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!

Democratic Super PAC Buys Newtgingrich.com

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the dirty-domain-tricks dept.

The Internet 630

netbuzz writes "The purchase of newtgingrich.com by a Democratic Super PAC — and the use of it to highlight Newt Gingrich's political weaknesses — is either amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your politics and your view of the Republican presidential hopeful. In either case, however, it is a cautionary tale about the importance of controlling your brand online, a task that is about to get more difficult for everyone thanks to the impending expansion of generic top-level domains."

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

Dirty trick (5, Insightful)

crdotson (224356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458688)

I think it's a bit of a dirty trick regardless of your politics.

Re:Dirty trick (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458718)

I'd have to agree. If you go to Walmart.com, you expect it to be Walmart's site. Same with Microsoft.com, Sears.com or Chrysler.com. If a site is against it, you'd expect something more like walmartsucks.com or antiwalmart.com. It'd be sort of like finding some kind of trademark loophole where you could build a store, put Walmart's logo out front but then have the inside be expressly anti-walmart. If nothing else, it's deceptive.

Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458778)

When a politician says he intends to pass Bill X, you expect him to pass Bill X. And yet these scumbags never do what they say.

Why should anyone be in the least bit shocked that politicians are being dishonest?

Have we really still not learned that as long as we maintain representative democracy, we will maintain corruption?

Is nobody yet ready for trying something new?

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458880)

Because real life has to compromise. In that though you should be a big supporter of those Tea Party Republicans who will vote down any tax raises. They are standing by their guns and sticking to their promises even though they are obviously bad for the United States.

For the most part politicization have a list of things they really want, a list of nice to get, and a list they can take it or leave it.
When they are compromising for a bill they will try to put it all out in the table (both sides) then they will slowly take out the lower priority items as the other side does the same, until you get a bill that both sides doesn't really want but it is better then nothing.

The US Government isn't designed to run fast, it is designed to be slow and offer small solutions.

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458924)

They are standing by their guns and sticking to their promises even though they are obviously bad for the United States.

[citation needed]

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459138)

even though they are obviously bad for the United

In your less than informed opinion.

Anyone who pays attention knows that we have to STOP the spending. The government takes in more as a percent of GNP that it has since WWII...1 in every 4 dollars. Our national debt now matches our GNP. It has to stop!

And don't give any me bullshit about Bush. Obama makes Bush look like a tightwad.

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (0)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459150)

Ummm... lowering taxes is "bad for the United States". How exactly do you backup that comment? I don't think me or any other taxpayer is going to be hurt too badly if you take less money away.

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (2)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458930)

And what do you have in mind that is less evil than what we already have? Wait a second! Is that you Karl? Doh! Dirty trickster! You keep showing up in the strangest places!

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459102)

Seriously, you can't think of anything better than representative democracy?

We have this internet thingy now. It allows people to convene and collaborate without requiring that we have a politician to guide and protect us from ourselves.*

There are scores of open source governance [wikipedia.org] projects in the works. Practically any of them would be better than Newt or Barack.

* Note: it is utterly idiotic to expect that "leaders" protect us from the horrors of mob rule. Who protects us from the horrors of the leaders? Are you honestly saying that Rick Perry is smarter than a group of average people?

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (0)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459136)

Note: it is utterly idiotic to expect that "leaders" protect us from the horrors of mob rule.

Uhh, the constitution and the bill of rights? Wait! Did you got to public school? That would explain a lot. But, no, really, what "system of government" is better than a constitutional republic? I mean, you seem to think you've got a better idea, I'm willing to listen. If you don't really have a better idea and just want to see anarchy then STFU.

Re:Expecting honesty from politicians?!???!?!! (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459160)

big guys won't let us. its that simple.

we have the government that the government LETS us have.

if you otherwise, you have drunk the koolaid.

Re:Dirty trick (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458800)

I'd have to agree. If you go to Walmart.com, you expect it to be Walmart's site. Same with Microsoft.com, Sears.com or Chrysler.com. If a site is against it, you'd expect something more like walmartsucks.com or antiwalmart.com.

Dick's Sporting Goods is not at dicks.com ;-)

It'd be sort of like finding some kind of trademark loophole where you could build a store, put Walmart's logo out front but then have the inside be expressly anti-walmart. If nothing else, it's deceptive.

