Republican Robocall Pretexting Campaign 674
WCityMike writes, "In 53 Congressional campaigns across the country, including the Pennsylvania 6th, the Connecticut 4th, the North Carolina 11th, the New Hampshire 2nd, and the Illinois 6th and 8th (and possibly all races), the National Republican Congressional Committee is conducting a $2.1 million campaign to make it appear as if Democrats are spamming callers with telemarketing calls. The NRCC hired Conquest Communications Group to conduct a massive nationwide robocalling campaign with calls specifically scripted to appear as if they're coming from the Democratic candidate — in violation of FCC regulations on such 'robocalls,' which requires the identity of the caller to be stated at the beginning of the message [47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1)]. The call begins with 'Hello. I'm calling with information about,' and then says the name of the Democratic candidate. There is then a pause; if the recipient hangs up here, they will receive repeated calls back with the same message, potentially up to 18 times or more (according to one callee). If the callee doesn't hang up, they hear a smear message from the machine about the Democratic candidate. The NRCC thinks the legality of the calls is, conveniently, a 'complicated legal question that's not going to get adjudicated this weekend.'" Update 20:47 GMT by SM: Thankfully we all learned how to deal with these folks last week.
"smear message"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, never going after your opponent won't do a lot for you either. In northeast Texas there's a state race that's caught my interest. Chuck Hopson, the Dem incumbent, has from the start been in a heavy smear campaign against his Republican rival. His rival (Durrett, I think) has responded largely by addressing the issues, with only a handful of attacks on Hopson (all of which that I've seen were based on Hopson's own voting record conflicting--or seeming to--with his campaign messages).
Given the recent stunts pulled by both sides in the races, Durrett's style has earned my respect.
On the subject of the article, I keep getting messages from Bill Clinton telling me how great the Dem candidate for governor is. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican scheme, and I've deleted the same message four times so far. The Dems don't need any help on annoying voters
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would not believe how difficult it is to effectively judge a candidate unless you hear them speak live. I spent quite a bit of time perusing newspapers, candidate websites, and Google trying to find information to base my determinations for voting this election.
I am getting so much negative campaigning but not enough real facts from the candidates themselves. I really wish that someone would stop the fucking smear campaigns and instead clearly list what they intend to do. If they ran before, I want someone (obviously the campaigns website won't) to list exactly what they said they were going to do and exactly what they did do so I can compare.
If this information is easily accessible in the State of Minnesota, please let me know where it is. My current vote is based on what I have gleamed from the newspapers and the campaign websites. Bleh.
I suppose my methodology is better than my co-workers who are "voting Union line" or someone who is "voting Party line."
Voter Information (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.vote-smart.org/ [vote-smart.org]
I'm in Mass, and I think they do a decent job with handling the information. For those who are in a voting office, you can see their records. Another really helpful thing is to check the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test) results, if available. Being the day before the election, the site seems to be running a bit slow, so be patient. Hope the site is helpful. (I am not affilated with vote-smart.org in any way)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not in their interest to do that, because they'll lose the votes of everyone who hates that. They want to be as ambiguous as possible so that nobody can find a reason to vote against them.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your taxes are not lower. The Bush administration has failed to cut spending to pay their tax cuts and in fact has dramatically increased spending. Thus the present value of taxes you will pay over your lifetime has risen under the Bush administration since the 100s of billions of dollars of debt the Bush administration has run up will have to be paid from future taxes. You are not paying these taxes this year but you will have to pay them in the future. Ask any economist and they will tell that lowering taxes without cutting spending is an increase and not a reduction in your lifetime tax payments.
Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your logic is that Bush is spending much more than you're saving. Even if he hadn't pushed through the tax cuts, we would be running a deficit right now. The tax cuts just add insult to injury.
Furthermore, this isn't just a issue for us, it's an issue for our children and grandchildren. THEY will be paying for the excesses of this decade, and they'll have to pay our debts at the same time they're funding Social Security for the baby boomers.
Seriously, this is bad.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, you can keep paying off one credit card with another. But the issue of whether deficit spending actually boosts economic growth is up in the air. On one hand you do have the Keyensian economic effect.(which is interesting considering Republicans supposedly reject Keynes), but on the other hand you have the drain caused by interest payments. Interest ads no value. You're not creating any economic growth by spending $400 billion on interest, and you also have the issue of the $9 trillion which is tied up in federal bonds instead of being available for economic investment into the private sector.
