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."

Comments

Mudslinging? How?

[eldavojohn]

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.

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 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 ..." then I could classify this as mudslinging because not all Republicans are like this. 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. Jim Webb could have all the wrong stances on issues and he might win by default for an ignorant use of a word by his opponent. Well, I guess that's American politics.

Muslinging still is rampant and there still are videos ... but when they're not lies or aren't pertinent, I'm interested in seeing them. A lot of the time, I don't believe what I see/hear unless it's verifiable or (as in this case) it's coming from the candidates mouth. It doesn't matter if it's TV, the radio, the internet or even my best friend, I'd still want verification.

Wait, this is mudslinging?

[Nevyn]

In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead [...] until [...] footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.

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.

Isn't it Interesting How...

[eno2001]

...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...

Re:Isn't it Interesting How...

[ScentCone]

Sayonara assholes...

Yeah! Good riddance! I mean, we sure don't want someone who says that women aren't "psychologically equipped" for combat, or says that (in the wake of a story about rampant unmarried pregnancies in the military) that the Naval Academy is "a horny woman's dream," and calls female midshipmen there "thunder thighs" ... no, that sort of tone deafness, bias, and assholishness can't be permitted! What? That's all stuff that Allen's opponent, Jim Webb, said while running the DoD? Ah. Well then, no question that Allen is worse, no question at all. Or maybe: some people sometimes say dumb-ass things? You know, like the guy that the Democrats chose to be their presidential candidate implying that only dumb people become soldiers, and taking two days to find a way to spin an apology? I'd say that George Allen hardly has the market cornered on saying something passingly stupid - and his opponent has a history of not only saying crap, but repeating it often enough, and loudly enough, to suggest that it's a real part of his world view.

But wait, there's more!

[smooth wombat]

captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.

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.

2008 Elections

[twifosp]

This is really the first election where online material might have significantly moved a vote. You can bet it will be much worse in 2008.

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.

Re:Mudslinging? How?

[eln]

Nobody in politics intentionally misuses words for any purpose, especially not for propaganda. Only a fascist like you would think otherwise.

Re:Mudslinging? How?

[s20451]

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.

Mudslinging at an all-time high

[pilkul]

Check out this report on this election's ads by an independent group. Democrats have 81% negative ads and Republicans 91% negative, and many of the claims are misleading or flat-out false (mostly on the Republican side -- they're getting desperate, and they learned from Rove that playing dirty works). It may be a "time-honored tradition" but if so it's getting more traditional by the year.

The George Allen case isn't mudslinging -- this is mudslinging:

"Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association (North American Man/Boy Love Association), a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon's actions 'utterly disgusting.' He's right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona."

(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!

Re:Mudslinging? How?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.

you're obsessing over the trivial

[misanthrope101]

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.

I continue to find this attitude just bizarre. A blowjob (from a consenting adult), in or out of wedlock, is trivial to me, especially in the context of this man being President of the most powerful nation on the planet. If my boss, or co-worker, or the guy down the street, or you, or my dad, gets a blowjob from a consenting woman, and then fibs about it because it's embarassing, I just don't care. It's trivial in context, and even if infidelity is involved, that is between the man and his wife. Even if I disapprove, it's just none of my business.

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.