Putting up a store under the walmart.com domain would probably be construed as trademark infringement. Putting up a reasons-not-to-shop-at-walmart site at walmart.com would just get Walmart's legal team to try to crush you like a bug. Putting up a factual page about Newt Gingrich at newtginggrich.com won't make Mr Gingrich happy, but legally they should be OK. As far as the deceptive nature of it, nothing in politics is transparent or honest anymore. It's not a surprise that either side would try something like this.

Re:Dirty trick (4, Informative)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458836)

dicks.com actually takes me to dickssportinggoods.com. I agree with your other points though.

Re:Dirty trick (3, Funny)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458992)

dicks.com actually takes me to dickssportinggoods.com. I agree with your other points though.

Bummer. It should take you to dicks.cum

Re:Dirty trick (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458904)

If someone had purchased barackobama.com they would be...

1. Called a racist.
2. A take down notice would be issued and the domain suspended at the very least.
3. Some dumb shit congressmen/women (probably Sheila Jackson Lee...dumbest of the dumb) would call for an investigation of some kind.
4. New legislation would be authored.
5. They would be pilloried by the press ( and called a racist).

Re:Dirty trick (5, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459082)

I take issue with you saying that Sheila Jackson Lee is the dumbest of the dumb, that title clearly goes to Representative Hank Johnson (the Congressman who was concerned that deploying too many troops to Guam might cause the island to capsize).

Re:Dirty trick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459100)

Yeah, ok...

Re:Dirty trick (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458864)

if you go to walmartsucks.com though, you don't expect to be redirected to walmart.com though...

Re:Dirty trick (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458868)

I'd have to agree. If you go to Walmart.com, you expect it to be Walmart's site. Same with Microsoft.com, Sears.com or Chrysler.com. If a site is against it, you'd expect something more like walmartsucks.com or antiwalmart.com. It'd be sort of like finding some kind of trademark loophole where you could build a store, put Walmart's logo out front but then have the inside be expressly anti-walmart. If nothing else, it's deceptive.

Is there a different person of the same name (Newt Gingrich) in the Democratic party? I've no idea how likely that is, but it would then make the registration of the domain less of a dirty trick. It could still be rather deceptive, of course, depending how it was used.

Re:Dirty trick (4, Insightful)

mischi_amnesiac (837989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458872)

Yeah, and I really expected to find information regarding the white house when I went to whitehouse.com.

Re:Dirty trick (3, Interesting)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458926)

In all fairness this is politics. Also this is Newt Gingrich, how many people are going to type in that domain name and get the spelling correct? If anything people will put his name (misspelled or not) into a search engine, which will then pull up the correct site. That may change with the /. effect bringing traffic to that domain with his name in the content. Newts people definitely need to obtain this domain even if they lose and they need to purchase all known misspellings of the domain as well.

Re:Dirty trick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458944)

Walmart I know at one time owned unionizewalmart.com

Re:Dirty trick (5, Funny)

jitterman (987991) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459120)

I agree, but you must admit, it was pretty funny several years ago to go to peta.com and get People Eating Tasty Animals.

Re:Dirty trick (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458722)

Why didn't the guy who got paid millions from many companies because of his status as a public figure, not purchase it himself? Dirty, maybe... but again, Newt is the dumb one for not already purchasing this domain.

We need our congressmen to be put to the test on all these issues, so they can make a good call when it comes time to vote about them.

It links to FREDDIE MAC (2, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458762)

Just tried the link http://newtgingrich.com/ [newtgingrich.com] and up comes freddiemac.com, which you may recall is the organization that paid newt 50,000 per hour for consulting. Now Newt considers this a feather in his cap and a good example of how his intellectual abilities are well appreciated. So it hardly seems like this is sandbagging him. He'd approve of this recommendation.

It's on a randomizer (3, Informative)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458788)

Try it a few times: http://newtgingrich.com/ [newtgingrich.com]

Re:It links to FREDDIE MAC (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459024)

Just tried the link http://newtgingrich.com/ [newtgingrich.com] and up comes freddiemac.com

Looks like it is on a rotating forwarder. The briefest of examinations suggests that it sends people to a URL from this list:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/gingrichs-campaign-still-looks-awful-lot-book-tour/45977/ [theatlanticwire.com]
http://www.greektravel.com/ [greektravel.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/gingrich-senior-aides-resign/2011/06/09/AGN77VNH_blog.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.tiffany.com/?siteid=1 [tiffany.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54 [youtube.com]
http://www.freddiemac.com/ [freddiemac.com]
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/11/60353/gingrich-porn/ [thinkprogress.org]
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=654836 [intrade.com]

I think it is great. I'd think it was funny if it happened to any politician, or any public figure really.
At a minimum it is funny because of all the people who will get their panties in a wad over it.