The interesting thing is, we're at a point today where the interest payments on the Federal Debt(about $400 billion) is larger than the amount of the annual deficit(about $250 billion). So we're at a point now where if not for the debt, we'd have a balanced budget. So our debt is actually draining on our budget and making the debt larger. Why is that an issue? Because being in a situation where your debt keeps rising in order to pay off your existing debt is a recipe for bankruptcy.
Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.
debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html [zfacts.com]
It would only be decreasing if the deficit was held to zero, allowing for inflation to decrease the present and future value of the debt. That hasn't happened since the Clinton era.
Your understanding of economics and deficit spending is disturbing. I've encountered it before, and it appears to be a result of a propaganda campaign by some Republicans to prop up their existing power structure. That is, ignore the problems and look at the furry rabbit slight of hand.
I don't know if it's worth responding to you, because I don't think you care about actually educating yourself and understanding the issues.
Re:"smear message"4 (Score:3, Insightful)
What, the 2,800+ Americans killed in Iraq by IEDs, snipers, etc, don't count? By my accounting, that's nearly another September 11th's worth of dead Americans.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still not good enough (Score:3, Informative)
There was an estimate hanging around of 600K people which died since the start of the US invasion.
Even if it was 1/6 less than that and in reality 100K this is the number of live lost over way LESS than the 20 years than Saddam had.
So.... Quote "has resulted in tens of thousands fewer" sorry but this is not true. Extrapolated over the same time period, the us invasion any way you see it killed MORE people than if Sadd
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot assume that because there was 3000 + killed on 9/11 that this is part of traditional terrorist activities.
IN fact, we will not even be sure if we have been successful in limiting terror until mid 2007, which is about the date, traditionally, that we could expect the next attack if you add in the terrorist bombing in Okalahoma as the most recent,successful, mass death terrorist attack on American soil.
If you want to use foreign acts of terro
I don't think that's quite the motivation.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere along the line, they decided that the best motivator was to get you pissed off enough at the other guy that you would make the time to get into the polls.
Unfortunately, this has caused campaigns to go from "vote for me because" to "don't vote for the other guy because".
It just seems to get worse with time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Those voters are not up for grabs. It's everyone else.
the best motivator was to get you pissed off enough at the other guy that you would make the time to get into the polls.
Exactly. "Vote for the R (or D) because otherwise that slimy bastard will get elected." That's the problem with two-party elections.
This story is amusing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit.
You heard some astroturfer call in to Rush Limbaugh today with this and now you are claiming it is happening to you.
It's very easy to see what Republicans are up to.... just look for what they are accusing Democrats of doing, and then you'll know.
As
I was wondering when this would happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
The phrase "out of touch" comes to mind....BTW - I'm a registered independant, and thinking of going Libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why this conspiracy theory makes no sense -- you get (supposedly, according to some guy) 17 calls that you think are from the candidate so you want to vote against him and then the 18th has a "smear" about him -- and then you still vote against him, despite the fact that you were going to vote against him becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzt! The tactic isn't being used to *get* votes, it's being used to harass / annoy voters for the other party's candidate so much that those voters stay home. Mathematically, it's generally just as good to have your voters turn out as it is to have the other party stay home. Republicans aren't motivating anyone to go to the polls tomorrow, so they're going to plan B: Try and get as man
don't call list? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You would think... but the politicians who wrote the law remembered to put in a clause allowing politicians to continue to call you. Nice of them, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I submitted a similar blog entry [slashdot.org] as this was being posted. Of par
Suuuuuure it's complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
They're right. It won't get adjudicated this weekend.
However, just like their phone-jamming shenanigans in New Hampshire, it will get adjudicated against their corrupt asses [washingtonpost.com].
So let them have their fun. This kind of crap is exactly why this Republican will be voting against every Republican on tomorrow's ballot.
Funn how my party continues to call the Democratic party one of traitors when it's my party which is undermining democratic principles.
Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot to mention that every time someone votes against a Republican, God kills a kitten AND a puppy.
Don't forget the baby-eating! (Score:3, Funny)
(*) This message brought to you by the Republican Never-Ate-A-Baby Committee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Democrats and the stock market (Score:4, Interesting)
PS - I didn't get any stinking Bush tax cut. I'm not rich enough. Repeal the damn thing already!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called learning from the past. Vietnam ring any bells? You can't force people to take on a form of government they don't want. In a recent poll 60% of Iraqi's supported attacks on American troops. Not just wanted American troops to leave, actually supported them being attacked. Sorry, we haven't won any hearts or minds. We are just making more enemies. Staying gains us nothing, they aren't 'comi
To quote Matt Groening: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you vote "Other", are you guiltless and sinless?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Re:To quote Matt Groening: (Score:4, Funny)
No... but if you vote Democratic on a Diebold voting machine, your vote has a pretty good chance of being recorded as a Republican vote.
