Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the new-era-of-campaigning dept.

889

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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Spam for McCain! (5, Funny)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762973)

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

Re:Spam for McCain! (4, Funny)

nycsubway (79012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763335)

I don't think the parent should be considered a troll. He's merely voicing his opinion of the old fart.

Re:Spam for McCain! (1, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763377)

And how many others who voice their opinion are modded "Troll" and "Flamebait?"

Re:Spam for McCain! (4, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763423)

No, I have to admit it was trollish (not flamebait, though--I was actually hoping for a chuckle or two). Heck, I'll gladly accept the karma burn for it.

The sad and sorry thing is that I am a registered Republican, and I will probably not be voting for McCain, I definitely will not be campaigning for him, and I certainly will not encourage others to support him. Back in 2000 McCain was a person whom I could respect--one who stood up for his principles. Today it looks like those principles have been prostituted on the altar of political expediency and "electability."

effluent with praise? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763399)

Quote: "Republican Web 2.0 consultant David All was effluent with praise..."

Is that something like farting with praise?

Or defecating with praise?

Oh, and MOD PARENT UP. It's a reasonable opinion.

Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23762975)

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

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

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

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

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (4, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763057)

Hear hear, I don't have a candidate this election, again. It seems to be becoming a trend.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (-1, Troll)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763223)

Well, voting for the least evil candidate might be an option.

Here are my issues with Obama: experience, corruption, crony earmarks, and dishonest politicking (lies, demagoguery, race baiting, &c.)

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (5, Funny)

Creepy (93888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763361)

or the MOST evil

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

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

The Aethereal (1160051) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763363)

Voting for the least evil candidate is why we continually have candidates like Obama and McCain.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Insightful)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763063)

Even four years ago, I could have backed McCain, but who's this man I see now? This is astroturfing at its finest.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (3, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763159)

The question is, how did this change occur? Did they put something in his tea?

Joking aside I'd really like to know how this dramatic change came about.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (3, Funny)

dkf (304284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763217)

Joking aside I'd really like to know how this dramatic change came about.
He was replaced by a robot from Neocon Central Command as soon as it looked like he might actually win the nomination. The real McCain is probably being "entertained" in some dark cellar in deepest darkest Utah...

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763383)

The question is, how did this change occur? Did they put something in his tea?
It is possible that he thinks this is the only way to get elected, and he wants to get elected. The other possibility is that he's eating the crow out of loyalty to his party (he's a military man, he believes in that sort of thing). And yet another possibility is both of these things are true.

Why the sudden change? He's not the same man. . . (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763459)

His handler showed him the Queen of Diamonds?

An Israeli spy threatened to publish pictures of McCain the pedophile?

An Israeli spy threatened to invent and then publish pictures of McCain the pedophile?

The secret government has the HAARP Array trained on his skull?

There are many ways, some less plausible than others, (and some more plausible than many realize), but I'd say that all of Congress has been affected to some degree. It's far, far easier to control people than they think.


-FL

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Insightful)

jbash (784046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763177)

But above all else, I NEVER NEVER NEVER thought I would see a man who was a torture victim and POW stand up and support that very torture by HIS OWN COUNTRY.
I'm not a McCain supporter, but this assertion is simply incorrect. McCain (along with Ron Paul of course) was the only candidate in the GOP debates to take a stand against torture, arguing pragmatically that torture has the unintended consequence of putting US troops in danger of being tortured themselves. While that's a far cry from the elevated moral argument that torture is simply wrong prima facie, it is still an opposition to the practice.

McCain has also called for the US Army to specifically train its interrogators to not torture. See for example this news report: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/15/519269.aspx [msn.com]

The specific quotation from him is: "I would create an Army advisory committee with 20,000 soldiers to partner with militaries abroad and launch a crash program in civilian and military schools to prepare more experienced languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and others and create a new specialty in strategic interrogation -- a new group of strategic interrogators so that we never have to or feel motivated to torture anyone ever again."