Re:Dirty trick (4, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459140)

This was my thought exactly. How did he not buy up all of the relevant domain names when he started his campaign (newtgingrich.com, newtgingrichsucks.com, newtgingrichblows.com, etc.)? That's just being smart! Not much of a candidate for the new millennium is he?

Re:Dirty trick (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458728)

Yeah. But against some evils, aren't 'dirty tricks' somewhat justified?

Re:Dirty trick (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458810)

A political stance against big government control, isn't evil.
Most politics are not based of evil, it is based on people thinking what is best.

The Hard Noes republicans, who are against all sorts of government services such as welfare and unemployment, are not for it because they want to watch people suffer in poverty, but feel the government need to give them some tough love to get them off their butts and work for themselves.

The Hard Noes democrats, who are all for massive government services and expenditures, are not for it because such costs could bankrupt the United States, but feel there is a set of services that all people in a wealthy country such as the United States should all get.

Re:Dirty trick (1)

x6060 (672364) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458922)

Wow, someone that gets it. Thank you.

Re:Dirty trick (5, Insightful)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458994)

Summarizing republicans as "against big government" is a bit misleading. It's more of a "Against big government, except where it pleases us, our sponsors or enforces our belief system". Or would you honestly say that republicans oppose farming subsidies or military spending? Or support limiting the federal government's ability to spy on its people? Or demand more secularization of the federal government?I think that republicans ideologically being against big government is a myth and instead they are for it or against it depending on what benefits them in each individual case. (And I want to be very clear here: I don't consider that approach to be a bad one. I just think it shouldn't be combined to "small government" rhetoric.)

That said, I actually think that Newt is the best one republicans have to offer at the moment. He's not one of the craziest ones* and he has a lot more consistency than many other candidates. I do disagree with him in most issues but I think he's relatively respectable when it comes to acting as a politician.

Re:Dirty trick (5, Insightful)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459106)

feel the government need to give them some tough love to get them off their butts and work for themselves

This is being far too kind for them. They feel that the only reason that someone could be unemployed in the current economic climate is because they deserve to be - despite 10% unemployment or even higher in some areas, despite even minimum-wage jobs at McDonalds having dozens of applicants for each position, despite all the copious evidence that the work just isn't there.

What's more, the reason they're so keen on this idea is not because they have a reasonable belief that it's true but because it justifies cutting taxes and spending in ways that benefit their wealthy friends and screw the poor. After all, so their reasoning goes, the only reason the poor aren't as wealthy as their rich friends is because they're lazy and don't deserve to be - never mind the fact that America has some of the worst class mobility in the world and that pretty much the only reason the rich are so much better off is because their parents were too, or just how much harder the poor have to work.

How Are The Republicans For Small Govt? (4, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459130)

Do you know what Corporate Welfare is?

The Republicans are all for Big Government provided it benefit the rich.

It's both (4, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458766)

It's sad what we have come to expect from politicians. On one hand, this is a dirty low down trick. On the other hand, Newt is a lying, cheating ass, so it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. But so are all the other Washington politicians, lobbyists and PAC executives, on both sides of the aisle. So on some primal level I get entertained when it happens to someone I don't like a lot, like when I'm watching professional wrestling or a soap opera. And this is where our government has degenerated to.

Re:It's both (2)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458956)

Newt is a lying, cheating ass, so it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. But so are all the other Washington politicians, lobbyists and PAC executives, on both sides of the aisle.

There is an issue of degree here, and that should not be ignored. It is true that none of them is a saint, but they fail at being a saint for different reasons and at different levels. Burying your head in the sand won't help. You have to judge wisely, make choices and vote accordingly, otherwise things will only change for the worse. Right now it is easy, as IMO it is pretty clear that republicans are way more evil than democrats.

Re:It's both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459164)

I have chosen wisely, thats why I tell everyone who will listen that we need to give up the ghost and talk about a new constitutional convention.

The vast majority in polls not only said that they think their rep doesn't care about their issues, but that the other party is no better. Whats that say in a voting system that is pretty much designed from the ground up to enforce a two party (not one or three or more) lockdown? If neither party is any good, and the majority of people know it.... then its time for more fundamental change than the system that exists now is capable of delivering.

