Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick

Hugh Pickens writes writes "In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, 'just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about Palin's approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.' The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous. Now Mark Memmott writes on NPR that today's Wikipedia activity may lend a clue to Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, expected to be announced within a few days. So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket? On August 7, Rob Portman's Wikipedia page was revised 100 times, the Wikipedia page for Marco Rubio was revised 22 times, and the page for Tim Pawlenty was revised only 5 times. Of course, Memmott adds, somebody who knows about the 2008 Wiki tea leaves may just be messing with our minds."

30 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Colbert! by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's activated the Colbert Nation to edit Wikipedia yet again on his show last night.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  2. What? Since when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

  3. Hmmm... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would totally vote for any candidate who ran with Beelzebub as their running mate. He is after all the devil we know.

  4. Re:There's only one clear choice. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great, now that's two missing tax returns.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. Naked and petrified by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rob is probably one Portman that you don't want to see naked and petrified.

  6. Re:Entirely possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your theory requires careful planning AND execution of a plan by a politician. Somehow, I find myself looking for other more credible explanations.

  7. Re:So much for Bilderberg conspiracies... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is most assuredly false as Mitch Daniels has been named to head Purdue University starting in January.

    A education-hating man that pulled all the funding he could out of Indiana's great University system... named president of a University. Welcome to 2012.

  8. Replace it with a link to a real model by milbournosphere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tannenbaum maintains an election model that currently predicts an Obama win (334 to 206 electoral votes) http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    1. Re:Replace it with a link to a real model by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      His Stimulus? You mean the one started by his predecessor?

      Obamacare AKA Romneycare?

      I am not sure how a president is responsible for an economy, if he was I am not sure how you would be against the Stimulus.

      I am not sure what he has to do with employment, unless you think the government needs more workers.

      I am not sure why he set economic benchmarks, other than advertising.

      I cannot see what polocies you mean, other than the ones Romney would continue since wallstreet is dictating them.

      What would help is reimplementing the regulation that was removed that allowed the banks to gamble. That and breaking up any too big to fail bank.

      I would not hire a lawyer to run a business nor would I want a businessman to run a country.

    2. Re:Replace it with a link to a real model by Viewsonic · · Score: 3, Informative

      He did not have a super majority the first two years. They owned both the house and the senate, but not enough votes to be a super majority. Republicans filibustered everything they could, and did.

    3. Re:Replace it with a link to a real model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everything I read from actual economists indicates that the stimulus worked in that the economy would have been much worse off if it hadn't been done. The stimulus didn't instantly fix everything, but it prevented things from truly entering Great Depression level suckage. I am personally much better off now than I was four years ago, and while Obama is disappointing in many areas, Romney outright terrifies me.

      My disappointment with the stimulus is that during the first year or so, Obama could have done a whole lot more to reign in the banks that caused this mess in the first place, or at least tried to. He should have pushed hard to toughen up regulations on banks and big business in general, and also break up some of the bigger institutions so they wouldn't be "too big to fail."

      "Obamacare" is disappointing, but only because it really isn't socialized medicine. I'm against the socialization/nationalization of many things, however I'd accept Canada-style healthcare over what we have now absolutely any day. It makes sense in modern society that essential healthcare be considered a fundamental service.

      The biggest hit to the the US during Obama's term was the credit rating downgrade. However this was directly caused by Republicans who were literally suggesting that the US default on its debt, including someone who at the time was being taken seriously as a contender for the GOP nomination. The fact that that people who suggest we simply not pay our bills are considered electable also terrifies me.

      At this point I'm not sure what Obama could do directly to create employment aside from trying to get the government to hire more (which would mean more government spending, something the GOP will lambast him for). Simply lowering taxes for the rich and corporations will not help, not in the era of globalization. The best he could do is try to create incentives for companies to hire American citizens on American soil (especially Americans who will be involved with the direct production of goods, such as manufacturing), create heavy disincentives for offshoring and using foreign contractors, and also potentially disincentives for consumers buying foreign-made goods. (I'm certain the GOP would also decry such attempts as socialism!)

  9. Re:What? Since when... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.

  10. Re:There's only one clear choice. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reid is going down the path the birthers laid for him. I find it funny that now the republicans suddenly have a problem with people calling for what should be public records.

    It is not a good thing when either tribe does it, but this is what tribalism leads too.

    Personally the fact that investment income is taxed at such a lower rate is something the public needs to hear about. This is why you hear of CEOs taking $1 salaries, because they prefer to be paid in ways that avoid the taxes on income. Reid's current course of action is not how to have that discussion though.

  11. Re:There's only one clear choice. by inthealpine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reid will not comment on the matter unless he his on the floor of the Senate. This is because Reid is protected from being sued for telling a lie as long as he is on the Senate floor. You wont see him repeating his lies on the Sunday shows because he can be personally sued for making false statements.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
  12. Re:There's only one clear choice. by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure Reid has inside knowledge -- after all he IS a high-ranking member of the LDS Church and has many friends who would know more about the Romney situation. Obviously he can't have access to the tax returns themselves (that would be a felony) so he can't produce any "evidence" but John McCain (who HAS seen the returns from when Romney was being considered for VP in 2008) has stayed mum on the subject which strongly implies that he knows a little more than we do.