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (5, Informative)

RetardsForRonPaul (1175873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763201)

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

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763257)

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

It's not a needed legislation. He's running for the Commander in Chief.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Interesting)

jbash (784046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763345)

Yet, he wouldnt sign on to legislation limiting interrogation techniques to those found in the Army field manual.
Limiting the interrogation techniques was McCain's own amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization Act. It was amendment #1557. It's in the Congressional Record, a transcript of which you can read here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/s072505.html [fas.org]

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763287)

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

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Informative)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763559)

I don't know the details of the bill, but was that the only issue in the bill? Too often we now see things like "Spending bill of 1 trillion $$$ with a small clause that will save babies" If I vote against spending 1 trillion, I'm now labeled a baby killer.

4 years ago we had something similar in my state on the ballot. It was a tax increase, but was worded you are either for clean air, water, and green spaces or you aren't (where is the option that I'm for a clean environment, but not the tax increase?). The results were thrown out and only slightly re-worded which many still disagreed with.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (5, Insightful)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763295)

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

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763357)

Right...he stands up and says I don't support torture. But then he sits down and quietly says "But, I don't think any of the torture we are doing is actually torture". So the point is a wash. Even worse, he has done nothing to stop the extradition bit where we send suspects to foreign countries to be tortured by someone else so we don't get our hands dirty. So no...I think it is unbeleivably disgusting that he has had such a reversal.

It also worries me as to what depth you must go to convince a POW who had been tortured to allow this to continue. Something is clearly wrong with McCain these days...

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763229)

But above all else, I NEVER NEVER NEVER thought I would see a man who was a torture victim and POW stand up and support that very torture by HIS OWN COUNTRY.
Like the emails about Obama being a Muslim, no matter how many times this falsehood is repeated, it is still false.

McCain is against torture by the US. This includes waterboarding, sleep derivation, and many other 'interrogation techniques' that the B*sh administration has defended. See: McCain Detainee Amendment [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763545)

He's only against it when he's making a speech. When the time comes to put his money where his mouth is and actually vote for real anti-torture legislation, he quietly votes against it [nytimes.com] .

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763231)

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

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

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

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763291)

He was a maverick not afraid to point out the stupidity of cutting taxes while not cutting spending.
You half right. First, the wrong half. Cutting taxes increased the size of the economy which led to the government bring in record receipts [nytimes.com] . In other words, the government made more money than it ever had before with lower taxes.

However, you are correct that spending should have been cut. At first, you could attribute it to there being a surplus the year before. It's hard to cut spending when you have a surplus. Now, there is no excuse.

But above all else, I NEVER NEVER NEVER thought I would see a man who was a torture victim and POW stand up and support that very torture by HIS OWN COUNTRY.
This part, you are 100% wrong. [msn.com]

President Bush reversed course on Thursday and accepted Sen. John McCainâ(TM)s call for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror.
Here are McCain's own words [blogspot.com] in Feb of this year.

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law â" that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763407)

That was nothing more than bullshit PR. It was just another "I will not condone torture, as I George W. Bush define torture" unenforceable vague statement. When the rubber hits the road, and it comes down to passing an actual law with real teeth in it, John McCain quietly votes against it [nytimes.com] .

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763515)

That was nothing more than bullshit PR. It was just another "I will not condone torture, as I George W. Bush define torture" unenforceable vague statement. When the rubber hits the road, and it comes down to passing an actual law with real teeth in it, John McCain quietly votes against it [nytimes.com] .
Right. And here is why. This is from the same link and statement in my previous post, (the GP).

When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I'd emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques - indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
Even though he is against torture, he doesn't want the CIA limited to the Army manual. That's because the US Army is not in the business of interrogation. That's the CIA's job. If you limit the CIA to the Army's rules, you are eliminating the CIA's ability to do it's job. Unless, of course, you consider getting a name, rank and serial number to be a successful interrogation session.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1, Interesting)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763313)

Wow, this is EXACTLY what Obama's talking points are.
How original.

Fuck Obama too (-1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763491)

You think I believe that he isn't a hyper-ambitious scumbag too?