This system has about as much chance of fixing itself as a CEO has a chance of closing down a factory and moving production to china if he were to make the decision by taking a poll of the workers in the factory as to whether to outsource their jobs. Its just not going to happen, nobody is going to vote to lose the power he has fought so hard to get....well few people anyway....and not a supermajority.

Re:Dirty trick (5, Insightful)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458776)

The purchase of newtgingrich.com by a Democratic Super PAC — and the use of it to highlight Newt Gingrich's political weaknesses — is either amusing or a dirty trick

Can't it be both?

Re:Dirty trick (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458900)

Man, the DNC hacks are already hard at work modding your perfectly obvious comment down... Troll? Really? There is no "-1 No in favor of my political party", that's not what troll means!

Re:Dirty trick (2)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458940)

On the other hand, I think it's humorous regardless of your politics.

Re:Dirty trick (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459010)

Eh, I think there are a lot more and a lot worse dirty tricks in Washington elections.

But this is an utter DUMB mistake on the part of Newt's internet campaign manager.

No excuse....

Re:Dirty trick (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459048)

In the Democrat's defense, it's unlikely Newt would have used it anyway. He still thinks the internet is just something hippies use to plot the overthrow of this blessed Christian nation.

Re:Dirty trick (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459116)

I think it's a little stupid too, since Newt Gingrich [newt.org] already has a web site with a much cooler 4-character name.

Then again, it's kind of bad on Newt's part too for not having preemptively bought it long ago and set it as a redirect.

Waste of money (-1, Flamebait)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458708)

Newt is already not gonna win. They should have focused on Mitt.

Re:Waste of money (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458870)

When Glen Beck does not support a republican, you KNOW he cant win.

Re:Waste of money (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458998)

Mitt won't win either. Enough Mormon fearing fundies and tea-bag purists will not vote for him in a general election that he is pretty much unelectable as a Republican nominee. So Newt sells more books and our nation is spared another Republican president. Win-win.

Protect Your Name (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458720)

In this day and age it is the responsibility of a public person (or a company) to protect their name, which includes domain names. The fact that Mr Gingrich has been in politics for a long time and didn't bother to purchase the domain says a lot about his understanding of how some things work in this day and age.

Re:Protect Your Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459064)

In this day and age it is the responsibility of a public person (or a company) to protect their name, which includes domain names. The fact that Mr Gingrich has been in politics for a long time and didn't bother to purchase the domain says a lot about his understanding of how some things work in this day and age.

Isn't whitehouse.com a porn site?

Yeah, that's Bush's fault too, right?

Re:Protect Your Name (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459080)

The fact that Mr Gingrich has been in politics for a long time and didn't bother to purchase the domain says a lot about his understanding of how some things work in this day and age.

But he has 1.2 million twitter followers [pcmag.com] surely he is a master of teh intertubez!

If that's what you need to win (3, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458724)

Then why the fuck should I vote for you?

adversarial government (2)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458826)

Then why the fuck should I vote for you?

Our form of government is intentionally set up to display adversarial behaviour. Unlike a monarchy where there is a single voice and perhaps no free press. In the US we set up a system where opposing parties could say whatg was wrong with the other team. Newspapers could shine sunlight and free speech assured no one could supress these opposition messages. It helps keep politicians honest and the people informed when they are not up holding the ideals they promote.

Your implied condemnation is not quite appropriate in this case. It's a good thing to have the opposition offer up the case for why the opponent is weak. Where it goes off track is when it mucks around in things that are salacious and irrelevant or distorts the truth. Pointing out that Gingrich favored freddies mac while being paid to do so, and then condemning when his payments stopped is fair.

Re:adversarial government (4, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459020)

You can point out whatever you like about a candidate, but don't try and deceive the voters by registering a domain name of your opponents name. That's a dirty trick, it should be called out for what it is, not spun away like this is politics as usual. And that's what everyone should be upset about: This is an attempt to deceive voters or at the very least prevent Newt from registering the domain he in any fairness has a right to.

I would say the same thing if a Republican tried this. It's low down and dirty and is on the same level as having your opponents removed from the ballot on a technicality. If you can't stand without perpetrating fraud against voters then how honest can I expect you to be when you're elected and actually have a bit of power?