  13. Re:What? Since when... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good for you, now go talk to the ones holding the "Keep government out of medicare" signs about that.

    I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom. Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.

  14. Re:There's only one clear choice. by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you think that Romney didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years and the IRS just let it go?

    There are many ways to make millions and not pay taxes. You just need good lawyers and accountants.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  15. Re:There's only one clear choice. by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, remember McCain saw something like 10+ years of Romney's tax returns during his vice-presidential vetting and decided that Sarah Palin was a better candidate for vice-president. Just think about that for a bit, Palin a better "heartbeat from the president" than Romney 4 yrs ago. What has Romney done since except campaign more for president and now hide his tax returns from public? I've read reports how there's a good chance that he DIDN'T pay taxes particularly in 2009 because of the stockmarket dive and even McCain hasn't seen those tax returns.

    I want to know what he's hiding personally, and I think the issue probably will "swiftboat" Romney if he doesn't go ahead and release them ASAP...

    --
    This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  16. Re:What? Since when... by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>>...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

    About the same time the DNC became a pro-war party.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  17. Re:There's only one clear choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes. No one is saying Romney illegally paid no income taxes, but it's quite easily for him to have paid virtually no taxes relative to his income. We know Romney's IRA is an enormous $100 million + (given IRA contribution limits would either make him the greatest investor in the world or there's something unorthodox going on).

    What's likely happened is that he put his shares of the Bain Capital LLC, which he was the sole shareholder, into his IRA at an arbitrary and very low value (since it's a private company the share's didn't have a market price). Then when he left Bain in 2002, the other partners of Bain Capital had to buy the LLC from Romney (because that's what holds the trademarks and such). So Romney's IRA got hundreds of millions of dollars for those shares from 2002 - 2009. Since you don't pay taxes on investments in the IRA until you retire and start taking money out, Romney hasn't paid any taxes on them. It's quite possible for him to have an effective income tax rate during those years of 1%.

    Any major investor in Bain Capital would be privy to this information and have signed confidentiality agreements making revealing this information a large legal risk, hence revealing it anonymously via Harry Reid.

  18. Re:There's only one clear choice. by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Informative

    First, the political damage is not that huge. Second, it's very likely that Romney has paid little income tax, though quite large amounts of other taxes, given that most of his income is from investments, which are taxed as capital gains.

    Wrong. They never cash in their investments, so they never pay that tax. They leverage their assets for cheap loans. Jobs was a master of this, as is Ellison.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  19. Re:What? Since when... by BenJury · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a difference between collecting water than runs off your house and putting up a 20 foot damn to create a reservoir and stop water flowing into the local river.
    What would you do if you were down stream and your river dried up?

    --
    Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
  20. Re:There's only one clear choice. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    No it lets them get paid in stock, which they use to get loans against to avoid paying taxes. It really is that simple.

  21. Re:What? Since when... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I wish the govt...state AND federal, would get out of the marriage business.

    What the states and feds should do, is allow for, and enforce across state lines...civil contracts..between two or more of ANY sexual preference, etc. This should be the ONLY legal binding contract there is.

    If someone in this relationships also wants the "marriage" moniker on their relationship, let them get a church to do this....but merely having a church blessed marriage, would not hold any legal binding bonds....that is the civil contract part offered by the govt.

    Let that civil contract between 2 or more people, take care of all the inheritance, insurance...etc....and that would be the same for any group of people wanting such a legal relationship, and should do away with all this controversy of marriage.

    Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy. The Govt is there to help enforce contracts...let's put the govt back to work doing what it is supposed to do in this case.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  22. Re:There's only one clear choice. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They shouldn't have to be, but when you run for political office, there's a tacit understanding that you no longer have the degree of privacy you would have if you were just Joe Q. Citizen. Sure, you can refuse to show your tax records at that point, but your opponents and the electorate are also free to draw whatever conclusions they want from that.

    The underlying point here is that political damage doesn't have to be logical, rational or, hell, even right. But damage is damage nonetheless. A lot of Republicans are really getting concerned that the longer Romney refuses the more people will assume he has something nasty to hide, so that even if it is nothing more than a bit embarrassing when and if it does come to light, he will have already put too many holes in the hull of his campaign.

    Here's my advice for anyone running for public office. If you value your privacy, don't bother. They are mutually exclusive.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  23. Re:What? Since when... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't forget he had 3 of them on his property.. Stocked with bluegill, a boat dock, etc. and this creek is a tributary of the Rouge River, a designated "Wild and Scenic River".. Not only was he keeping the water, he was blocking fish from going upstream for spawning..

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  24. Re:What? Since when... by Lendrick · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's truth in what you say, but the GOP already has wiki of their own, with all sorts of misinformation.

  25. Re:There's only one clear choice. by AwesomeMcgee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Make the taxes on investment income far more progressive than the normal tax code and suddenly it doesn't effect any of the average folks you're trying to protect. Oh but wait, this whole "increased taxes are bad for everyone" motif is just a ruse, so you were being hypothetical and not seeking an actual answer that would solve problems. Sorry, carry on.

  26. Re:What? Since when... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The idea behind marriage was originally that women were property and men owned them.

    Ahh...the good old days...before all the modern problems started...

    :)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........