Slashdot Mirror
Obama Significantly Revises Technology Positions
method9455 writes "Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded." Update: 09/22 18:07 GMT by T : Julian Sanchez of Ars Technica passed on a statement from an Obama campaign representative who points out that the changes in wording highlighted by Versionista aren't the whole story, and that more Obama tech-plan details are now available in a PDF, saying "there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy - folks who want more information can click to get our full plan."
Change we can believe in.
See you all in 2012.
When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.
Many have. Obama's tech-related voting record is certainly better than most candidates that come to mind. He's voted against telecom immunity, and FISA fairly vehemently in the past. Perhaps the vague language is merely a way to package both Biden/Obama's views into a single declaration? It was probably just a way to describe both of their technological goals without smearing their respective stances. Should that be the case, it's still the top of the ticket that calls the shots.
The problem is that you can't vote on actions until after they've been taken.
Personally, I'm in favour of a nice, simple system where if a politician makes a promise before an election and then breaks it, a court can remove him or her from office. I imagine we'd soon see some changes in the way manifestos were presented, and perhaps those who are not just puppets and actually intend to act according to their stated principles would get a bit more recognition since voting for someone based on their campaign pledges would actually mean something. Those who just say whatever the current audience wants to hear but never really promise anything would stand out by a mile.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If you are worried that he changed the content on his site, removing vast swaths of what he promised before, in order to defend going back on his initial positions, once he become president..do you really think he would care what was said on the campaign website if he was planning to flip positions later?
Presidential campaigns are like incremental releases of a software product. You get slightly better features but nothing revolutionary. Sales and Marketing usually prevents that so that people are back in line when the next release is out.
Rapid Nirvana
Which is why I am voting 3rd party this election. I do not believe either major party candidate is worthy of my vote. Do I think the 3rd party types have any chance of winning? Not really, but if third party candidates took 20% or so of the vote away from major parties, it might force them to do a reality check.
From his site:
Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
I have not thoroughly analyzed the differences but many of changes appear to be stating his same positions more concisely.
I've also proposed this kind of system before (i.e. that a manifesto should be a legally-binding contract with the voters), but I suspect that the result would be candidates putting such fluffy terms in their pledges that the courts would never be able to determine whether they'd actually broken them or not.
Before New Labour (same as the old conservatives) came to power in the UK, they handed out 'pledge cards' with five election pledges on them. A very simple and powerful message. The Friday Night Armistice made a massive version of these, and each week in their first year crossed off the ones that they'd broken. It was depressing how quickly they all went away.
Democracy requires an informed electorate to function just as capitalism requires informed consumers. The same level of truth in advertising laws should apply.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Palin may draw female voters from more income and educational levels than you think. We live in liberalville MD and we've been surprised how many folks may vote for Palin. It won't make a difference here because we're a reliably Democratic state that won't be visited by the candidates. I did like your dig on how only the uneducated would vote for McCain. It's not true but I'm sure it resonates well with your elitist crowd. I've wasted my vote on 3rd parties for the last 3 elections and will probably do so again this year to help them get public funding. It will probably have more impact on our future than a two main-line part vote would.
This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office
I disagree. We've already made the Executive Branch much more powerful than the Framers intended it to be. Signing statements, refusals to testify, appointments to un-elected Federal agencies that can impose laws (err, "regulations") on the citizenry, warfare without a declaration, international agreements that don't need to be ratified by the Senate, trade agreements that don't need input from Congress, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You really want to make the Executive even more powerful? Are you nuts?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, Obama, as a representative of the Chicago Political Machine, isn't a particularly non-white candidate.
I mean, he was raised in Hawaii, by his white grandmother, who was a Bank Officer. That isn't close at all to 'the black experience' in growing up. He's no blacker than any other political hack from the Daley machine.
Don your tinfoil hats, please...