No party candidate speaks for me. Basically, I'm in the Jesse Ventura party. That means I have to sit around every election day shaking my head in disbelief.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (2, Interesting)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763381)

The 2000 John McCain would not get elected in 2008 if he didn't suck up to as many demographics as possible. Maybe once (if) he gets elected you'll see more of the 2000 McCain.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I ignore the rheteric until October, then I look for a summary of each cadidate over the previous 6 months. Obama's campaign is trying to call McCain "Bush Jr." while McCain is trying to label Obama as naive and vague.

I don't think McCain is Bush Jr. and I don't think Obama is naive (althought I do think he's been pretty vague so far).. that is why I will ignore as much as I can until the final month.. that's when I'll start to pay attention. I'm just glad Billary lost the primary.

He's the Same Faker (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763421)

Aren't you glad that the faker in 2000 who's got a new scam in 2008 didn't get all the power in 2000 that Bush got, and then showed everyone he's a fake in 2000, just like Bush did? OK, maybe you're not glad that Bush got those powers, but aren't you glad that McCain didn't lie his way into them the same way?

Does anyone think it's just a coincidence that both McCain and Bush have become wastefully spending warmongers, now that the 2000 election is over? Maybe you should think about how they're just spokesmodel puppets for a Republican Party that cannot be stopped from wasting American lives and money destroying our government that interferes with corporate rule.

He didn't invent it, Only Helping Kill the WWW (1)

Scuffling (1306463) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763471)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml [newsmax.com] McCain Opposes Net Neutrality Arizona Sen. John McCain has announced that he opposes "net neutrality." McCain appeared at the All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, Calif., and said he did not think government regulation of internet service providers to stop them from censoring, slowing down, or otherwise disrupting consumerâ(TM)s access to the internet in order to stifle competitors or undesirable content was an appropriate solution. "When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,â he said, according to TheDailyBackground.com. Later, McCain said: "Iâ(TM)m all for the government encouraging competition, but Iâ(TM)ve found over time that less government involvement is better. "Unless there is a clear-cut, unequivocal restraint of competition, the government should stay out of it,â McCain said. "These things will sort themselves out.â

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763509)

I was under the impression that John McCain supports closing Guantanamo and ending the torture of suspected terrorists.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (-1, Flamebait)

yhetti (57297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763537)

John McCain hasn't changed much at all. The "maverick" thing is just as much BS now as it was then. John McCain is a liberal Republican; that doesn't make him a "maverick", it makes him purple.

But I think, perhaps, you're missing a few key points. For starters, if you agree with somebody most of the time and then suddenly disagree with one or two things, don't naturally assume that you're the one who's right.

1) John McCain was never for small government. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but that part has never changed. It's why I didn't support him in 2000.

2) McCain rarely backs George Bush. Could it be that he supports the war in Iraq because he thinks it's the correct thing to do, and -not- because of Bush? Because from where I sit, McCain and Bush disagree on basically everything. So could it be that John McCain is still the smart, good man you liked in 2000 and happens to be right, regardless of the media spin on Iraq, and you happen to be wrong? Happening to agree with George Bush doesn't automatically make him a shill.

3) McCain never sucks up to the religious right, either. Ask anybody -in- the religious right.

4) McCain was a victim of torture. He has repeatedly drawn distinctions between what happens at Gitmo and -actual- torture. Enough people calling an apple a "car" doesn't make it a car. If anybody has unique insight into what constitutes torture, John McCain does. So maybe you should, again, consider whether you are on the wrong side of this. Note: I believe that he is still against, officially, "torture." The difference is that he's not convinced that solitary confinement for a few weeks or interrogations are neccesarily torture. He has made his beliefs on things like waterboarding and electic shocking clear. Although I suspect he sits around and calls the people complaining about it pansies.

5) At least John McCain understands economics and is against socialized health care. I never "believe" in politicians any more, I just vote for the ones that I think will use my hotbotton issues to claw their way up (McCain) instead of the ones that I think are self-destructive or naive themselves (Obama).

Note: I don't really like John McCain that much, but he's the same liberal Republican he was in 2000.