Of course it is (1)

davec727 (1263298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458730)

In a world of gerrymandering, voter suppression, fake recall signatures, and the lies, damn lies, and statistics being pushed as fact by various players, dirty tricks are the new black.

Re:Of course it is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458928)

In a world of gerrymandering, voter suppression, fake recall signatures, and the lies, damn lies, and statistics being pushed as fact by various players, dirty tricks are the new black.

So that makes it ok? Rather than excusing this behavior, we need to be prosecuting it and refusing to vote for those that perpetrate it.

Posting anon to protect previous moderation.

ArcherB

The bigger question is - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458732)

who controls newtgingrich.xxx?

Re:The bigger question is - (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459002)

who controls newtgingrich.xxx?

"This domain has been reserved from registration."
Perhaps the registrar has an aversion to lawsuits. It might be educational to try various $NameOfPublicFigure.xxx domains.

Re:The bigger question is - (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459066)

Would that constitute as a WMD?

Millions gone blind after accidentally being re-directed to naked photos of Newt Gingrich.

amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458738)

"amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your politics??"

I am not a fan for Newt Gingrich but this is a dirty trick.

People who want to learn about the candidate will want to go to their web site to see their official stance on things. This is an attempt to keep the public misinformed by the opposition.

Mr. Gingrich has a sorted political past, and if you go to the others web sites they will tell all about it. You really need to hear his side too for people to get a full picture of who you should be voting for.

Lets all complain how stupid the voters are and they don't do their research, then in the same breath we reward and pat on the back members of your political beliefs their attempt to misdirect the public to only see their views.

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458832)

sordid

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458844)

He turned me into a newt!

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458908)

Mr. Gingrich has a sorted political past

Yes, usually it's sorted by date, but I suppose you could also sort it by newspaper headline title alphabetically; this seems kind of useless though.

Or perhaps you meant SORDID.

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458938)

It's hardly a dirty trick then. People going to the site will learn about the man, just not the details the man himself would have you believe. So by your own logic, this stunt is vastly superior for education that a lame advert from the GOP.

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458952)

Mr. Gingrich has a sorted political past

He's sorted his political past? That's pretty organized. Is that done alphabetically or by date?

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (5, Insightful)

brusk (135896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459006)

People who want to learn about the candidate will want to go to their web site to see their official stance on things. This is an attempt to keep the public misinformed by the opposition.

You can still do that. It's at newt.org. And how does this use of the URL "misinform" anybody"? It redirects to media reports about him, organizations he has worked for, a public-service video he appeared in with Nancy Pelosi, etc. How is any of this "misinformation"? It's information he doesn't want to emphasize in his current campaign, sure, but that doesn't make it false or even deceptive.

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459060)

Every time the DNC tries to pull some dirty trick like this it back fires on them. IMO all these politicians are dirty because they all work in a cesspool of corruption.

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459122)

People who want to learn about the candidate will want to go to their web site to see their official stance on things.

Maybe a tiny minority will. Everybody else will just type his name into google or yahoo and end up at www.newt.org instead.

Re:amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your??? (4, Funny)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459154)

Mr. Gingrich has a sorted political past

Oh what to go with... how about this:

Did he use a quick sort or a bubble sort? Maybe a merge sort?

Very fitting (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458742)

It's perfect, since Gingrich never was a conservative, he is quite liberal or progressive or corrupt, take your pick.

Re:Very fitting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458798)

Who ever said the republican party was about being conservative? It sure did not start that way. Oh you look skeptical. Go look at the history of it. It will be quite the eye opener for you. Then look at who opposed their measures all along the way. That will be an eye opener for you.

Also while a 'dirty trick'. Newt most certainly has a claim to it and the DNS guys have a very well thought out plan for people who pull this sort of stunt... They just simply wasted their time and the time of some volunteer in the Gingrich camp.

Re:Very fitting (0)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458804)

He is as much a liberal as Obama is a liberal - ie. not at all.

Re:Very fitting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459098)

Obama is someone who understands protecting his image. He plays the centrist when the cameras are on, but if you look at the people in his life and the people he invites to the WH and the people he tries to appoint, there are more than a few hard-core socialists and the occasional devout communist in the mix. By himself, he's the image he projects (and the words he reads), but in his context I'm pretty sure he's a leftist Trojan Horse who's flying whatever flag will help him get re-elected.

