Slashdot Mirror


McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs

Vote McCain in 2000! writes "McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be. McCain is now asking supporters to stump for him on blogs. Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise for this outreach, calling it 'smart' and 'unique.' McCain's blogger outreach section has a handy list of political blogs which might be interested in hearing about McCain, such as the DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress. You can even report your posts to the campaign and 'receive points for your success,' though the page doesn't say what exactly the points are good for." Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.

33 of 889 comments (clear)

  1. Spam for McCain! by jeiler · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think not. The old fart can go stump for himself.

    --

    If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

    Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    1. Re:Spam for McCain! by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's amazing how much he's changed since then, isn't it? As a registered Democrat, I could actually respect the McCain of 2000. Now he's been voting against his own reform bills, supporting torture, supporting telco amnesty for spying on Americans, and pretty much everything else you could think of.

      By the way -- the summary article got something wrong:

      McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be

      No, the McCain *campaign* is not a stranger to technology. McCain most definitely is a stranger to technology. When asked whether he was a Mac or PC person, he responded:

      "Neither, I'm an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get."

      That's right. A president who, this day in age, doesn't know how to use a computer. Makes his policies on tech issues make a lot more sense, though. Back in 1999, running for the White House, this was remotely excusable. Today, it's just sad. A year ago, I set up a older woman who has brain damage with a Linux desktop and net access and she uses it just fine.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    2. Re:Spam for McCain! by mweather · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him. There's nothing sad or sorry about not compromising your integrity to toe the party line. If anything, you should do so in every election.
    3. Re:Spam for McCain! by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm replying to this and losing all the moderation I've done (not one troll, I never give out trolls), because I have to disagree with this completely.

      During the 2004 Election I was actually suspended from being able to post; heated debate to be sure, but there people who were throwing around curses, name calling, slinging mud; I did nothing of the sort - no name calling, no intelligence insulting.

      My only crime was that I was going against conventional slashdot "wisdom." I supported Bush, I supported the war, and I made my opinions clear without stooping to petty insults and name-calling, and I was the one who got temporarily banned. I can't make any statements about everyone else who may have been involved, but I did see at least SOME of the posters who stooped to that level continue posting.

      I said "screw it" and didn't even come back to slashdot for years. I really doubt anything has changed in that respect, but I decided that it was supposed to be a tech site that I occasionally got some information from, so it was silly to just stay away, but I have no doubt about why I was suspended from posting - it was due to a lot of negative moderation from people who simply disagreed with my opinion.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Spam for McCain! by jgoemat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But their opinions differ from mine, and I'm the one with mod points.

    5. Re:Spam for McCain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Were you posting from a different account? 'cos I'm looking at your posting history around the 2004 election timeframe (caution: link works only if you're logged in) and while some posts are indeed modded down, most of the time (actually all the times I checked) it's because they're offtopic. There's a comment about hating your sister in law that was modded down, and another about Slashdot moderation. For non-offtopic posts, you seem to have been left alone or modded up.

      Perhaps there's a time-period I'm missing, but this looks like a case of Republican-persecution-complex to me.

      Subject Datestamp Replies Score 1149 Re:Worldwide results*2004-11-01 13:5422 1150 Re:France may not affect America*2004-11-01 13:5022 1151 Re:Worldwide results*2004-11-01 13:4712 1152 I agree with the premise of the Ohio ruling*2004-11-01 13:2912 attached to The Votemaster Is...Andrew Tanenbaum 1153 Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye..*2004-11-01 13:1812 attached to The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism 1154 Re:Amazing*2004-11-01 11:262, Funny attached to The Votemaster Is...Andrew Tanenbaum 1155 Sad...*2004-11-01 10:212 attached to Does Redskins Loss Presage A Kerry Win? 1156 Still too expensive....*2004-11-01 10:1812, Insightful attached to Why Apple Should Port Games 1157 "The Millionaire Next Door"*2004-11-01 9:332 1158 It's just so sad...*2004-11-01 9:212, Flamebait 1159 Re:Does this mean Kerry will win?*2004-11-01 9:162 attached to Does Redskins Loss Presage A Kerry Win? 1160 Re:Why can't he just return it?*2004-10-29 14:272 1161 Re:Why can't he just return it?*2004-10-29 13:5812 1162 Re:Why can't he just return it?*2004-10-29 13:462 1163 Re:Why can't he just return it?*2004-10-29 13:1813, Insightful 1164 Re:Why can't he just return it?*2004-10-29 12:5122 1165 Re:Why can't he just return it?*2004-10-29 12:4512 attached to XBox Owner Sues Microsoft 1166 Re:It's easy to say that if you are not unemployed*2004-10-28 21:3212

  2. Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in 2000, I liked and supported John McCain. He was a maverick not afraid to point out the stupidity of cutting taxes while not cutting spending. He was for small government, against nation-building, and pro-human rights. He told the bible-thumping religious right to go fuck themselves and rightly called George W. Bush an incompetent daddy's boy. It infuriated me when Bush and his disgusting cronies destroyed this good man with their scumbag tactics in my own home state (South Carolina).