Re:Okay. Here's *MY* blog entry, Senator (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763555)

I agree with elrous0. Any respect I had for McCain has become disgust. He has sold his soul to the very worst aspects of the Republican party. Oh, and McCain's web consultants are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They put unmoderated comments on their swag sales. Some of the ones for McCain golf balls were funny as hell. Balloon Juice caught some of them before they took them down.

Ok (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763001)

McCain French^H^H^H^H^H^H Freedom Fries are the Best!

" Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list." (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763005)

" Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why."

Maybe because /. makes the DailyKos look moderate at times?

Also, Slashdot has no business promoting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763189)

any candidate. It's a tech news/Roland Picklepail blog promotion site - not a political shill site. Oh, wait...

Re:" Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763297)

Daily Kos *is* moderate.

They're mainstream American liberal, which is what the rest of the world calls moderate since the American conservative party is so far right of center.

DKos is opinionatedly, vehemently, emphatically moderate -- in opposition to the American far right. They're not balanced, but they're moderate.

Dailykos is NOT moderate (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763577)

'Moderation' to me means a willingness to at least listen to other ideas with an open mind. This is not exemplified by Dailykos.

'Moderation' to me means disagreeing with your opponents without being disagreeable. This [dailykos.com] is not an example of treating your opponent respectfully and trying to encourage a meaningful dialog.

They're mainstream American liberal, which is what the rest of the world calls moderate since the American conservative party is so far right of center.

No, I'm sorry, they aren't 'mainstream American liberal'. They are far-left on the American political spectrum. There's nothing inherently wrong with that and they are certainly entitled to air their opinions -- but I wouldn't call them mainstream.

Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list... (2, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763009)

Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.
Just imagine beowulf cluster of those McCain blogs, [...] they do nothing!

Yikes (5, Funny)

mrphrtq (35942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763019)

Republican Web 2.0 consultant

This is a terrifying job title.

Good luck (1, Flamebait)

hags2k (1152851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763045)

McCain's key demographic just isn't as densely populated with young, tech-savvy individuals like Obama's (or other candidates [ronpaul.com] ) Besides, how does McCain expect his supporters to use a machine that he admittedly can't operate?

Re:Good luck (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763129)

I wouldn't say Ron Paul's demographic is as tech-savvy as that. Most of them know how to log in to Digg or YouTube and install basic forum/wiki software and that's about it. Moneybomb Guy Trevor Lyman pretty much just registers domains like a fiend where he sees an opportunity to profit from the cult, then just deploys the same default CMS install again and again and again, with Feedburner pledge charts.

Does a bunch of unsecured, un-updated, open-to-anonymous-editing, Mediawiki installs for Ron Paul sound very tech-savvy?

http://ronpaul.wikia.com/wiki/ [wikia.com]
http://www.rabidquill.com/ronpaulmyths/ [rabidquill.com]
http://wiki.ronpaulpresshub.com/ [ronpaulpresshub.com] (inside pages)
http://ok4ronpaul.ashlux.com/wiki/ [ashlux.com]
http://abeautifulfuturenow.com/RonPaulWiki/ [abeautifulfuturenow.com]

Why would slashdotters support Obama... (4, Informative)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763353)

On tech issues, he's entirely wrong?

Obama is getting money in torrents from IP people from Hollywood to Silicon Valley precisely because he is a strong proponent of doing everything with intellectual property that many slashdotters would virulently oppose. Ultimately, this issue trumps, economically, every issue that influences humanity more than even the war in Iraq or even global warming. Then, to top it all off, he wants to chop NASA's budget. Do the people on slashdot who support him actually read his "Issues" section on his web site, or do they just stop at "Yes we can."

googlefight (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763047)

He must have recently seen this:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=John+McCain&word2=Barack+Obama

Har har (3, Funny)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763053)

McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul [xkcd.com] , and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts.

Re:Har har (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763325)

McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul [xkcd.com] , and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts.
How'd that whole "owning the Internet" thing work out for Ron Paul?

I wonder why... (4, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763059)

Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why.

Because /. is neither primarily political, nor a blog, while the mentioned sites are both? Because there aren't a lot of disgruntled Hillary supporters here?