It appears that the media have decided that it's time for Obama to lose the election. There is nothing in the news now directly about Obama, none of his own words, there is everything in the news about his campaign with words like "beleagured", "desperate", and this "vague rhetoric" stuff. Coming out of the Republican Convention there was the "rock star frenzy" about Sarah Palin, until facts started to reveal that she is really something of a Dan Quayle. There was a brief news cycle of fact discovery about Sarah Palin, and now things seem to be over to Dog Pile on Obama. By the way, notice how Iraq has pretty much disappeared from the news lately? The one thing I did hear is that the central government is beginning to arrest Sunnis, essentially dismantling the "Anhbar Awakening."
It's certainly good that we keep being told about our terrible Liberal Media, because I surely wouldn't have guessed it from what I've seen, lately.
I had thought the media were trying to keep this a tight horse-race, because that enhances their own status and ratings, by keeping us watching. That doesn't appear to be the case. Coming into the conventions, we had a Democratic rock-star candidate against a Republican whose own party had very little enthusiasm for him. Coming out we have an invisible Democratic candidate and an energized Republican party, and as far as I can tell, it's largely done with media coverage.
Oh, and we haven't even see this year's "October Surprise" yet.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I look at it slightly different, whoever wins, we all win (but not the Americans...)
If mcCain wins then he'll wreck America beyond recovery during our lifetimes with a continuation of the disastrous policies of Bush the younger, if mcCain wins and dies then sockpuppet will wreck America beyond recovery in a century (or two) simply because she's not quite qualified to run a state, let a alone a very large country. Her lack of preparation displayed in unscripted interviews is astounding. Both are bad for Americans but to a limited extent good for the world. A lot of festering stuff has been held back for the longest time because of the US's status.
If Obama wins then he will quite probably restore some of America's respect and stature abroad, at a fair expense to the American taxpayer (simply because it will cost a lot of $ to right so many wrongs). This will stave off economic collapse (for a while, probably not indefinitely) and will boost the world economy considerably.
So, either way, we all win, but Americans will pay the price. Simply because the last 8 years have been like a loan, and it will need to be paid back somehow.
MP3 Search Engine
George Bush fixed him, though. He'll never vote Republican again, has a "Teamsters for Obama" sign in his window now. He's retired, of course, since he's in his 80's, but he's still a union man. He's also man enough to admit that he got "suckered" by Reagan/Newt/Bush.
I must have met about twenty different people like your Dad when I was out on the campaign trail back in March (went to Ohio and worked with the Obama campaign). Gives me some hope that people are finally starting to wake up.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's a pity there's no realistic way that the voting system will be changed in the states.
It really is the case that when faced with 2 crap mainstream choices you can screw yourself by voting for someone you're really like to see in rather than the lesser of the 2 evils.
Here we have a vastly superior voting system called Proportional representation.
I'm probably going to make a mess explaining this.
It's a little more complex.
You number your choices 1,2,3,4,etc
so say there was 4 choices:
Rep:Jack Johnson:
Dem:John Jackson:
3rd party: Joe:
3rd party: Jill:
I just number them
Joe:1
Jill:2
John Jackson:3
Now say after the 1st count
Joe has 1000 votes
Jill has 2000 votes
John Jackson has 10000 votes
Jack Johnson has 11000 votes
Under your system Jack Johnson would get the seat and the people who voted for joe and jill would be screwed if John Jacksons policies were slightly better for them than Jack Johnsons.
Under PR the limit is 12001 votes to get the seat.
Now when it comes time to count the vote it's clear that Joe isn't going to get in no matter what so he's removed and all the votes for him move to second choices.
jill still isn't going to get in so her votes are moved to their second or 3rd choice.
most of the people who voted for joe or jill would prefer John Jackson over Jack Johnson which pushes John Jackson over the 12001 limit and he gets in.
Yay - rationalization that your "team" is okay, because, after all - they're your team.
Please folks, there's no way you're voting for a democrat and republican and *really* thinking you're going to get change. They're all part of the same party, they're all buddies, and they all have roughly the same goals - take lots of your money, waste it, pass laws to control your life, invade other countries.