    I don't know who this "John McCain" is today, but he's definitely not that man I supported in 2000. I never thought I would see a John McCain who backed Bush, supported unprovoked preemptive wars, wanted to cut taxes at a time when the country is $9 *TRILLION* in debt, and sucked up to the religious right. But above all else, I NEVER NEVER NEVER thought I would see a man who was a torture victim and POW stand up and support that very torture by HIS OWN COUNTRY.

    I was obviously naive to believe in him in 2000, to believe he was anything more than just another hyper-ambitious Washington scumbag who would sacrifice anything to win. I won't ever make that mistake again.

    I guess he wants to hear from supporters. But this FORMER supporter wanted to chime in too.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by RetardsForRonPaul · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yet, he wouldnt sign on to legislation limiting interrogation techniques to those found in the Army field manual. Again, all talk, no action. Just like his so called "reformer" cred, which seems to be nothing but PR spin since the S&L scandals.

    2. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know who this "John McCain" is today, but he's definitely not that man I supported in 2000. ... I was obviously naive to believe in him in 2000 ... No, you were not naive. The simple explanation is this: the John McCain you knew died when his own party turned on him and sold him out in 2000. This is a man who staked his whole life on the Republican party, and was not willing to even entertain the notion of running as an independent because of that.

      He was betrayed by those he trusted most... and it killed him. What you see now is a shell.

      I'd like to believe that the John McCain of 2000 would have paid attention to a report predicting a terrorist attack on US soil, would have gone right to work upon hearing of the attack on the Towers, would have resolved the war in Afghanistan before starting another, would have set strict limits on the use of Guantanamo Bay, would have cracked down hard on abuses like Abu Ghraib, would not sacrifice the Space Shuttle, Space Station, Hubble, and the unmanned exploration of space, wasting billions of dollars, in order to distract the public from his mistakes, and would not simply have left all the decision making to others. Sadly, the McCain of today is not this man.
    3. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he SAYS he's against torture. But when the rubber hits the road, he quietly backs down and votes against any restrictions on it. Remember the ban on waterboarding the Senate passed earlier this year? Well, guess who voted against it?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by Cerberus7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then why, oh why, did he back down to the will of the Executive Branch, compromise his morals and integrity, and allow for "exceptions" to the definition of what torture is? It's all well and good to say you're against torture, but when you've redefined what the word "torture" means to specifically not include things that actually are torture, your credibility has left the building. I liked McCain until he agreed to compromise on the torture issue instead of holding to his guns and saying, "No, that's wrong, we're the USA for crying out loud and we will NOT do that."

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    5. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by Creepy · · Score: 5, Funny

      or the MOST evil

      If it weren't for the citizenship issues, I'd say Cthulhu in 2008!

    6. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't be "against torture" and be okay with it as long as it's the CIA doing it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here are my issues with Obama: experience What kind of experience? Has either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama ever been a governor?

      corruption, crony earmarks I thought Obama was the candidate who stopped taking money from lobbyists and PACs.
    8. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've gotta agree on experience, but corruption? Are you referring to the Keating Five, or something Obama's done? Crony earmarks? Can you name one? Dishonest politicking? Compared to who? Race baiting? I've not heard that one before. I'm going to guess you prefer Fox News to CNN or any less biased network. You may have been slightly brainwashed. BTW, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.

      I'm with GP. I've been a big fan of McCain for years, but not so much anymore. First, he'll appoint at least one more highly religious supreme court judge who can't separate their duty from their religion, and Roe v Wade will be overturned. Second, McCain graduated as the 6th worst student in has class at the Naval Academy. Under a Rhode Scholar president, our GDP grew faster than any time since the 60s. Under a C student president, it grew the slowest. Third, while I can forgive the Keating Five blunder, why does he remain so chummy with lobbyists? Sixth, his lack of judgment in supporting attacking Iraq is hard to forgive. Finally, to a certain extent, experience == age. He may have a bit too much experience.