C'mon, Taco, you have lived through the careers of Lee Atwater, James Carville, Bill Clinton, and Karl Rove. Have you learned nothing about political strategy from the best in the business?

Re:I wonder why... (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763241)

I think Slashdoe does qualify as a newsblog. We just don't jerk ourselves off over how 2.0 we are.

Re:I wonder why... (5, Funny)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763481)

That's 'cause Slashdot is Web 0.9.

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

Re:I wonder why... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763507)

It's a call either way. I vote no; it's mostly a meta-blog, if you will, in that editors choose stories that are submitted.

To reinforce the point I was hinting at: /. readership is relatively young and tends pretty far to the left on social issues. Hillary voters - the people who, 30 years ago, were "Reagan Democrats" - are neither. She made a strong showing among traditional New Deal types, mostly older.

The life cycle of people changes their politics; ideas that seem great when you have little income, no kids, and no house often sound less great when you have more money, vulnerable children, and a large fixed asset to care for. Obama's rhetoric makes the former group happy; the latter tend to worry about it. Never forget the man's inexperience, either; he is an idiot for not sitting it out for another 8 years, letting some of his more toxic connections to Chicago politics age, and picking up some committee seats that would make people take him seriously.

As a Republican, I'm happy to watch the Democrats nominate mediocre candidate after mediocre candidate (I'm still not sure how Clinton made it through the Dem primary system; it tends to massacre those with sensible plans), but it really is amazing the sort of candidates that get put up. A freshman senator with no executive experience at all? The ideological purity tests are killing the party just like they killed the Republicans in the late 80s.

Re:I wonder why... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763419)

Because /. is neither primarily political, nor a blog, while the mentioned sites are both?

You beat me to it. This site is a news aggregator with comments. It really makes me wonder what exactly Taco thinks this site is.

Dailykos?! Seriously? (3, Funny)

Shajenko42 (627901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763067)

Sending McCain's supporters into the DailyKos is like sending lambs to the slaughter.

Re:Dailykos?! Seriously? (5, Interesting)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763205)

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

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

Let's call this election for what it is. (2, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763445)

I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does

This election has come down to race, sex, and oil.

Obama won the nomination because he won every state that had a large black population, and they overwhelmingly voted for him, and then, he split the white vote with Hillary. So now, McCain is reaching out to those white voters and po'd women that probably won't for Obama.

The PO'd women is a huge factor. If McCain picked a woman as his VP - say, Kay Hutchinson, then, that would be a smart move on his part, as, every time Obama attacked McCain on his age, it would serve to remind Hillary supporters that if McCain dies, a woman becomes president.

All McCain has to do now is flip flop a bit on drilling ANWR and off the coasts, and he can attack the Dems on supply. Let Obama defend not drilling for oil, or not supporting coal to liquids, when the price of gasoline hits $5/gal this November, and when diesel hits $6/gal. He'll make the AGW proponents happy, but no one else, and that's not enough to win an election.

McCain wins easily, carrying 40+ states.

Re:Dailykos?! Seriously? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763473)

DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst

They do that to everyone who disagrees with them. IMHO they act more or less like a left-wing Bill O'Reilly.

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

I don't think McCain is going to get as many Hillary supporters as you might think. He'll get some of the die-hards but most of her female supporters are eventually going to remember that McCain is staunchly pro-life and will come back to the Democratic Party. He'll get a lot of the working class supporters in places like WV or KT -- but the Democrats were never going to get those votes anyway -- we lost them in the 80s and haven't gotten them back since.

People have short memories.... remember all the McCain voters that swore they wouldn't vote for GWB in 2000? The overwhelming majority of them eventually did. I suspect it will be the same with HRC supporters.

Re:Dailykos?! Seriously? (1)

PhoenixFlare (319467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763495)

but it's worth putting forth a modicum of effort to find them there, nonetheless.

No, it won't be. Have you looked at the front page of DailyKos lately? Any minute amount of goodwill they get from disaffected Hillary supporters will be vastly outweighed by the posters who will treat shills competing for McCain's favor as complete jokes, if not with outright hatred....And I doubt things are much different on the other lefty blogs mentioned.

