Slashdot Mirror
How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA
Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)
Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."
Facts do make a lot of people angry.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I don't agree. I think it shows that they are pretty much the same. Republicans "listened" because they weighed the potential political gain to be greater than the risk.
Read mainstream press about anything involving the US government any more and you'll see that they don't skirt it - it's all about being elected, re-elected or gaining political leverage, apparently for it's own sake. Doing something with the military somewhere? Decisions based on strategy or national interest? No - they are based on political considerations. Setting fiscal policy. Is any of it based on anything other than if it helps or hurts your party? No.
This shows a lot more of the same going on.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I don't think so; It looks to me like both parties are pretty damned sleazy here. Dems: "we have to support this because hollywood id paying us to." Repubs: "Hollywood is financing the Dems to pass this bill, so we must oppose it." Note they were for it until they realized opposing it was political gold.
A pox on both their houses. BTW, the opportunity to "mod" a submission is in the fiirehose.
Free Martian Whores!
Yeah, I love it how people these days forget that in politics, one has to look at the options, actually evaluate what these candidates have done in the past and what they claim they'll do now, and pick one that has the most in common with the realistic goals that they share.
This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening. I know that I am not going to agree with everything that is espoused or even actually held as a belief by a candidate that I choose from. I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around, and issue-politics and muckracking doesn't help me see the bulk of the positions that a given candidate takes, only the ones that the opponents of the candidate think will be the most onerous.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.
1 Part - entrenched political corporate interest and bourgeois.
1 Part - libertarian small government movement
1 Part - religious conservative
As such, it is often in more internal turmoil and conflict due to the divisions, but more likely to be pushed and changed on an issue due to the need of all three groups to support in opposition to the Democrat party which is over all more homogenous.
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.
As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You're thinking about this, but you aren't coming to the right conclusion. The Democratic party is actually *more* fragmented than the Republicans. You could do similar to what you did for the Republicans for the Democrats:
1 - Upscale liberals
1 - Blacks
1 - Union voters
1 - Hispanics (the fuzziest part of all since they are only 60-70% for Democrats)
As a Democrat, depending on the demographics of your area, you probably have to please at least two of these constituencies to get re-elected. You have to please all four in a national election year. Especially, you have to pander to Hispanics who aren't a solid bloc anyway (ask a Mexican and a Puerto Rican whether they feel any close bond...) and are likely to bolt the party if you offend them.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.
I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.
When Clinton reduced social spending while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I love how it's always "because the government knows better than you or your Doctor", but I never see "because the insurance company whose main purpose is to make as much profit as possible knows better than you or your Doctor"
See, you just need to care enough.
Just imagine that you really believe that abortion (at any point in pregnancy) is morally identical to lining up young children and shooting them in the head. Do you see how that one position could outweigh all other considerations?
One issue voters are people who care very, very deeply about that one issue. I don't understand why anyone would resent that. The key is getting them to see that there may be more than one way to address their key issue.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
AJ Henderson
The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular.
Let's see:
Republican Lamar Smith authors SOPA.
Public is enraged.
Republicans back off.
Bizzaro World conclusion: Republicans deserve credit for being "against" SOPA
Republicans may experience it faster but Democrats experience it way longer. Democrat voters don't care how long a politician serves (Byrd), how corrupt (Dodd) or stupid (Frank) they may be. As long as they keep getting re-elected and can keep telling their people at election time, how much of a fight they are putting on for you.They say that they are fighting the good fight, that our country would be going to hell in a hand basket if they weren't there and they will continue to fuck you over with a smile.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.
You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.
Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.
"The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."
Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.
Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
Fuck Godwin's law. All it was was a silly Usenet post decades ago, and we've allowed it to arbitrarily constrain debate ever since. Comparisons with the Nazis are forbidden (maybe I should say verboten) forever more. Nothing could ever be that bad again, right? Until it is, and then we forbid ourselves from realizing it because of some stupid fucking comment made in jest by a guy none of us have ever met. No, fuck Godwin's law. I don't operate my mind according to rules of thumb like that, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
So? Ad hominem much?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It's not what you do to whoever or whatever in your bedroom. It's the fact that you want to force me and my kids to accept it, and before we can do that, you have to tell us what it is. Frankly, we don't want to know.
hey, when heterosexuality is kept quiet and no one mentions it in public, I'll accept your argument here as legitimate. Until then, allowing one view point to be expressed as openly as desired and requiring a different view point to only be held in private is not equality.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I think this is doubly true now that "the two parties" seem to be largely defined by opposition to each other rather than any clear political platform intended to benefit the country and its general citizenry.
These days, "The Democratic Party" doesn't really have a clear platform, as it is really made up more or less of everybody who, regardless of their real political views, doesn't want to be "Republican(tm)" but still wants to be affiliated with a large enough political corporation to have a chance of being allowed to win an election (c.f. "Blue Dog" democrats, and President Barack Obama, who is often accused/praised as a good "moderate Republican president"). In short, they're really only definable these days as "not-Republicans". "The Republican Party", on the other hand, does seem to have a very concise and well-enforced political platform. Unfortunately, that platform is "the opposite of whatever 'The Democrats(tm)' want". They're "The Anti-Democrat Party".
tl;dr: "The Two Parties" are the "Not-Republicans" and the "Anti-Not-Republicans". Also: the US political system is a complete fustercluck, or perhaps just a circus put on by whoever is really running things...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I think one of the causes for the difference is most European Countries are on a form of Parliamentary Government, and in a Parliamentary Government minority parties can wield power through coalitions; right now this happens mainly in the conventions. Now if we moved to a system where a portion of our House of Representatives were elected by popular party votes and you would start see Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Communists sitting in congress with Democrats and Republicans, now that would considerably change the way power worked in our country. The Tea Party and Occupy might even become full fledged political parties. Democrats really aren't as anti-war as you think, to me it seems their anti-Big Business leanings teaming up with the competitions of their beloved social programs for tax money makes them more anti defense-contractor than anti-war.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.
No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.
And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.