The OP is correct, any candidate for change has already been eliminated (Ron Paul, Mike Gravel...)
Vote third party. Any third party, for that matter.
The President can only approve/veto bills that are sent to him by congress. If congress kills a bill in committee, or it fails to get the required votes in either the senate or the house, the President's position is irrelevant. Put the pressure on ALL politicians - not just the Pres & VP.
His blackness was questioned by other black people. I believe the quote was about him "lacking slave blood." [Charles Kenzie Steele, Jr.] And let's not forget that by having a white mother he is just as much white as black.
Funny how both sides can simultaneously make race an issue and denounce race as an issue.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Why would I feel betrayed? Bush wasn't part of the contract with America.
Bush has been a horrible president, and I'm voting third party. I've never much liked either of the mainstream parties or politics in Washington in general. If you want a real change, don't vote for Obama, vote for a third party.
Depends, if you vote Libertarian, i.e. Bob Barr, you're voting for Obama in a sense. If you vote for Nader, you're voting for McCain in a sense.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but in this sad 2 party system - and yes it's still 2 party, the likely hood of a third party candidate getting the presidency is so unbelievable that it approaches zero.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
Or, alternately, we could probably do without lawyers if we'd just simplify the damn legal code, and we could DEFINITELY do with fewer lawyers if we'd stop making stupid laws.
Take drug laws for example. The US annually arrests upwards of 800,000 people for marijuana violations alone. That means you're creating 1.6 million opportunities for lawyers (prosecutor and defense) on an annual basis. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather open up that industry to farmers, pot-bar/"coffee-house" owners, and other related private ventures, instead of creating jobs for lawyers, judges, police officers, and criminals.
There are countless such examples - marijuana was just the first one to come to mind because I was recently discussing the idea with some friends in law enforcement. Eventually it evolved into a discussion about law enforcement as a whole, and the general consensus seemed to be that we just have way too many pointless laws.
If you want to have a society in which law and order are taken seriously, it's much better to have a few very important laws which you enforce with a high degree of success rather than having a whole slew of laws, half of which you can't effectively enforce, and the other half of which you can only enforce sporadically because you're forced to waste resources on stuff that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Not only does the current criminal code make law-enforcement less effective, but it makes the legal system unnecessarily complex, wastes taxpayer money on jobs that shouldn't even exist, and actually encourages crime.
1) Diplomacy with Iran makes academic sense until you start realizing you can't negotiate with a theocracy, particularly one that espouses neo-holocaust ambitions, hosts holocaust revision conferences, jails opposition figures, and practices "justice" in a way that is ripped out of the pages of European medieval history -- amputations, stoning, etc. Iran has not a rational or economic motivation, but a messianic *religious* motivation to incite violence against the west. What exactly are you going to negotiate, Shiite Sharia? As for the rest, how long until we "negotiate" with other stateless groups essentially running protection rackets with a flag waving in front? That is, once we get past the fact we're essentially entering into a *theological* debate with them.
2) All candidates broom the past administration. McCain would do no differently, any illusions that he's a Bush man are simply a political calculation on McCain's part to win the election. Will some guys get recycled into the thousands and thousands of political appointments made? Sure, but that's a question of scale and volume not the lingering influence of Bush.
3) Uhh, Rev. Wright? Obama panders to the left's own nutjobs who are as deluded and mistaken as Falwell and the evangelical movement, but they generally aren't religious figures in the traditional sense but secular figures as immersed in their own political theology, whether its the environment, diversity, gay rights, etc.
4) Obama's "distaste" for the Clinton dynasty only speaks to his own arrogance and will to power, not to some rational criticism of the Clinton administration. And where does he think he will get any seasoned White House staff members if not from the Clinton administration? The only other choice is the *Carter* administation, and assuming an average age of 50 in 1980, all those guys are even older than McCain -- pushing 80.