Re:To quote Matt Groening: (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a very valid reason to vote Democrat.
This election is more of an intervention than an election. In order to begin repairing the damage, you have to first stop the abuse. Saying "NO!" to the current administration... or more accurately, "NO MORE!", is a VERY GOOD reason to vote for the opposition.
As Tom Friedman wrote recently.... If America elects to keep the GOP in control of every branch of government tommorow, then we are no more than a banana republic.
Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.
What'd you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Job by phone (Score:2)
As an example, someone might send out a spam campaign claiming to be Slashdot and encouraging pirates, hackers (banking on the public perception of "hacker"), and pornographers to drop by. Result: People see the spam, think that Slashdot is a haven for pirates, hackers and pornograp
The system is broken (Score:2, Informative)
the congressional seats of a state using the proportional Jefferson Method (equivalent to the D'Hondt Method).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method [wikipedia.org]
This would result in viable third parties and real choice. Voting for small parties at the federal level before the system is fixed is futile.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not in Australia. We do have proportional representation and coalition governments but it hasn't resulted in instability. Our governments typically last longer than US governments, probably because we don't have a two term
We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr! (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone have an idea what we can do about this, one day before the election?
Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr! (Score:4, Informative)
Quick radio ad blitz? Indignant press conference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And don't forget to vote, and encourage your friends to vote, against the motherfuckers who're doing this.
(Posted w/o karma bonus because even I think this is kinda trollish, but seriously, people... If *any* party pulls shit like this
Re: (Score:2)
Google it (Score:3, Informative)
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:chTn88IH384J:
Shouldn't be surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a little story about a local Republican race here in Minnesota. It is just before the primary, there is a heated race between two individuals for the Rep. Senate nomination. A flier is sent out smearing one candidate, he previously was accused of physically assaulting his daughter, a charge he was later found not guilty of by jury. The flier contained so many false statements it was crazy, to top it off the people who wrote the flier included a graphical logo to make it look like it was sent by our Sheriff's Dept. Unfortunately I was the person who designed that logo for our website. I am the system administrator for that County. Long story short, through my web logs it was discovered that the authors of the flier were members of his own party on the State level. Apparently they felt that the previous accusations against him would be a problem down the line. So they pulled their dirty tricks on one of their own. The best part is that he won the primary. But once again his party stepped in and told him to step aside. He refused and they withheld all party support for his campaign. Just another case of a party that is struggling with scandal doing anything to hold on and keep from falling out of power.
We've been getting this in Wisconsin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't listened to any of the messages, but I will the next time they call.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been attributing it to living in the leftist echo chamber of Madison, though.
Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so morally corrupt that I find it hard to believe that half the country is in the same party as these people. I know that half the country isn't morally corrupt, yet they allow (and often support) this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... unless those immigrants are U.S. citizens they aren't allowed to vote. They probably won't be arrested, but they shouldn't be there anyway, legal or illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:5, Informative)
He's referring to the fraudulent letters [latimes.com] distributed by Republican congressional candidate Tan Nguyen.
The letters were sent to 14,000 registered voters, and claimed (completely falsely) that naturalized citizens are not only ineligible to vote, but would be jailed or deported if they showed up at the polls. They were printed in letterhead that looked deceptively like that of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and were signed by the completely fictional "Sergio Ramirez".
So I'm afraid that you're mistaken; these were naturalized citizens, registered voters, and the tactic was specifically designed to deceive them into forgoing their right to vote.
Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct, this typically is something done by the Republicans and not the Democrats. Sure, if you dig deep enough, you can find the story about a couple of Democratic supporters slashing the tires on the Republican parties "get out the vote" mobiles the night before the election, but such incidents are extremely few and far between, and I have yet to see one that was orchestrated on the party rather than individual level.
On the other hand, the Republican party thinks systematically, and when they find something that works they try to milk it in all of their campaigns. Hence the multiple sightings of lether-clad men in lingerie, the robo-calls, the fliers, the push polls, the recent NAMBLA-related smears showing up in close races all across the country (always raised, of course, by the Republicans). In the 2004 election is was church ministers talking about how Kerry (a Catholic) wanted to ban the bible, or mysterious robo-calls claiming to be from the Kerry campaign reminding people that "A vote for John Kerry is a vote for gay marriage," (even though Kerry had never taken a pro-gay marriage stance in his career).
