks hardly worth mentioning.
Sorry, but unless you're Lenny Bruce, you can't call me a nigger and protest that I'm mudslinging because I call you an asshat bigot right back.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I protest, sir. I live in Minnesota, where we actually count the real votes. Of course any serious candidate will die in a plane crash, but at least the remaining sock puppets get a fair election!
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
What's interesting about your use of that word is that the current administration is deeply relativist, while pretending not to be. If you think you can just re-define words like torture because what we're doing would have qualified as torture last week but now that we're doing it it isn't torture anymore, that makes you a relativist. We didn't invent waterboarding, for example--people did it in WWII, and it was considered a war crime then. By us. Is it still a war crime? It is, unless you think the ones we convicted of it after WWII were innocent, or you think that "everything has changed". If you think there is actually such a thing as a post-9/11 morality, that what was immoral before is okay after, then you are a relativist. If you think 9/11 changed whether or not torture, or imprisonment without trial, is immoral, then you are a relativist. I am not one of those. Are you?
Back to the original issue of Clinton's infidelity, I also believe in a public and private sphere of life. If you have an affair, that's wrong, and it would still be tacky of me to talk about it in open company. To spend my time talking about a man's infidelity, to let that subject dominate my conversation, my attention span, would be, well, silly. If someone is fixated on the extramarital affair of the guy down the hallway, down the street, or in the White House, then that person is either small-minded and petty, or is just faking his outrage as a means to an end. Considering the number of Republian politicians who have had admitted, known affairs, yet suffer none of the contumely that Clinton faced, I can guess which side most Republicans are on, meaning that they're faking it. In other words, they're lying, acting more outraged that they really are, as a means to a political end. I actually find that less depressing than the alternative.
Telling a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke in close company is one thing.
Referring to a member of your opponent's campaign with a racial slur on camera is another thing entirely.
Allen clearly says "mah cah cah" in the video. Over the course of about a week it went from being spelled "macaca," to being connected to the word macaca ("mah-cack-uh," a genus of monkeys) to macaque ("mah-cack," a monkey) to being "a common racial epithet in France."
Except I don't see the connection between "mah cah cah" and "mah-cack." Am I the only one? Are we supposed to believe that Allen knew an obscure racial insult but didn't know how to pronounce it?
Yeah, what the hell? I'm really wondering what the background of this is. It doesn't seem right...
instead of modding him down as trolling flamebait, i'll just foe him, so i don't have to read any more political bashing from him in the future, and adjust my comment filter. this way, only what i view myself will be affected, and i don't have to hurt anyones karma. i try not to mod comments down, even if they were intended to start a political arguement, because political moderation on /. is an oxymoron.
i disable sigs
Umm... how do you know it was peaceful? I can't tell from that vid what led up to that confrontation.
A Human Right
As a registered Republican, I promise you. If Bush tries to stay in office past his term I will personally organize a movement to throw him out.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
I'm doing an MA in PoliSci next year on eejits who compare democratically elected leaders to dictators. If you'd actually *lived* in a dictatorship, or perhaps ever visited one, or maybe if you'd even read Archipelag Gulag or histories of Cambodia or China, to name only two, you might not be whining quite so much.
And yes, Bush *was* democratically elected. There may have been corruption, but it was investigated with due process by the competent body to do so. That competent body may have been stacked, but it was stacked *legitimately*. You can whine all you like, but that don't change the facts.
L
These are examples of what a bad government can achieve if it is strong enough. Unilateralism is not dictatorship, just ask Margaret Thatcher.
To demonstrate dictatorship you'd need to substantiate to a much greater degree than anyone has so far a few things:
* Electoral falsification. Florida was cleared by a legitimate(ly stacked) supreme court. End of story.
* Perpetuity. At the very fucking least you'd need to wait until *after* the legal two presidential terms had expired.
* Military backing. Dictators don't hold power without this. Anywhere. Ever. You your self have just admitted you can't demonstrate this.
You're a crackpot, and not only do you insult the people who live in *real* dictatorships, such as North Korea and Burma, and those who have survived real dictatorships, but you make the political left look like a bunch of raving moonbats, thereby helping to keep the rabid right in power.
Steady on.
L
No, it cites it as an example.
How about you read and understand the definition before posting it to your defense? Let's examine: "One that uses offensive epithets..." Ok so by this definition one that USES the offensive phrase is the mudslinger. In the case of the video, the only person using offensive phrasing is the subjet of the video. The video is OF him. Now if the video was of someone saying "I heard So and So say this and that", then that would be mudslinging. This is of the guy himself saying it. So, yea, if there is any mudslinging going on here, then it's by Allen himself to himself. This is reporting. At best it's a documentary with commentary.