If they want to be accepted with open arms, they're better off sticking to places like RedState where any true show of support of teh evil liberals is almost immediately nuked by trigger-happy moderators.

ugh, dailykos...... (3, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763341)

Every single negative stereotype you can think of about Democrats/liberals is exemplified by some of the comments on that site. Pulling out words like "racist" or "homophobe" in the middle of a conversation because someone has a principled disagreement with you. I asked once upon a time why that was any better than Republicans who pull out words like "cut and run" if you disagree with them -- needless to say that didn't win me many friends and I got about 30 replies explaining why it was "different" when Democrats do it as opposed to Republicans.

I consider myself a staunch Democrat and a liberal/progressive in most areas and that site still seems to extreme even for me. Half of the people that contribute there seem more interested in punishing the Republicans for the last seven years then they do in moving forward. They all seem to be extremely pro-Obama yet none of them pay anymore than lip service to the part of his message about disagreeing without being disagreeable and ending the partisan rancor in Washington.

I'm particularly concerned with the O'Reillyization of our political discourse. The manufactured anger. The one-sided reporting. Automatically assuming the absolute worst intentions of your opponents instead of assuming that they just have a principled disagreement with you. I flirted with Dailykos for about two weeks before my head started to hurt and I couldn't take it any longer. Ditto for Keith Olbermann. Tried watching him -- eventually came to the conclusion that he is little better than a left-wing version of Bill O'Reilly.

I would love to see a site where people on the left, right and center could come together to discuss the issues in a calm and principled manner. Hell for that matter, I'd love to see some real journalism that didn't slant to one side or the other. Closest thing I can come up with is the Newshour on PBS.

effluent with praise... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763071)

...not an inappropriate word choice, considering what "effluent" usually refers to...

Yeah, that will make lots of friends (4, Funny)

The G (7787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763075)

"Spam lefty blogs with righty ranting to win points!" -- it's like someone created Internet Troll: The MMOG.

Re:Yeah, that will make lots of friends (1)

daliman (626662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763137)

An MMOG and a spectator sport that I want to watch!

Not a stranger to technology, huh? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763083)

Does anyone really believe that he came up with the idea himself?

Re:Not a stranger to technology, huh? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763567)

I would never expect a guy his age to come up with something like this. I would expect him to delegate it to someone with an order along the lines of "Hey college guy, get me on the internet!" He doesn't need to know how it is done, just as long as someone on the staff knows.

John McCain Has +1, Insightful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763091)



Alzeihmer's Disease.

He doesn't remember ANYTHING he says.

Stump him on Blogs? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763105)

McCain is now asking supporters to stump for him on blogs.

Where do you draw the line between the ease of use of Joomla on a Fedora based LAMP vs the security of Mambo on a FreeBSD box when both use forum modules do allow users to express their opinions on product safety?

You can't plan... (5, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763117)

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

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

Re:You can't plan... (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763247)

That's BS. There has been astroturfing for a very long time, and the best ones at it are the ones who are true believers, and are also subtle.

McCain asking his supporters to blog on DailyKos is like MS or Apple asking their PR firms to work on web presence. I'm fairly certain that PR firms hired by companies like MS and Apple astrofturf -- but at least on Slashdot we have moderation to tune out some of it (and a realtively informed readbase), so it has to be fairly subtle to work well. I'm not sure I can say the same for DailyKos or some of the other targeted sites.

Re:You can't plan... (3, Funny)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763259)

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

I believe that in the biz that's referred to as "Mainstream Republican".

War? No Thanks. (0, Troll)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763163)

Sorry, the only blog space I will be dedicating to John McCain is space to ensure that people know I don't like him.

Another (at least) 4 years of war? No thanks.
Another (at least) 4 years of bad domestic policy? No thanks.
Another (at least) 4 years of homeland spying and deceit? No thanks.

I don't like many politicians that are in the game these days, but I definitely don't like Republicans right now. Not to mention, everyone knows the blogosphere belongs to Ron Paul.