McCain has simply wised up and changed his message enough to win the backing of his party, I don't think anyone seriously doubts he has changed his view on anything fundamentally. His nomination of Sarah Palin shows he's willing to take gutsy moves. Obama's selection of Biden shows his willingness to suck up to the East Coast Democratic Machine.
I don't think that, even if they try, the media will be able to disrupt Obama's grass-root campaign. Obama has run a very impressive campaign and have energized a lot of people that wouldn't care normally. No, I will not vote for him because I can't. I would though. He gave my a burst of inspiration and I and everyone I speak to wants Americans to vote for Obama, things needs to change.
Ummmmmm ... yes. Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves
How about just smarter average people?
You'll have that sometimes...
Until such time as they start writing laws in a language that the average person can read and understand and so, can defend themselves. [...] it takes forever to learn how to wade through the self made bullshit.
I've toyed with this idea. In common law, judges can, essentially, create laws by calling them rulings. If you cut down on the volume of the laws in the books--this may be non-trivial, we live in a complex world--you still have to consider all the case law. You can't really outlaw trials, or the world would disappear in a puff of disappear in a puff of disappear in a puff... ;)
So you'd have to abandon common law, or in some other way give very little influence to past findings. But, one might argue, that means that every part of every question that is raised more than once has to be answered without relying on previous answers, instead of relying on past answers and just looking at what's different this time. Seems wasteful.
Just a thought :)
I don't trust any self regulating industry very much.
I'd much rather have someone well versed with the ways of the industry regulate it, than some out-of-touch bureaucrat, as long as the regulating body is not shielded from the public will.
Funny, I'm sick of third-party supporters telling me that the democrats are the republicans are "the same," which is an utter lie
Not every democrat and republican are the same, however the leadership of both parties are almost always controlled by the same interests. That's why the "Republican Revolution" in the 90's did nothing and why the Democratic Congress has done nothing thus far.
Here is a good article explaining Obama's money cartel.
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.
I won't bother looking up McCain's top donors because it'll be close to the same. Remember that McCain was also one of the Keating 5 (same type of scandal we see unfolding now except with a lot more money).
Neither are against pre-emptive war or leave anything off the table when dealing with Iran (including a nuclear first strike). Just listen to Obama's speech to AIPAC, which he gave the day after Hillary conceded defeat in the primaries.
They both want to "get out" of Iraq, which means keeping 50k+ troops in the permanent bases and the biggest embassy in the world. They both will add troops into Afghanistan.
Both support the NATO puppet Saakashvili (the guy who eats ties on TV and attacked S. Ossetia). Why is there a need to surround Russia with NATO and be belligerant towards them? Maybe you should read Obama's mentor and one time advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard to find out.
I'm sick and tired of hearing people say that McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term (not because it isn't true), but because no one talks about Biden running for Dick Cheney's 3rd term.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
"it would be nice [if] lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer"
That's literally analogous to saying, "it'd be nice if the average person could every once in a while out-paint an expert painter."
Or better, "it'd be nice if a person who played a lot of guitar hero could out-play a real, expert guitar player." The relationship between what people think of the law and the way its presented in movies and tv shows, and how lawyers practice law is just about the same as the relationship between playing guitar hero and playing a real guitar.
...If you're serious about ending terrorism, you have to engage the enemy dipomatically and address the conditions that lead to it. ...
I grew up in the Middle East. I speak from some position of experience when I ask:
What historical evidence are you using to support this idea.
You can look back from today until the begining of Islam and find that Islam has been used as an excuse to ignore reason for as long as it has been around. These people do not want to be reasonable, quite the contrary. Their agenda is not one of increased security or profit. It is one of dominance and hurting others. If you want to reason with them then you have to provide them a sacrificial lamb.
Look up what they did to Tunisia back before the turn of the first millenium. They chopped down all the olive trees and took all the gold, then left for 30 years until the olive trees grew back. Then they came in and did it again. They could have easily left the cash cow alive, but they were more interested in destruction than profit or power.
There is a pattern and it is 1400 years long.