Re:Very fitting (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458988)

Whatever conservativism means in modern America, Gingrich is it. He would describe himself as conservative, his allied would describe themselves as conservatives, and his opposition describes him as conservative. He lead the 1994 Republican revolution that put conservatives back in power in the US. If Gingrich isn't conservative, you're going to have to rewrite almost 20 years of political history. If your particular political persuasion isn't compatible with Gingrich's, you need to find a less overloaded term for it.

Re:Very fitting (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459052)

It's perfect, since Gingrich never was a conservative, he is quite liberal or progressive or corrupt, take your pick.

I'd say "corrupt and hypocritical" is the right answer.
He's been in politics for decades. This invariably results in corruption, hypocrisy, and the instincts of a weasel. Usually, they get rich, also.

Two can play at that game (0)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458774)

And Gingrich should retaliate by buying barrackhusseinobama.com which appears to be for sale and posting licensed copies of all of the trashy tabloids that accuse Michelle of cheating with a Secret Service agent and Obama of being a homosexual coke fiend.

Re:Two can play at that game (2)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458852)

It's probably still for sale because that's not how his name is spelled.

Re:Two can play at that game (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459014)

As amusing as that would be, hell I would love to see a scorched earth campaign where it basically becomes a caricature of its self, it still would be the BS that seems to have too much sway over elections. Now all we would need is an American Idol setup where people can vote off each candidate for the party's nomination each week all culminating in the finally show which would be the general election with the results show the following day. It might actually be less crooked this way.

On a side note last week I saw a discussion in the British Parliament between PM Gordon Brown and the opposition coalition on BBC World and it was hilarious. They really go after each other even on a personal level.

pr0n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458802)

So who has NewtGingrich.xxx?

This is plain old cybersquatting. (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458806)

There is already a law in place to deal with this.
Newt can own this domain by the end of the week, once he brings in a good lawyer.

LK

That Law Doesn't Protect Politicians (2)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459144)

Just the owners of registered trademarks.

You know (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458816)

(Most of) the rest of the country doesn't have this amount of hate for each other. What happened to simply presenting your platform and letting voters decide?

Re:You know (2)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459132)

Kind of died when the platform of both parties became "spend more, engage in more corruption, screw the little guy, blame the other side, and win the next election."

New Yorker Article (1)

irockash (1265506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458820)

The New Yorker also has an article about how Super PACs are hurting Newt Gingrich [newyorker.com]

A candidate who to many embodies the corrupting effect of money on politics faces elimination largely because he hasn’t done a good enough job raising slush money.

Did they also buy up www.newtgingrich.xxx?

How about both (4, Interesting)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458846)

How about it is an amusing dirty trick. I like the political horse race and I guess it is my spectator sport, but this is pretty dirty, but at the same time I find it amusing as hell. Gingrich isn't my candidate but tactics like this just distract from the real issues, but unfortunatly the 2 most important factors in an election tend to be BS and wedge issues to get your base out.

Same as patent trolling. (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458866)

If you think it's evil to prevent fair competition in smartphones by patenting common functions with plenty of prior art ([1] [slashdot.org] , [2] [slashdot.org] ) to prevent fair competition, how is this any different? Why not allow people to make their choices based on the merit of the individual? Is it that the DNC thinks the average voter is too stupid and needs to be manipulated into voting the "correct way"? Do you really need to trick people to vote for you?

This reminds me of a unattributable quote I've heard more than once: "The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative is afraid that you don't understand what they are talking about, while a liberal is afraid you do."

Re:Same as patent trolling. (1)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459046)

This reminds me of a unattributable quote I've heard more than once: "The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative is afraid that you don't understand what they are talking about, while a liberal is afraid you do."

That is one of those stupid quotes that can be easily reversed and whatever your politics are, you'll agree with one of two versions and not the other.

Nothing but a dirty trick. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458876)

If some Republican group bought barackobama.com and used it to highlight his flaws, there would be loud and immediate outrage, and rightfully so. It doesn't matter which side you're on, this is NOT how to play the game. But because it's a Democratic PAC (surprises me that it's NOT MoveOn, actually), they'll probably get a pass. Why be outraged when they're "right"? Seems funny to me that while the Republicans are the ones commonly branded as fascist neo-nazis, you see a lot more Democrats using the "it doesn't matter how I win because I'm morally right and know better than you, end of story" argument.

That being said, why is this even necessary. Newt's a dickhead who's going to lose the election anyway. Not saying Obama is any better (keeping Guantanamo open, NDAA, etc), but it's not like we don't know how things are going to go in November, sadly enough...