      All that said, he's still a far better option than Bush Jr. I can at least respect McCain. Of the original field, he was my second pick, after Obama, and Hillary was my third. Overall I'm a rare happy political camper.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    9. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Experience - Obama's lack of experience is a PLUS. Look at what experience has gotten us the past 7 years. We need someone who KNOWS they can't do it on their own. The president's job is to listen to his advisers and those around him, and based on the information given make a decision...his job is NOT to decide things for himself because he thinks he knows best.

      Corruption - in the grand scheme of things, the parts of Obama's past that could be considered corruption are no where even close to being on the same level as McCain (or, not that it matters at this point, Clinton.)

      Crony Earmarks - This one I agree with you on.

      Dishonest Politicking - You're kidding, right? You are trying to say that Obama is more inflammatory in his remarks than McCain? Have you ever watched side-by-side a comparison of how Obama talks about McCain and how McCain talks about Obama?

    10. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yet, he wouldnt sign on to legislation limiting interrogation techniques to those found in the Army field manual. Limiting the interrogation techniques was McCain's own amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization Act. It was amendment #1557. It's in the Congressional Record, a transcript of which you can read here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/s072505.html What you're not understanding is that you're agreeing with the original anti-McCain statement. The post said that McCain used to have values and now he doesn't. You're saying that in 2006 (and also 2007) he fought against torture, but ignoring the factual statements of other posters showing that by late 2007/early 2008, McCain voted against the same thing he had previously championed. McCain now supports torture, but that's a very new position he took up during the primary, because he doesn't care at all about human rights when they might stand in the way of his nomination. McCain is the least principled man to run for president from either major party since Nixon.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    11. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Experience - Obama's lack of experience is a PLUS. Look at what experience has gotten us the past 7 years. We need someone who KNOWS they can't do it on their own. The president's job is to listen to his advisers and those around him, and based on the information given make a decision...his job is NOT to decide things for himself because he thinks he knows best.

      Thank you. This whole experience argument has always seemed like FUD to me. GWB had "Executive Experience" -- how well did he work out again? Lincoln went from a single house term, to private practice to being one of the top three Presidents ever (according to most historical rankings).

      I'd rather have a President that is willing to listen to all points of view (including the opposition) and make an informed decision then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes men and lives in such a bubble that he didn't even realize that gasoline was approaching $4/gal.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The *real* reason to vote for Obama:

      MaCain's web site runs on Windows and uses HTML Tables. Obama's web site runs on Linux, and uses XHTML/CSS.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    13. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by flitty · · Score: 5, Informative
      Wait wait wait...

      2) McCain rarely backs George Bush.
      Mccain voted 95% of the time with bush in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008

      3) McCain never sucks up to the religious right, either.
      One Word: Hagee. And speaking in front of Pat Robertson's college is TOTALLY not sucking up. Also, talking about "activist judges" and overturning Roe v wade isn't sucking up to religious right either.

      He has repeatedly drawn distinctions between what happens at Gitmo and -actual- torture.
      The fact that you think what is going on at Gitmo isn't -actual- torture makes me think you haven't really looked into what's going on down there. Perhaps you should go see "Taxi to the Dark Side".

      The difference is that he's not convinced that solitary confinement for a few weeks or interrogations are neccesarily torture.
      Here's what he says in his book:

      It's an awful thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.... There is little doubt that solitary confinement causes some mental deterioration in even the most resilient of personalities....
      Sounds like something the US should endorse/use, eh?
      Oh wait, you are an astroturfer, aren't you? You guys started quick!
      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    14. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by pnuema · · Score: 5, Informative
    15. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by pnuema · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is utter horsehit. The oil in Montana and North Dakota is in oil shale, not in liquid form. You would essentially have to strip mine the entire area. Look here for more info. The environmental impact would be huge, and this technique is only economically viable when oil is incredibly expensive.

      The real reason gas is so expensive, that no one is talking about, is that Bush borrowed so much money to fund his tax cuts and the war in Iraq that the dollar has been plummeting against the Euro and Yuan. Nice republican talking points there, but sorry, this isn't Fox. We actually check our facts.

    16. Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator by uniquename72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would disagree. The 16% who think Obama's a Muslim aren't some independent voting block who will be swayed from voting for him by the idea. They're die hard Repubs, who will vote Repub no matter what.