You are dilusional if you think talking with Iran will get them to put away their nuclear aspirations.
Until there are Islamic states that answer to something other than religious institutions, this will not change. That is where the Iraq plan has some benefit. If Iraq becomes a western style democracy, maybe the others will see that there is benefit to working WITH you neighbors instead of just feeling compelled to wipe them out.
I say maybe. It has never been successfully implemented in history so maybe doing something new till yeild new results.
FYI, the Europeans tried diplomacy before and during the great crusaids, you can see how that worked out.
Again, I as you to support your position on some sort of historical evidence because I believe the evidence strongly conflicts with you premis.
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
No, he associates with black liberation theology nutcases, which are much worse. By the way, Jerry Falwell is dead.
Please elucidate, in detail, the difference between the idiocy of the Falwell and the 700 club, and "black liberation theology". Keep in mind, over a hundred people who have graduated from Falwell's Law school are in the Bush cabinet. And according to recent statistics, all evangelical private schools perform worse than public schools. I can't imagine the colleges are any better.
Obama is the not change, he's more of the same. More of the same soggy liberal nonsense that has been losing elections in this country for 40 years for good reason.
Ahh. So, you're anti-liberal. I'm okay with that, but are you voting for McCain? If so, why is he allowed to change position? Is it because he changed his worldview to match yours in order to get the Republican nomination?
More class warfare. More mindless entitlements. More appeasement. More tax and spend. More shady politics. More of the same old crap. If you think he's different or new, you're completely deluded.
There are one trillion reasons why "class warfare" is an important issue. Bush is now asking that we spend fifteen years of the Deptartment of Education budget to "fix" the free market. And no one is suggesting we reduce the trillion dollars we spend on the military every year? No one is suggesting that all of the assets held by the management of the corporations the government is nationalizing are seized and sold to offset the expense?
Strange... nothing shady about that... or any relevance to elite corporate interest being served by Washington...
Meanwhile, the child poverty rate in the US is over 20%. The child poverty rate in Denmark is under 3%, and they're closing to having zero national debt. Apparently, it is possible to have a society that takes care of it's citizens in a fiscally responsible fashion. Oh, nevermind.... this is all just soggy liberal nonsense.
But somehow it seems as though the democrats are failing at doing the same thing. Important bills (like FISA) that they should have been able to kill passed anyway.
If the republicans have the ability to stop things they don't like, why don't the democrats (with the same seat numbers) managed to do the same? The only reason I can think of is that they suck at standing together and being a useful opposition party.
The thing is, all this could be solved by adding a "Read More" link to expand out the section to include more detail. In its current version, it does look watered down to be more corporate-friendly even if that was not the intent.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If you removed all lawyers and let all parties argue their own cases, you'd immediately see a drastic shift in power to the upper class and more educated, who would actually know the law, and have time to study and interpret it. The reason we have lawyers is so that EVERYONE has an expert on the law on their side.
Nice sentiment, but sadly, the upper class already has the power. I'm sorry, but a poor working man who is wrongly accused of murder has little chance of finding a lawyer who will get him off, whereas... well, OJ Simpson. An immigrant family-owned business has no real legal discourse if the large real estate conglomerate that leases the storefront of the business decides to screw over the family.
People talk about a health care disparity, which exists and must be fixed. There also exists a justice disparity that no one really seems to talk about. Given the proportion of politicians who made the practice of law their previous profession, I doubt this will ever change.
And one point that continues to irk me about Obama. As a soon-to-be doctor, one of the biggest issues that I'm concerned with is health care reform. Absolutely recognizing the need for universal health care and health care reform, I worry that many of the proposed changes will lead to short-term cost savings at the expense of long-term innovation. Looking at Obama's health care plan, he blames many elements for the outrageous cost of health care today-- the heartless insurance companies, the wasteful hospitals, the greedy drug companies. What party does Obama not even mention?
You guessed it.... the money-sucking lawyers. Coincidence?
So let me ask you a question. Do you ever vote in elections? When you do, are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR?