Re:War? No Thanks. (0, Troll)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763475)

Sorry my boy. You are naive. They shot kennedy because he was trying to amend the Federal Reserve Act.
Your vote does not count. Those who count the votes already know the results.

A week before election, somehow miraculously, Obama's picture with a terrorist or a hooker will appear.
It will be widely virally distributed by press and flogged on TV, even though within 48 hours Obama's team will provie it is false and doctored. Fox will run with the story so hard you will puke in your mouth. PBS will try to tell the true story but would be buried, because FOX's newscasters would be the Naked News ladies whom you would not want to miss.

Obama's supporters will still continue to support him, but the middle flock will refuse to vote citing principles.
McCain will win 50.0005% of the votes and thus win.

See, how easy it was for me to chalk out a scenario?
And imagine the damage it would do if a guy like Kar Rove thought this through.

And don't expect Pelosi or Dems to support Obama. They will let him dry out just like the way they refused to help Spitzer.

Dems don't have the passion or unity like Republicans have. They deserve to lose and lose heavily in the november election. And Pelosi should lose her seat.
That b1tch should lose so bad that the votes against her should exceed the total voters.

No. (1)

Salo2112 (628590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763187)

Sorry, Juan, you and the assclowns in DC - all of them - suck. Blog *for* you? You're lucky you're not squirming on the end of a pitchfork.

His wife doesnt have the time (3, Funny)

DeeQ (1194763) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763221)

He would do the blogging himself but his wife doesn't have the time to help him with the puter. McCainlol [digg.com]

Basically what he did was (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763235)

to ask hordes of bigoted republicans to spam the blogs with comments including a lot of believer speech ending with the word 'fact'. they kinda think if you add the word 'fact' to any sentence, whatever bullshit you are spewing becomes more believable.

Re:Basically what he did was (0, Flamebait)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763543)

Bigoted? I've seen more bigotry this year from Democrats than I've ever seen. And I don't mean black/white bigotry, though there's plenty of it. Obama is essentially a bigot. He surrounds himself with score of black bigots and purports to be clean from them. If a white candidate had attended KKK rallies for 20 years and tried to say he was just there with friends he'd be vilified. What's more is all of the anti-Hillary bigotry and anti-Republican bigotry. See we're all comfortable with our own bigotry, it's someone else's we get pissed about.

This election will come no closer to reuniting the country than anything in the last 20 years.

Receiving points (1)

fortmill (143470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763255)

>> "though the page doesn't say what exactly the points are good for."

About the same thing Slashdot points are good for: nothing.

"Effluent" ? (5, Funny)

iguana (8083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763265)

Uh, effluent?

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

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

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

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

Re:"Effluent" ? (1)

muellerr1 (868578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763435)

What word do you suppose was supposed to be in there? Effusive? Effulgent? Affluent? Maybe the author couldn't decide and just mashed all three together.

Re:"Effluent" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763549)

Someone meant to use the word 'effusive'. Unfortunately, the english, they're not so good at it.

I can help! (4, Insightful)

nycsubway (79012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763275)

I can certainly help him blog and get his name out there and what he stands for:

John McCain is a 'miserable failure', much like George W Bush. (Google take note, please) McCain wants to continue tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations at a time of huge national debt and rising unemployment. He wants to continue giving $2 billion/week to Iraq instead of spending that money in the US to fix infrastructure or develop mass transit to reduce use of fossil fuel. He supports torture of terror suspects. He does NOT support a new GI bill to give money for college education to veterans. He stated that he wants terrorists to see him as "their worst nightmare" (stated in an interview on the Daily Show).

I'm happy to help him get his name out there. The more people understand what he's now running for (instead of 8 years ago), the better.

Re:I can help! (1)

Apollo_11 (1306045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763493)

interesting

Still doesn't get it. (2, Interesting)

|/rad|/oder (202635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763289)

Encouraging people to use a medium doesn't indicate you "get" that medium. You need to immerse yourself in it and really grok it's ins and outs, as well as it's pitfalls and strengths.

If he really got the web, he'd know better than to turn a bunch of anonymous trolls loose with permission to bandy about his name.