Thought Businessweek would have smarter journalists than this clown.
This is still a stupid scenario. The US runs by rule of law. Even fucking Mexico can have a peaceful hand over of power despite having a disputed election. The US is no different. If there is an election dispute like what happened in 2000, it will go to the courts. The courts will make a ruling, and that will be that. Ignoring for the moment that Bush is NOT a contender in the upcoming elections and that it would be a Republican or Democrat "stiffed", if by some act of insanity the White House refused to accept the ruling they would be gracefully thrown to the curb by the secret service and police.
You are right in saying the military would not be involved because it wouldn't need to be involved. Police would merrily follow the orders of the judiciary. There is not a military commander in the world that would step in the way of a police offers following the legal orders of the judicial branch of government to keep a president in office past his constituently appointed time.
You make it sound like there has never been a voting dispute in the US before. There has. It always ends the same way. It goes to the courts, the court rule, and that is the end of it.
explain to me how the ability to have anyone (either domestic or foreign) arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant and water-boarded at will fits within a democractic framework, especially given how such an ability would stand legally in relation to the Geneva Conventions.
Sure. It has no effect. The Geneva Convention is crystal clear on the subject. If you are not a uniformed member of a nation state or a civilian, you are fucked. The Soviet's caught American spies all the time during the Cold War and did horrible things to them. We never raised a peep about them violating the Geneva Convention because they weren't. You can "legally" do whatever horrible things you can imagine to people who fail to identify themselves as military but who are not innocent civilians on a battlefield. The Geneva Convention is a code for how to conduct warfare. When you leave the bounds of conventional warfare you leave the realm of the Geneva Convention. Could the world use a Geneva Convention for this new style of warfare? Sure. Does it exist now? Absolutely not.
As to the larger question of the executive branch declaring people enemy combatants and putting them in legal limbo, this is being worked out. You might recall Bush had his tribunals shot down by the Supreme Court just recently and congress is now in the process of drafting a framework for dealing with these people. These are legal questions that are *gasp* being worked out via a legal process. Now, you and I might not like the conclusions that the judicial, executive, and legislative branches come to, but they are very much democratic. I should also go further and point out that American legal balancing has been down right pussy-footed compared to what some European nations can do. In many European nations they don't offer even basic protections against unlawful search and seizure, don't require the police to have a charge when they arrest you, and let you detain you for weeks without charge. I would hardly call these nations non-democratic.
Explain to me how side-stepping the FISA court for surveillance warrants is above-board, democratic behaviour.
It is crap that is again being pushed through the courts. This is the American system. When in doubt, go to the courts. There are no military coups, no rogue police forces, no political militias. When there is a dispute, it makes its merry way to the courts. Look, I am not arguing that Bush is a good guy or that his policies kick ass, just that this is all being handled democratically and that you need to be a frothing at the mount lunatic to think that DICTATOR BUSH is coming to burn the orphanage and eat the babies.
We can also look at Bush's use of signing statements when enacting laws, basically clarifying which parts of said laws he will or will not abide by.
"Signing statements" has absolutely ZERO legal meaning. He can draw unicorns on the laws if he wants. The only thing signing does is clarify his thoughts on the law. If that doesn't sit well enough for you, then realize that (like pretty much everything you think DICTATOR BUSH is doing) it is being legally challenged right now and working its merry way up the court system. Don't worry son, he won't use the military or corporate ninjas to stop this one from making its way through the courts.
You might be right that there is no way that Bush could orchestrate a coup...I can accept that...but I am interested in knowing whether or not you are able to deny that Bush and his administration have worked tirelessly to dismantle the American political system since practically the moment he arrived in office. Hence, while he might not actually be able to get an outright coup, he arguably *will* have been able to get everything short of one.
What exactly is he "getting". At best you can argue that he has expanded the powers of the executive branch. That is all well and good except for one small problem - the executive branch changes hands a bare minimum of every 8 years. Wi
If Bush refuses to leave office when his time is up, guess what happens? The secret service and police throw his ass to the street just like they throw any other person who over stays their welcome. WTF exactly is Bush going to do? Order the military to fire on the police and watch as the military laughs and does nothing to stop it? You might not realize it, but Bush doesn't "own" the military and control it with a magical remote control. It is made up of American Joe's that would merrily gun down a president trying to perform a coup. It is made up of officers that would tell any commander to go fuck themselves if given an order to fire upon police enforcing the law of the land. It is made up of leaders that worship the constitution and would personally drag the president out by his hair if they were told to order the men under them to keep a president in power past his constitutional welcome.
I can only imagine the delusional picture of Bush you have in your head. Does it look something like a guy sitting on a throne of skulls laughing evilly as blood boils from the floor?