Maybe AC just votes for people who agree with the positions on the topics he feels are most important. Obviously if Obama really felt strongly about FISA immunity, he would have voted against it. He clearly didn't care that much about immunity, despite his words.
If not, then you either don't vote (in which case, you just lost all ability to criticize how anybody else votes)...
I'm pretty sure that there's no caveat in the first amendment that prohibits people from voicing their opinion if they don't vote.
I came here for a good argument
OR Congress could start passing a bunch of one-topic bills.
I think I remember something about relief money for California orange growers hit by frost being pork-barreled into that bill that would have required Bush to withdraw from Iraq (and then he was criticized for not caring about the farmers). If Congress cares so much, they should make a separate bill.
TV / Movies / Music: Top Recipients
Hmm, nearly $5 million donated to Obama. Do you think the entertainment industry is donating all that money to Obama because he promised to reform the DMCA as more consumer-friendly?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I guess I'll take a little time to answer an AC.
I'll give one example - the Iraq War. There was little-to-no significant questioning of the Bush administrations "evidence" leading to the Iraq war, and after it came out that the evidence was defective, and very possibly cherry-picked, with some possibility of outright fabrication, there was still no investigation.
The nation has gone to war on false pretenses, done incredible damage to our prestige and trust overseas, and those who presided over it have received no significant account for their actions.
One way I heard it... Perhaps reporters may be left-wing, but somewhere up the management chain it turns solid right-wing.
The other way I've heard, from several sources, is that it's not a conspiracy, it's PROFIT. The media has become so revenue and profit oriented that investigative journalism has become a thing of the past. It's much cheaper and more profitable to accept press releases and report them as news.
In other words, in the USA the Press is broken, and has abdicated its duty, as conceived by the founders of our country.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If enough people think it'll do more good than harm then it will pass regardless of your vote. Still stick to your principals.
I suggested line item voting as a way to curb this. Similar to the line item veto for budgets to the president, but each line of a bill could be voted on as "for", "indifferent", "against". With 'for' meaning that it is required, by the individual congressman, for the bill to pass. If removed then the bill would need to be resubmitted, or pass from enough other votes. 'Indifferent' meaning that it is fine. You accept it but it can be voted out by others and the bill still be acceptable by you. And 'against' being that the entire bill is rejected unless this line is removed.
This way we'd know exactly what Obama's view was on the telcom immunity. I may have still passed, he could have voted yes to all the other parts and rejected the immunity part. There would have been no question. Of course, then it would make it more difficult to blur your views enough that you can say anything and it sound good and consistent.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Mmmmkay, well this is exactly what McCain is saying he will do: veto any bill that comes across his desk with ridiculous riders until Congress stops doing it.
"But if you do that nothing will ever get done!"
This is Congress we're talking about, here. Stopping the tortoise for a few minutes doesn't result in much lost ground. And if no one ever does it, then nothing will ever change.
Got it?
Also that "soggy liberal nonsense" gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton. And the last 7 years of non-"soggy liberal nonsense" has given us a list of foreign and domestic policy disasters that now include the worst stock crash since the Great Depression.
So for McCain to be change from GWB, and Obama to be more of the same - well, that actually doesn't logically connect in any way. Really, it doesn't.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Don't be too sure of that. The reports of inaccuracies, even reports of outright lies from the McCain campaign are increasing. In 2000, they were caught completely off guard by the Bush campaign's Hitler-esque tactics of lying blatantly and loudly. In 2004, they assumed that the same campaign wouldn't do the same bullshit again, and then there was the Swiftboat Veterans* for America.
In 2008, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, heck, even Saturday Night Live are laughing at the media's collective incompetence. I do think they've heard of the old Irish saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
No, don't use the Bush version. I don't want my IQ reduced by half.
* I have another name for those guys, but I'll restrain myself. If we get a Democrat in the Oval Office, I'll gladly call them what they are, since I won't be charged with sedition or disloyalty.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."