I think, what it comes down to (I'm about to open myself for being flamed senseless), is that the party leadership in the Republican and Democratic parties have very different philosophies of what it means to run an election. Now, I'm speaking in generalities here, as there are some Republicans who I am rather fond of, and some Democrats that I intensely dislike. But in general, it seems that the Democrats have a philosophy more true to what has been enshrined in the constitution, and an overall sense of fairness. They seem to believe that all citizens have the right to vote, and have their vote counted, and have their voice heard no matter what their opinion is. They seem to want (generally) to allow the truth to speak for itself, and to get elected on the issues.
No doubt that there are many Republicans who feel the same way, but the party leadership (the Ken Mehlman and the Karl Rove types) either don't see or don't care about the importance of voting. They don't see it as a sacred right or responsibility. They see it as a means to an end, and that end is the Republicans getting and holding onto power. They (and again I'm referring to the party leadership and those that enable them, not necessarily the rank and file) believe that they are at war with the Democrats, and that any action that they can take that will result in their accruing more power is justified. They don't care how immoral or unethical it is, or even how illegal it is. They simply do whatever they can to win and then (if they get caught) pay the fines/do the time, though the punishment hardly matters if they had already achieved their goal. What's $5 million dollars in fines to the richest political party in the country, if it means that they can keep control of Congress or the White House? They can make that money back in a heartbeat by awarding no-bid contracts to the companies that are their staunchest supporters. The Republican leadership has come to terms with the notion of "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage" during the campaign, and unfortunately those losses include ethics and morals.
Now, I live in Ohio, and I'm sure that you've heard a lot about what sort of t
Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a damn good reason for that.
There have been studies done, and on 'important' political issues, about 3/4th of all people agree. Seriously. That's a frickin supermajority. I'm talking stuff about abortion and gay marriage and teaching evolution in school and all the stuff the Republicans like to make issues about.
And, when you look at what these positions are, they are slightly to the right of where the Democratic party stands. If you were to draw a scale on every issue from 0 to 100 between the far right and the far left, and put the Democrats at 75 and the Republicans at 25, almost 70% of people over 18 are somewhere between 60 to 70 on that issue.
Probably another 15% is spread between 60 and 15, and 5% between 70 and 85, with the remaining 10% making up both edges. (Aka, the 'far' right and left.)
Another way of looking at this would be to draw a bell curve, and put the Democrats almost right in the middle, and Republicans way over in the 15 percentile.
However, I have to point out, in this country, only 1/4th the people vote. People who outside the system, the 10% on the ends, almost always vote. But they cancel each other out, mostly, or vote for third parties.
So, we're left with 15% of the sane people. And, statistically, most of them would vote Democratic. It's a very fine line the Republicans have to walk. Punching the right button with the churchgoers are one way to do it, demonizing their opponants, trying to portray them as 85ers instead of 70ers, in hopes of catching the 60ers.
Randomly selecting, say, 10% of the unregistered voters in this country, making them spend a week listening to the issues, and then making them vote, would be a total disaster for the Republicans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's not quite how I'd put it. Again, I'd say that the people calling the shots in the GOP are, if not actually evil, extremely nasty, unethical, and willing to stoop to almost any level to get/keep power. I'm not sure that I would call the Democrats incompetent, but I think that there are a lot of progressive types in the Democratic party (go figure) who are willi
Can't we stop these? (Score:2)
I guess it is a measure of the desperation of the Republicans that they are making these calls. I can't believe anyone would believe the outlandish claims but I guess they are
What the hell is wrong with you Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
The RNCC must have lost it's freaking mind.
Between this, electronic voting, the whole WMD/invade Iraq decision and the Mexican border issue, half of you still vote Republican?
Not that the Dems are much better, but when are people going to start pushing back on the government?
America used to be admired. Now, I just pity you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, yeah... anyone who doesn't give a shit, doesn't vote, but they sure can BITCH! Just remember... if you don't
Not new (Score:4, Interesting)
Its rather a shame that the local republican controlled newspaper made no mention of this in their so-called "bad campaigning expose".
What's the problem with breaking an FCC reg? (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks like... (Score:2, Funny)
ok that was bad.
Calling All Voters (Score:4, Insightful)
Their untypical reaction was to call the Democrat's office demanding an explanation. Which turned out to be "it's a Republican dirty trick". But how many people will find out before voting? And how many people will believe it's not Democrats lying to blame Republicans, when they already believe Democrats have been harassing them with robocalls?
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Republicans have followed up their 2002 phonejamming [wikipedia.org] of Democrats' lines (preventing Democrats from getting voters to polls) with enough illegal robocalls to cost $100 MILLION in fines [dailykos.com]. Of course, those 2002 robocalls got John Sununu Jr (R-NH) into the Senate, where he controls the FCC, and he hasn't given up the job he DDoS'ed his way into. So I don't expect Republicans to cough up the $100M they'd owe for this year's attack on the election process.