Re:Nothing but a dirty trick. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459040)

If some Republican group bought barackobama.com and used it to highlight his flaws, there would be loud and immediate outrage.

Doubtful. But Obama's not 5,000,000 years old like Newt-he was internet-savvy enough to register his domain himself.

It doesn't matter which side you're on, this is NOT how to play the game.

Yeah, this is so unfair! It's way worse than holding unemployment benefits hostage so that the super-rich don't have to pay their fair share in taxes!

It's a good way to get a job as a webmaster (5, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458882)

Shortly before a San Francisco Mayoral election a friend by the name of Andy Hasse registered the .coms of all of the expected candidates. One such candidate, upon finding that his domain was cyberly squatted upon, asked what he could do about it. Andy pitched his web consulting services then was hired by that candidate to do his site.

Andy was at the time a recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz and was living the Bohemian lifestyle in The Mission District. He was just starting out. Imagine his great surprise - and mine as well - when Andy made the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle when the Willie Brown campaign discovered that willybrown.com was owned by one of the staff for a competing campaign.

That was a long time ago; I'm not sure that the article would still be online. Let me check... Ah! Here We Go! [sfgate.com]

Willie Brown is to San Frasncisco politics as the Kennedys were once to American politics. While Willie has many supporters in San Francisco, it's quite definitely old-skool big-city machine politices.

I suggested that Andy take advantage of his fifteen minutes by offering him some free hosting. The Willie Brown website [williebrown.com] is no longer online, with the registrant being hidden by a private registration service. But based on the creation date, that domain just has to still owned by Andy.

Let's ask The Wayback Machine... Service With A Smile. [archive.org]

Sometime later an incredibly right-wing guy by the name of Dan Lungren was running for California State Attorney General. "Did you register Dan Lundgren's domain?" I asked Andy.

"Yup," he replied. "Com, Net and Org."

Does it matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38458936)

Most people will just follow the indoctrination of their favorite TV station and/or what their local peers tell them. The few people who do actual research before they vote won't change their mind because of a single website. Does this really matter? I mean really?

Does This Tactic Accomplish Anything (0)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458950)

I'm a proud liberal atheist ubuntu firefox users.

I've seen this tactic used by other groups. I'm not being rhetorical. Does it accomplish anything? It seems to me to be nothing more than expensive thumb nosing.

Re:Does This Tactic Accomplish Anything (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459092)

I'm a proud liberal atheist ubuntu firefox users.

Do you have dissociative identity disorder [wikipedia.org] ?

what is the likely path for users to get there? (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458958)

This seems utterly inconsequential to me. Who in the world sets out to find information about John Smith by typing johnsmith.com into the URL bar of a browser? Yes, there are plenty of people who don't really understand what a search engine is or how to use one effectively, and, yes, browsers' GUIs have recently started blurring the conceptual line between URLs and search terms. But is there really any likely path for users to get to newtgingrich.com other than having someone else say to them, "Hey, go to newtgingrich.com?"

Re:what is the likely path for users to get there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459000)

The more this article shows up on slashdot, reddit, digg, huffington, fox news, facebook, twitter, etc., the more people type newtgingrich.com, the more buzz that comes up...well go ahead and look, I bet it's relevance in search engines is climbing as I type!

I for one... (2)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458966)

welcome Newt Gingrich's popularity in the GOP primaries.

It will make it a whole lot easier to reelect President Obama. The only down side is that it will make his campaign staff fat and lazy, as they will not have to work to find baggage to pull up on Gingrich.

Lame (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38458970)

A total of three news stories in rotation, one months old, another years old. Interspersed with ads. This isn't political, it's just advertising.

Not as bad as Santorum's problem (2)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459026)

A lot will depend on how google handles it. If you google "gingrich" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" or just look at the first result returned, what page will it be?

No matter how bad newtgingrich.com turns out, it can't possibly be as bad as what you get when you google Santorum
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=santorum [google.com] ...

Or can it?

clone campaign (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459072)

you could pretty much take the same content and put it up for every presidential candidate and nobody would know the difference.

Its free market capitalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459084)

We dont need big brother requiring you to prove you deserve the site name. Its free market capitalism as its finest.

No seriously this is why we need governmental oversight.

It has to be on or the other? (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38459094)

I see it as amusingly dirty.

I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38459118)

Greek travel???

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?