People who "get" the web understand that communities need to be groomed by moderators.

It's time to batten down the hatches (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763307)

Bush and his cronies have successfully destroyed any and all support for a conservative government. Most people don't even know the meaning of "conservative" anymore, they think it means "christian fundamentalist". Proper conservatism is doomed. The next 20-50 years of US governments are going to be liberal, so liberal it'll curl your toenails. There's nothing that can be done about it; We as conservatives have screwed the pooch by letting Bush and all his bible-banging cronies in office. We're done, we're defeated. The best thing we can do now is hope to weather it out until the country goes bankrupt and small-government conservatism has a chance again. I've already sold off my guns and sold my airplane. I'm working on selling my truck now. I'm putting the proceeds in the bank, since I know my taxes are going up hard. I'm going to be miserable the rest of my life, but my kids are going to need the money. We need to batten down the hatches, circle the wagons, and save toward the future. Hopefully our children (or our childrens' children) can restore proper conservatism at a later time. We haven't got a chance in hell.

Spam (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763343)

So politicians too think it's cool to spam blogs and forums with their ideas.

Over my cold dead 2400 baud modem they will!

As usual, too bad all the candidates suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763347)

You would have to be a fool to think Obama knows what he is doing or that McCain or Clinton would be any better than Bush.

If I was McCain, I wouldn't worry (2, Insightful)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763351)

If I was McCain, I wouldn't worry, Obama may have his "blogs", but McCain has an ENTIRE NETWORK! http://www.foxnews.com/ [foxnews.com]

Effluent with praise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23763375)

ROFL. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Effusive, perhaps?

NOTICE (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763403)

due to the Incumbent Re-election Act of 2002 (also known as McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform), blogging about John "Wipe my ass with the first amendment" McCain within 60 days of an election is illegal.

When McCain Was a Boy... (2, Funny)

WamBam (1275048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763443)

People actually wrote little journal entries on wooden logs and then would roll them down a hill or street. Eh, that's the best I could come up with. Someone else give it a try.

Effluent with praise? (1)

curmudgeous (710771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763447)

Which definition are we using here? Granted, effluent has positive connotations, but this is the definition that comes to mind whenever I hear the word:

noun: Sewage water that has been (partially) treated, and is released into a natural body of water; a flow of any liquid waste.

It's not going to help, anyway. (1)

ibanezist00 (1306467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763477)

I honestly can't think of anyone who is an honest, informed person that takes ANY blog they read seriously. The word "blog" to me interprets as "a LiveJournal account for old, opinionated people who have no idea what they're talking about". Besides, we get enough right-wing rhetoric nowadays through other medium, and the "blogosphere" (dumbest term ever invented next to Web 2.0) is infested with it as it is. Just my $0.02.

Don't be so full of yourselves (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763479)

"Slashdot is not on their suggested blogs list. Can't imagine why."

Because unlike the left/liberal/whatever-leaning blogs listed, Slashdot is populated by rabid anarcho-capitalists that view Ron Paul as their messiah or will otherwise end up voting themseleves into utter meaninglessness this November.

I mean, the Illinois Nazis hate Bush too, and you don't see them on McCain's recommended spamming list.

Troll Army (1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763527)

DailyKos, Crooks and Liars, and Think Progress


Those astroturf marching orders will produce nothing but an invasion of trolls into those Progressive blogs. Which will be smashed to dust and mocked roundly, just like their Troll King, McCain.

Fortunately... (1)

superdan2k (135614) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763553)

...Akismet is easy to configure. "McCain" took less than 10 seconds to add to my blacklist.

You know, I'm a McCain supporter. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763565)

So I put in the word for slashdot at my secret neocon command in the bowels of Mt. Doom at GOP's secret conspiracy bunker. As I am only a low level functionary in the vast plan to corporatize the world for massive profits, I cannot guarantee success, but, let's see what happens.

Fingers crossed.

Good for instigating (2, Insightful)

pdq332 (849982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23763581)

Done correctly, conservative comments on liberal blogs like Kos could draw firey responses which could then be held up as examples of the mainstream left.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?