Unless maybe enough Republicans get fired in the election tomorrow that they can't do these crimes unpunished anymore. Go to the polls and do your part.
Sad, sad, sad (Score:3, Insightful)
gop and dirty tricks? how surpising! (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Democrats don't do these sort of things.. Arguably, because liberals are "too pussy" to cheat, and "too naive" and believe in fair elections.
There was a time when the "Vote Facist for Law and Order" bumper stickers were funny. Now the seem just a bit too truthful.
--
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
-- Richard Nixon, May 19, 1977 interview with Robert Frost [landmarkcases.org]
Other resources (Score:5, Interesting)
The Dems are On this [dailykos.com], filing one of the only C&D letters I've actually supported. Kinda brilliant of the NeoCons, really -- they hire an impersonator to make a fake 5 minute message, robocall it at 11 PM till 4 AM, make it long enough that most people hang up long before they hear the "paid for by the Republicans" message at the end, and, well, it's just brilliant. Too bad the Democrats are too ethical to try something like this themselves.
Jim Webb's campaign is also being specifically targeted by this, in what is probably a "test run" by Karl Rove. Robo calls are reporting that people will get arrested if they vote, that their locations have changed, pamphlets are being handed out telling black people not to bother voting, and the Voting Machines are set up to "accidently" mess Mr. Webb's name up. [dailykos.com] Even the Board of Elections are saying these efforts are Widespread and Deliberate [americanchronicle.com] (and, oh yeah, ILLEGAL).
Kinda a pity that the Republicans are so afraid of the United States Citizens voices being heard that they have to resort to such disgusting efforts to repress the vote. Of course, having seen this the last 3 elections in a row, this isn't a real surprise.
Re:Should do things the DNC way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should do things the DNC way ... (Score:5, Funny)
When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead--to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.
At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!
It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!
Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?
Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background--no, not when you consider the other members of his family:
His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.
His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.
His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.
And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.
Now what shall we say about the man himself?
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.
He perambulated his infant on the street.
He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.
He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.
He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.
Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!
I beg you,
If you're going to rip of MAD magazine... (Score:4, Informative)
Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech
By Bill Garvin
MAD #139, December 1970
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MAD Magazine may have expanded it further, but it's based on a alleged real event.
George Smathers [wikipedia.org] was alleged to have given a similar speech to rural Florida audiences when challenging incumbent Claude Pepper [wikipedia.org] in the 1950 Democratic primary for a US Senate seat.
However, it was not reported at the time by Florida newspapers and a $10,000 reward offered (by Smathers) to anyone that could prove it has gone unclaimed. The story was probably intended to poke fun at rural Flor
Re:Should do things the DNC way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that isn't spin, I don't know what is. (Score:5, Insightful)
The actions of a few Democratic campaign workers who affected a few Republican voters in no way compares to a coordinated, tens or hundreds of thousand dollar strategy by a national Republican organization, affecting over 300,000 Democratic voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Please mod this troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you expect anything less?
The Rove/Bush machine put fliers all over South Carolina in 2000 during the primaries saying that John McCain had fathered a "black" child.
The Rove/Bush m
Re: (Score:2)
So it looks like it worked. Seriously, there are dirty tricks [wikipedia.org] in every election. Donald Segretti is still active in politics. People who don't understand that will get the voting machines that they deserve.
Or the RNC way? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1
a Republican official was CONVICTED of this, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Re: (Score:2)
EVERY news outlet (national and local, well, maybe except FoxNews) is reporting about how slimy Republicans are this election season (fear mongering, race baiting, mother of all negative campaign).
I mean seriously, have Republicans no shame?
Republican bashing? (Score:2)
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously, have Republicans no shame?
They have Morality, which is different. Shame prevents you from being evil. Morality allows you to be as evil as you like, as long as you feel really bad about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for the past six years, so why should most political problems from the past six years NOT be biased towards Republicans? When slashdotters gripe about political problems who should their frustration be vented to, the 'obstructionist' Democratic minority?
You obviously haven't been around here very long, because back in the Clinton days, even
Re:Conquest Communication Group Link (Score:5, Informative)
Nice, that number works! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2812 Emerywood Parkway, Suite 103
Richmond, Virginia 23294
Ph. - 804-358-0560
Fax - 804-213-0797
I just called! Re:Conquest Communication Group (Score:3, Interesting)
Robot Nixon approves of this tactic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another Republican smear (Score:3, Interesting)