Grow the fuck up. People like you are the reason why political discourse in America is at a rock bottom low.
So that basically is my point...from everything I can see anyway, Bush has set himself up as the contemporary, real world answer to Sauron. We're all screwed.
That is easily the stupidest comment I have ever read in my entire life.
No, he is a villain. He was dishonorably discharged. He made slanderous blanket accusations against is comrades in arms. He is reprehensible and a buffoon. "Reporting for duty", indeed.
an ill wind that blows no good
You can't hide your Kerryesque snobbery and disdain for the military, can you? The doctors, engineers, executive officers, butt-kicking Marines, and a miriad of people of great accomplishment would disagree with you.
Have you noticed that we haven't been attacked since 2001? The bad guys are too busy running from hut to hut trying to avoid being vaporized by a 2000 pound bomb. I thank the military for that.
an ill wind that blows no good
The advert was an account of the murder of James Byrd Jr., killed by being dragged behind a pickup truck for 3 miles by white supremacists. It was being used to imply that Bush was soft on hate crimes because he didn't pass specific hate crime legislation - although since 2 of the three perpetrators were executed and the third given life in prison, it hardly seems a case of the failure of the law as a punisher.
Speaking of staying on message, I recommend reading this journal entry. Or, go straight to the story it refers to.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
A comparison of the Bush administration to Orwell's 1984. Profound. One of the defining elements of American liberalism is to see world events as their hallowed high-school literature come to life. I regret giving the guy a page hit.
an ill wind that blows no good
I apologize if you think I tricked you into reading it. I thought it very apropos considering your "stay on message" comment.
What do you make of Bush's recent statement that he's "never been stay the course"? Do you think it was just another malapropsim? (That's actually what I believe. I don't think Bush is as stupid as many would like to think. However, he does seem to have a problem with public speaking.)
Of course, then there are the more deliberate and undeniable Orwellian statements. "We don't do torture." "We never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11." "Clear Skies Initiative", "Healthy Forests Initiative", "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act" (this one has to be the worst doublespeak EVER), "PATRIOT act", "it's the Dems fault that the Foley scandal was released in October". Am I claiming that Bush & Co. holds a monoply on this type of talking? No. But they do seem to have perfected it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No. A racist is someone who hates someone else based on their race. If you hate a black man because he lets his dog shit on your lawn and yell at him "Keep your fucking dog outta my lawn, you stupid nigger!" that doesn't make you a racist.
Racial slurs are, after all, insults, and can be used in that capacity without feeling any particular animosity towards that race.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it would make you a criminal - after all, you messed up private property (the mailbox), obstructed the delivery of mail, and created a public health hazard (deer head is rotting meat, after all; it risks spreading disease).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
All news reports, witnesses, and involved police agencies indicated it was peaceful. The justification for the raid was drug use. Here is some further information.
Man, you really need that seminar!
How scintillating would you be if you gave 10 speeches about medicade everyday. Would you never contradict yourself? Nothing wrong with patience or repetition. Refreshing when compared to Slick Willy whose policies shifted by the day with public opinion polls.
Giving flattering titles to new legislation is an ancient art in the US Congress. It is called persuasion. How can a democrat vote against something named 'The Patriot Act'. No need to invoke Orwell. Indeed the Congress probably inspired Orwell.
an ill wind that blows no good
The PATRIOT Act is probably the worst example of the list, but it's one that most slashdotters love to hate. I regret including it. However, let's consider the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act". In case you're not aware of what the act proposes, it proposes "recovering" threatened and endangered species by removing them from the endangered species list - therefore allowing destruction of their habitat and/or hunting of the critters. So I ask, is that a "flattering" name or is it doublespeak?
If it helps, consider who Dick Pobmo is, and why he sponsored this bill.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What are you supposed to do when endangered species recover? Do you want thousands of Grizzly bears, wolfpacks, or cougars running around settled areas. No, you remove their protections in such a way as to maintain stable populations. I think the name is proper, and not at all misleading.
an ill wind that blows no good
Read up on Dick Pombo and it's easy to figure out what his motivations are. I would rather trust wildlife experts to tell me when a species has recovered than trust a politician who enjoys *eating* endangered animals.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That competent body may have been stacked, but it was stacked *legitimately*. You can whine all you like, but that don't change the facts.
I see...So Mafia-like cronyism is completely acceptable as long as it is achieved via due process?
Forgive my ignorance...you're obviously right. Americans clearly have a political system to be proud of.
Even fucking Mexico can have a peaceful hand over of power despite having a disputed election.
Read about what's been happening in Oaxaca recently? Looks like that handover wasn't as peaceful as you think.