      A better example of disinformation was the constant linking of Iraq to 9/11. 64% of Americans still believe (as of 2005) that Iraq had strong ties to Al Quaeda. It's shocking that anyone who can read could believe that Muslim extremists devoted to building a world based on fundamentalist Islam would have strong ties to a primarily secular dictator who happily executed fundamentalists, but there it is.

  3. Yikes by mrphrtq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Republican Web 2.0 consultant

    This is a terrifying job title.

    --

    "Life has improved immeasurably since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." - Hunter S. Thompson
  4. You can't plan... by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to have bloggers write about you. It just happens. It's like trying to be cool. You either are, or you aren't. No amount of effort can change the fact your a nerd (or in this case, not a nerd).

    He'll just end up coming across as creepy and forceful.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  5. Re:Dailykos?! Seriously? by halivar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It depends on how many disaffected Hillary voters still lurk there. DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst. Most Hillary supporters have left the site, but it's worth putting forth a modicum of effort to find them there, nonetheless.

    I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.

  6. He's computer illiterate by nojomofo · · Score: 5, Informative

    McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be.

    Yes he is: McCain Admits He Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer.

  7. "Effluent" ? by iguana · · Score: 5, Funny

    Uh, effluent?

    "Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise"

    From the MacOSX Dictionary:
    liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea : the bay was contaminated the effluent from an industrial plant.

    See also:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+effluent

    Oh, wait. Politician talking about a propaganda plan. I guess effluent is the correct word then. Carry on.

  8. Re:Har har by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul, and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts. How'd that whole "owning the Internet" thing work out for Ron Paul?
    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  9. Re:I wonder why... by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's 'cause Slashdot is Web 0.9.

    (And we like it that way! Get off our lawn!)

  10. and that justifies us torturing people? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    American POWs have been -- and will be -- tortured regardless.

    And? So we should torture to?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  11. Why slashdotters SHOULD support Obama... by legutierr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This post is misleading and, I suspect, factually incorrect.

    Barack Obama explicitly supports Net Neutrality ("I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to Network Neutrality"), media decentralization, and universal broadband access. He supports universal file/data formats ("we will put government data online in universally accessible formats"); and he understands the inherent risks to privacy created by our new technology ("Dramatic increases in computing power, decreases in storage costs and huge flows of information that characterize the digital age bring enormous benefits, but also create risk of abuse."). And if Obama advocates reducing the NASA budget (and I have no specific information about this, it would be nice if tjstork would provide a reference), such defunding would be a re-prioritization of spending only, as he "supports doubling federal funding for basic [scientific] research."

    Furthermore, Barack Obama's policy regarding technology reflects a thorough and deep understanding of the underlying issues pertinent to technology and information. John McCain will never have any personal involvement in creating a technology policy promulgated by his administration; instead he will rely on his staff, who will inevitably rely on lobbyists. The fact is that John McCain knows very very little about these issues, and that he has also shown consistently that he has no problem giving industry lobbyists free reign in his campaign. Barack Obama understands technology, and won't compromise on the central issues.

    Barack Obama's technology policy is located here on barackobama.com.

    Another relevant link is a talk Obama gave at Googe, where he touches on many of these issues, here.

    Finally, to conclude from the fact that Barack Obama has accepted money from the most consistently-Democratic industrial block in the US that he will necessarily back its most outrageous demands is logically spurious. tjstork writes that "he is a strong proponent of doing everything with IP that many slashdotters would virulently oppose." I do not have any information supporting such a claim, and I would ask tjstork to provide a reference. The fact is that slashdotters are very willing to balance the interests of IP "owners" against the interests of the general public and the interests of innovation. As long as Obama recognizes that there is a balance to be struck, and is willing to *act* knowing that things are currently out of balance, I am happy to support his positions on IP. If there is anything that Barack Obama is about, it is about creating a fair and informed balance between competing interests.

    It seems to me that Barack Obama is almost, if not quite, the ideal candidate for the /. crowd.

  12. Um, the guy CAN'T USE A COMPUTER! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's as bad as not knowing how to use a telephone! That should say something about his attitude towards technology in general! The guy is literally COMPUTER-ILLITERATE! Just let that sink in. He is either too inept or too old to be doing anything as important as running a country, take your pick. A computer-illiterate person should not run a country in the year 2008! Hell, what jobs can you get nowadays without even some basic computer skills!?

    That's my opinion, it's not a flame, it's just a very serious well-deserved dissing. Donate karma to this post, the neocon squad's on the way.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel