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!

Political Mudslinging Via YouTube, MySpace

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the don't-forget-to-duck dept.

249

An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek takes a look at how political campaigns are taking the time-honored tradition of political mudslinging digital. One notable example: In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead over challenger Jim Webb until one of Webb's camera-toting aides captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop. The video soon held the number 1 ranking on YouTube and gained national attention. Allen has since taken a steep drop in the polls, and Republicans now risk losing a seat they thought secure."

cancel ×

249 comments

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

Mudslinging? How? (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693451)

BusinessWeek takes a look at how political campaigns are taking the time-honored tradition of political mudslinging digital. One notable example: In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead over challenger Jim Webb until one of Webb's camera-toting aides captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.
How is that 'mudslinging?' The definition of mudslinger is "one that uses offensive epithets and abuse/insult especially against a political opponent." I mean, if you show a video (without doctoring it) of your opponent saying "macaca" and it really happened, how are you mudslinging? I'd sure like to know if the guy I'm voting for is willing to call a group of people something offensive.

I haven't been able to see the video but if it's accompanied by some commentary like, "... George Allen's typical closed minded Republican speak ..." then I could classify this as mudslinging because not all Republicans are like this. What's truly unfortunate is that the people who were going to vote for him as a viable candidate may now have no where to turn in time for the election. Jim Webb could have all the wrong stances on issues and he might win by default for an ignorant use of a word by his opponent. Well, I guess that's American politics.

Muslinging still is rampant and there still are videos ... but when they're not lies or aren't pertinent, I'm interested in seeing them. A lot of the time, I don't believe what I see/hear unless it's verifiable [factcheck.org] or (as in this case) it's coming from the candidates mouth. It doesn't matter if it's TV, the radio, the internet or even my best friend, I'd still want verification.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

biendamon (723952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693503)

Yeah, this one isn't mudslinging. This one is George Allen being himself, on camera, without any doctoring whatsoever.

A classic example of real mudslinging would be the Willie Horton ad; it insulted Bush Sr.'s opponent, played off racist fears (without using any overt racism), and took an explicitly biased stance against Michael Dukakis. That's mudslinging.

This was just a politician hanging his own political career in front of millions.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

seriesrover (867969) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693867)

...or, if memory serves, the moveon.org ad trying to associate a republican candiate to the horrific dragging of an African American behind a truck.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694099)

Now you're mudslinging, because your statement is pretty vague. The details are important. For example, was the candidate driving the truck? Or was the candidate unconnected completely? The details mattere here.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694627)

The commercials [gwu.edu] were trying to associate then governor Bush with the attacks by implying he was racist for not supporting increased hate crime legislation.

Though commenting on your sig, I'd say that the current administration is more an indictment on liberal fiscal policies than conservative. Bush's policies certainly aren't a platform of states' rights and fiscal responsibility.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693547)

How is that 'mudslinging?' The definition of mudslinger is "one that uses offensive epithets and abuse/insult especially against a political opponent." I mean, if you show a video (without doctoring it) of your opponent saying "macaca" and it really happened, how are you mudslinging? I'd sure like to know if the guy I'm voting for is willing to call a group of people something offensive.

I think mudslinging generally refers to the practice of negative campaigning, which the "macaca" video definitely was. Using that was tactical, but it didn't refute Allen's ideas or voting record. Sure, I don't want to vote for a racist, and it's relevant, but I'd rather hear Webb tell me why Allen's politics don't work. But he hasn't.

Not that it's one-sided, Allen's nailed Webb too. In fact, that entire campaign has been nothing BUT mudslinging, really. I haven't heard either one of those guys say what he's really going to be about when he gets/stays in Washington (besides the usual family values crap).

For reference, yeah, I live in Virginia. And I plan on voting for the most obscure independent candidate I can find in that race, because I can't stand either one of those clowns.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

catfood (40112) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693707)

I think mudslinging generally refers to the practice of negative campaigning...

No it doesn't. Mudslinging is a pretty well-defined term. You have to wonder about the motivations of people who want to blur that meaning.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693755)

Nobody in politics intentionally misuses words for any purpose, especially not for propaganda. Only a fascist like you would think otherwise.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694571)

That's just slinging mud at people who want to blur the meaning!!!

Or is it?

/head asplodes

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693637)

How is that 'mudslinging?

TFS cites this as an exception, because it's not mudslinging. I'm sure it woudn't take more than two fingers and three minutes to find plenty of business-as-usual campaign rhetoric. Not that I'm going to go look — I get quite enough of that already.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693641)

I agree; this isn't mudslinging, it is a video of a politician sticking his foot in his mouth. At one time I was leaning towards voting for Senator Allen, but not after that incident and his pathetic attempt to "explain it away".

Here's the wikipedia entry on the word "macaca" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaca_(slur) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Mudslinging? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693983)

Had you actually bothered to check the history of this article you would have learned that it was created on August 16, 2006. Of course, I'm not an american so I don't know for sure, but I'll bet serious money that the actual incident happened on August 15, and the whole article's purpose is just to dig up obscure knownledge to use against someone who used what he thought was a general insult, without knowing its rascist history.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694029)

Had you actually bothered to check the history of this article you would have learned that it was created on August 16, 2006. Of course, I'm not an american so I don't know for sure, but I'll bet serious money that the actual incident happened on August 15, and the whole article's purpose is just to dig up obscure knownledge to use against someone who used what he thought was a general insult, without knowing its rascist history.

No..this was pretty heavily played in the news for a few weeks after it happened. Today's reference is not digging up something obscure, but something that changed the dynamic of the VA senate race two months ago.

Prior to the incident, Allen was solidly ahead in the polls... afterward, he stumbled badly... especially after his poor attempts at explaining it away.

More mud (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694465)

He also used to have a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest [wikipedia.org] in his office (note: Allen was born in California and did not demonstrate any fealty to the Confederate "culture" prior to moving to Virginia), and two flags - the American flag (quite appropriate) and the Confederate battle flag (see previous note). Finally, he named his son "Forrest" as well. One could argue that his son Forrest could be named after anyone, but the fact that Allen himself had a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office definitely gives a strong clue as to who his son was named for.

Us and them (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693697)

It's interesting how the wide range of human hopes and opinions can be reduced to us and them by the US electoral system.

 

Re:Us and them (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694113)

Yours is a very insightful post (hint to moderators), but the "us and them" mentality pre-dates the US electoral system by a few million years. It is sad that we (yes, I am including myself) tend to think as members of tribes than as members of homo sapiens sapiens.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693771)

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. (NOTE: I am a conservative liberal who voted for Kerry and previously Nader. I will never again vote third party)

You bring up issues, but as all of us Bush supporters know issues aren't what count! It's CHARACTER! And it's apparent that this man lacks character by simply uttering such offensive terms. This is up there with that evil Democrat who called one of Bush's nominees to the supreme court that racist slur: Neanderthal! Anyone with a brain will see that even if the other candidate might be wrong on the issues, he has more character than this candidate and therefore deserves to be elected to office!

We now return you to your reglarly scheduled heckling.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693783)

Oblig Simpsons Quote "All the kids in Springfield are SOB's."

Re:Mudslinging? How? (2, Insightful)

s20451 (410424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693839)

I'd sure like to know if the guy I'm voting for is willing to call a group of people something offensive.

It's somewhat hard to believe that there is any candidate for any office in the land who has never told a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke at any time in their lives.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694145)

It's somewhat hard to believe that there is any candidate for any office in the land who has never told a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke at any time in their lives.
But there are many candidates who never told a racial, ethnic, or sexist joke during a campaign - on camera.


It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (2, Informative)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694201)

Telling a joke doesn't make you a racist. Calling people macaca to their face, putting deer heads into the mailboxes of black families, and standing up with the members of the Council of Conservative Citizens (a KKK front group) makes you a racist.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694243)

Difference being that most political candidates probably tell these jokes in private, away from the private eye and certainly not anywhere a video camera might pick it up.

If I were a supervisor I can go home and say anything I want about my incompitent employees to my wife, kids, friends in the privacy of my own home. However, it is highly unethical to say the same things in the presence of other coworkers.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694439)

If I were a supervisor I can go home and say anything I want about my incompitent employees to my wife, kids, friends in the privacy of my own home. However, it is highly unethical to say the same things in the presence of other coworkers.
Actually, it's unethical if you tell your wife and kids, too.

You're just somewhat less likely to get fired for it.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694387)

Yes. Telling an ethnic joke is the same thing as referring to someone as "macaca".

OTOH - don't you watch Jon Stewart? (1)

wsanders (114993) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693893)

OTOH there are 10 times as many videos that take liberites with context. Jon Stewart has been airing them nightly.

Last night, an ad said something to the effect of "Joe Blow would let this man walk free!" "This man" was just a picture of some random black guy, poory lit in OJ-on-Newsweek fashion. For all I know the guy was in prison for jaywalking and probably deserves to go free.

But this has nothing to do with You Tube. Just how sad US politics has become, where this issues don't matter and all that counts is whether you're an agressive fascist punk, no matter what side you're on.

For all you non-'Merkins, the Allen contest has been particularly nasty, like tow chimps throwing feces at each other, except one side has more feces than the other. Thankfully I live in California.

Re:OTOH - don't you watch Jon Stewart? (1)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694229)

like tow chimps throwing feces at each other

Tow chimps? Are those like junkyard dogs? They sound nasty...

It's YOUR FAULT!!! (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694569)

You do realize that we have you to thank for George Allen [wikipedia.org] , don't you? He was born in Whittier, California. (This is not meant to be any kind of "carpet bagging" slur, as Webb was born in Missouri, and as for me, well, I was born in (West) Germany - as an army brat.)

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1, Insightful)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693907)

What's truly unfortunate is that the people who were going to vote for him as a viable candidate may now have no where to turn in time for the election.

What I assume nobody else is going to comment on is what a complete fool you are for assuming the electoral process is still functional in the first place. This [youtube.com] might give you a slightly more realistic perspective on the state of America's political health.

I'm not advocating doing nothing, at all...but the longer people keep pretending that the current system still works, the closer you go to a situation where Bush's dictatorship will become entrenched beyond your ability to remove it. You need to stop pretending once and for all that you are still living in a democracy...you are not. It is a delusion which, if you persist in it for much longer, could very well end up costing many of you your lives.

What I would advocate anyone and everyone in the US to start doing from this point on is to become as friendly with people in the military as they can...because when it comes down to the wire, your life is going to literally depend on whose side the military are on...

Bush's, or yours.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694493)

That's hilarious. I'm bookmarking this and returning in 2010. I just want to see how "insightful" this is. Oh yeah, and the Army? They're waaaaay more beholden to America than the sitting President. Don't go putting crap on their shoulders.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694645)

Bush's dictatorship? Never really lived under a dictatorship, have you? Either your disingenuous, or criminally naive. If this were truly the place you seem to believe, you DO understand that you, for holding such views, would be dead? Or the black helicopters would be on their way, at least?

Only the hysterically-emo, hang-wringing naive suburban leftist could POSSIBLY equate the current political structure of the US with a dictatorship, the same kind of person that would have no trouble slinging the terms 'genocide' or 'holocaust' at whatever happens to fill their 'fear-o-meter' for the moment.

You're a palpably insane, with paranoid delusions. It's a sordid comment on the audience of slashdot, and the no-holds-barred political climate that sees value in feeding your particular phobia rather than getting you the professional help you need, that you are rated 'insightful'.

Re:Mudslinging? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694001)

...if you show a video (without doctoring it) of your opponent saying "macaca" and it really happened, how are you mudslinging?

What if one were to show a short animated clip of an animated boar and meerkat singing "Hakuna Macaca" with George Allen's head floating around in the background? Could that be construed as "mudslinging"?

Re:Mudslinging? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694453)

I watched the clip and didn't hear any slur; is this all marketing? What did folks hear?

Wait, this is mudslinging? (2, Insightful)

Nevyn (5505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693453)

In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead [...] until [...] footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.

Err, sorry to break it to you US MSM but informing people that someone is a racists POS, when that is the case and you have evidence to prove it, is not mudslinging. Also note, for future reference, presenting both to stories about "my sky budy says evolution isn't true" ... not objective reporting.

Re:Wait, this is mudslinging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693649)

If it does not benefit a republican candidate it is mudslinging. If it benefits a republican candidate then it's getting the truth out.

Big difference.

Re:Wait, this is mudslinging? (0, Troll)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693789)

Yet the Democrats rallied behind Clinton despite his being proven to be an adulterous bastard. They called the Republicans all kinds of names and accused them of political games and what not for bring this issue to light. Some people feel about adulterers the way you appear to feel about racists (let me state that I do agree with you about racists, just ask my father-in-law).

Re:Wait, this is mudslinging? (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693899)

Some people feel about adulterers the way you appear to feel about racists

Those people are typically referred to as "repressed puritanical motherf***ers" and they badly need to get laid.

Re:Wait, this is mudslinging? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694487)

Not quite tracking the transition from "one who considers sacred oaths a serious matter" to "repressed puritanical mike foxtrot".
Call me retro, I guess.

Re:Wait, this is mudslinging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694595)

Let's see if you still think that way when I'm nailing your wife! (or Match.com girlfriend, or whatever it is you scraped up with your obvious charms)

Enjoy it while it lasts. (1)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693463)

Sooner or later Republicans will try to categorize this as a breach of campaign finance reform and intimidate YouTube into making it impossible to do.

what are you suppose to do (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693471)

When you have footage of someone doing something they shouldn't. Its not like it was made up, you should know their point of view oh issues of race. There is a differance between bashing someone with lies and exagerated truth but something like this I think is totally aceptable.

Re:what are you suppose to do (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693717)

Tell that to police that threaten, attack and opress people that video tape them violating someone's rights.

Rodney King videotape is really old, but back then the taper was fearful for his life as police are known to find you and teach you a lesson for videotaping them. Specifically when it's an illegal act.

I know of many people that have had their cameras stolen by police and when they look to get them back the police department say they never took it or have no knowledge of it.

It's simply a fact that those in power abuse it. the great equalizer is photographs and video and they do not like it one bit.

Mudslinging? (1)

yourpusher (161612) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693487)

How about political conversation and information? YouTube is, without a doubt, one of the biggest boons to increasing the participatory part of the national conversation. I'm thrilled to see politicians, people, and orgs all over YouTube.

Isn't it Interesting How... (2, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693501)

...it's "mudslinging" when some racist asshole gets caught on tape and this horrid abberation of a human is brought to the attention of the public so they can decide if they want a racist in office? But if politician gets a BJ in his office given by some reasonably 'OK' looking fat chick and it's plastered all over the media (would have been on the net too if there were video of it) it's "fair and balanced reporting". Sayonara assholes...

Re:Isn't it Interesting How... (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694157)

Sayonara assholes...

Yeah! Good riddance! I mean, we sure don't want someone who says that women aren't "psychologically equipped" for combat, or says that (in the wake of a story about rampant unmarried pregnancies in the military) that the Naval Academy is "a horny woman's dream," and calls female midshipmen there "thunder thighs" ... no, that sort of tone deafness, bias, and assholishness can't be permitted! What? That's all stuff that Allen's opponent, Jim Webb, said while running the DoD? Ah. Well then, no question that Allen is worse, no question at all. Or maybe: some people sometimes say dumb-ass things? You know, like the guy that the Democrats chose to be their presidential candidate implying that only dumb people become soldiers, and taking two days to find a way to spin an apology? I'd say that George Allen hardly has the market cornered on saying something passingly stupid - and his opponent has a history of not only saying crap, but repeating it often enough, and loudly enough, to suggest that it's a real part of his world view.

Re:Isn't it Interesting How... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694495)

Perfect! A flamebait mod for actually reporting what someone said. A perfect example of what this thread is about: it ain't mudslinging if you're just pointing out demonstrable facts. But that's OK, modding down someone who says "both people in that senatorial race have said dumb-ass things" is just pointing out who can, and can't stand the reporting. Heh - elections are fun! Not because of the candidates, but because of the flame mods.

Misunderstanding Senator Allen's comment (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694195)

it's "mudslinging" when some racist asshole gets caught on tape and this horrid abberation of a human is brought to the attention of the public so they can decide if they want a racist in office?

I don't think race was behind Senator Allen's comment, but rather his annoyance and revulsion that the opposing campaign would send a political monkey to videotape his campaign events.

But if politician gets a BJ in his office given by some reasonably 'OK' looking fat chick and it's plastered all over the media (would have been on the net too if there were video of it) it's "fair and balanced reporting".

Slick Willy did the office of President great damage and tarnished his own legacy with his disgusting acts and subsequent coverup. Indeed the old media failed to protect their darling, as new media outlets (Fox News, conservative talk radio) kept America informed. The event was certainly newsworthy.

Sayonara assholes...

Probably the House. The Senate is less likely. Senator Allen's campaign is a toss-up. This trend should hold if the demos don't deliver anymore gifts like Senator Kerry's arrogant insult. Hopefully Howard Dean in on the campaign trail. But I trust Na-Speaker Pelosi, Jack "Cut and Run" Murtha, Dick Durban, Hillary and others to quickly offend mainstream voters and ruin their chances in 2008.

MySpace (1)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693541)

candidates are finding new ways to bash opponents through social networks such as MySpace

Now, MySpace is owned by NewsCorp which also owns FOX News. How did Bill O' Reilly allow that??

Re:MySpace (1)

seriesrover (867969) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693951)

Perhaps your right-wing consipracy theory isnt correct.

But wait, there's more! (2, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693559)

captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.


Now we have footage of some of his aides/operatives attacking a blogger [blogspot.com] who asked Allen if he had stopped spitting on his wife. Why would he say that? Because that is apparently what is included in Allen's divorce papers which are currently sealed.

As others on the media circuit have said, regardless if the question is valid or not, there was no reason to attack the person and the fact that Allen watched the whole thing and did nothing to stop the attack shows what a thug-based party the Republicans.

This isn't the first time that Allen's been accused of being violent. His one sister wrote a book in which she describes him beating and/or attacking the other children including dragging her by the hair up a flight of stairs.

And before anyone marks me as Troll or Flamebait, I am a Republican but people like Allen, or in my case Santorum, in no way represent me. I am thoroughly disgusted with what my party has become and I can't wait to see the results on November 8th.

Re:But wait, there's more! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693759)

Uh, I suggest you look into this a bit more.

The "blogger", Mike Stark, is a regular on the tinfoil-hat circuit over at DailyKos and proudly stated that he would do anything and everything he could do to provoke Allen this week. Note: He's a law student too... hmm....

In a Monday posting on "Calling All Wingnuts," the blog Stark publishes, he hinted that he would attempt to provoke Allen before the TV cameras.

"Im also trying to `Roger and Me' George Allen whenever I can," Stark wrote, referring to director Michael Moore's 1989 documentary in which he repeatedly tried to confront former General Motors' chief executive Roger Smith about the company's downsizing.


So, I would say this asshat was trying to provoke a situation, given he baldfacedly states that is his intent.

I don't give a rat's ass who you are, if you go after any political figure screaming incoherently and refusing to back off, security is going to pound your ass into the ground. After seeing the video, I'd say they showed considerable restraint. I'd have planted a few kidney shots in there as well.

However this is another perfect example of how liberal/left people act versus everyone else - anything and everything goes "for the greater good".

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693969)

I read a lot of your comments you have posted. I would think that you are far more Libertarian than Republican. Which is fine, Republicans can learn a few things from Libertarians.

Watching the video and reading his blogged intent to be disruptive he got off easy. Honestly, had Allen been a foreign dignitary or the POTUS (or even a POTUS candidate) and he pushed past the bodyguards he would have been carted off.

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694135)

I'll admit that what I say leans more towards Libertarian than Republican but I identify more with more Republicans (supposedly) stand for.

Regardless, I've watched the entire segment of the attack from beginning to end. Yeah, the guy was egging Allen on and being a typical blogger ass but that does not, in any way, justify the unprovoked attack on him. Further, he wasn't trying to push past the folks. They were coming at him and he was trying to hold his ground.

I've worked on political campaigns, including being the local PR guy for a presidential candidate, so I know how heated things can get. I once teed off on a reporter over the phone after a close race because of the way he reported the results.

However, at no time has anyone that I've worked with/for, including any staff member, gone after someone who was asking stupid questions. If the aides didn't want the guy around all they had to do was stand there and block his way until Allen had left the area OR gotten in touch with whomever was at the hotel and had them remove the guy.

The blogger has said that he will press charges and I hope he does. There is zero excuse for this kind of crap.

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694543)

Look here, from the CNN footage shown:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/31/video-allens -staffers-toss-kos-kid-to-the-floor/ [hotair.com]

they have the whole segment.

He shoulders the bodyguard from behind, intentionally. He braces and throws his shoulder into it, not an accidental contact.

What is next? this sort of shinnagans:

http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id =2265&lionshare=cc8ae8c5c2fc3764cc08ec0a260f6837 [bwog.net]

 

Just what is a "Macaca?" (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694119)

That "M" word... according to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (which, given current events, may well be full of shit) says this:

Macaca[1] is a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population.

and further:

Allen's mother, born Henrietta Lumbroso, is of French Tunisian descent and some have suggested that she may have learned the pejorative during her childhood and introduced it to her son.

Uh, sure... That's one family dedicated to preserving their rich heritage of obscure racists terms!

Still, it sure looks like he meant it in the derogatory, rather than just trying to remember the guys name. But if you're against Allen to begin with, it doesn't take much to view his actions in the most negative light.

Now it's coming around that Webb, Allen's opponent, may be a plagiarist [nationalreview.com] .

Re:Just what is a "Macaca?" (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694449)

At least here in Latin America "Macaco" is a very recognizable ethnic slur...

I mean calling someone of dark skin "a Monkey" is definitely not a friendly nickname

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694163)

And before anyone marks me as Troll or Flamebait, I am a Republican but people like Allen, or in my case Santorum, in no way represent me.

I've told my friends, Santorum is the kind of guy I would vote for if he wasn't an insane asshole.

He is pretty much the only reason I am voting . I just happened to be listening to the radio in the car and they him an interview about family values and pretty much the man's own words made me so ill (seeing his diatribe about morality and history of Judeo-Christian and world values was historically incorrect) that I vowed to vote against this guy. He goes on about how our culture in Western Civilization has always been like this in its morals rather than to take into account of all the changes (much less other civilizations) on certain issues.

Hell... I don't know who the guy he is running against is.

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694385)

Bob Casey, Jr. is his opponent, the son of former Governor Robert Casey and our current state Treasurer. While I'm voting for Casey it's only to get Santorum out of office so he can't do any more damage.


This is the guy who wanted to make it so the taxpayers had to pay twice to get weather information. We would pay for the information once through our taxes via the National Weather Service and then a second time through a private organization [phillyburbs.com] .

This is also the guy who said in his book that education is not the way for the poor to get out of their rut (I'm paraphrasing). Throw in the family values crap, the fact that he shafted the taxpayers for thousands of dollars [factcheck.org] and refuses to pay the money back, and that he doesn't even live in PA any more, and those are just some of the reasons why I want him out.

As I said in my Allen comment, he, Santorum, in no way represents me. In six years, I'll be voting against Casey unless he can show me he deserves to be kept.

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694235)

Why does nearly every political bashing end with the sentence "before anyone marks me as Troll or Flamebait, I am a "?

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694245)

That blogger is a well known and self described antagonist who just moments before the video was caught on film [fredericksburg.com] fighting his way through a crowd and himself assaulting people in order to get to Allen.

IMHO, his actions and the fact he had an unchecked backpack warranted a lot more action then he received.

And Allen's ex-wife herself has refuted his claims.

If anything, this video is a prime example of how YouTube can be used to mold perceptions without even the most basic of factual checks that one would expect from the MSM at large. Not that I'm calling on any form of political censorship for YouTube, just that people have to take what they see there with a grain of salt and be willing to look further into the story than the 60 second sound bite that the videos there provide.

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694719)

The version the orginal poster shows from channel 29 also starts the video AFTER the shoulder check the guy performs on the guard that tackles him.

CNN shows the whole event.

Re:But wait, there's more! (1)

CptNerd (455084) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694441)

Whacko with a backpack starts pushing towards a Senator, yelling and making a scene and the Senator is the violent one? And it wasn't even the Senator who "wrestled him to the ground", it was a campaign aide. But that makes the Senator violent. You all probably won't want to see this [allens-a-team.com] since it doesn't show the "nonviolent, innocent" stalker in a good light.

Now, if it was a whacko yelling about "killing babies" while pushing towards Ted Kennedy carrying a backpack, would you call Kennedy "violent" if his staffers wrestled that nut to the ground? Of course not.

Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693589)

I had to laugh at an NPR interview yesterday with Howard Dean's campaign manager [npr.org] , who's also the author of a book on how the web is changing everything blah blah blah. He went on about how YouTube, MySpace, etc. have changed everything since 2004 blah blah blah, without once mentioning that his client in 2004 was taken out by a video of him bloviating after the Iowa caucuses, but that the video of Dean's war dance was instantly available on-line (which is where I first saw it), even though YouTube was still a glimmer in some PayPal programmer's eye at the time. Everything changed? Not really, Dean was removed from contention in 2004 in much the same way Allen was removed in 2006, by shooting his mouth off in front of a video camera.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693713)

With all of the feigned outrage over politicians fumbling over their words or saying something offhand that may or may not be offensive to someone, I'm beginning to think the only way to win an election these days is to sit in a bunker the entire time, occasionally coming out to say "terror" over and over again into a microphone.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693927)

People laugh at George W Bush, call him an imbecile, etc., but his handlers put him into the highest office of the most powerful country on earth with campaign speeches consisting of little more than repeated utterances of a few dozen phrases that tested well in front of a beef fed white Christian focus group.

If that isn't genius I don't know what is..

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

Poppler (822173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694293)

I'm beginning to think the only way to win an election these days is to sit in a bunker the entire time, occasionally coming out to say "terror" over and over again into a microphone.
So let me get this straight, you're predicting a Cheney landslide in '08? ;)

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693785)

Just wait until video recording devices owned by the populace are so pervasive that nearly every moment outside a politician's office and home are recorded and on public display. Maybe we'll be able to see those lesser known (and arguably more decent) candidates that don't have the huge monetary and party backing get a few more votes, or even win a few elections.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693857)

Just wait until video recording devices owned by the populace are so pervasive that nearly every moment outside a politician's office and home are recorded and on public display. Maybe we'll be able to see those lesser known (and arguably more decent) candidates that don't have the huge monetary and party backing get a few more votes, or even win a few elections.

Or.... more likely....

Nobody worth voting for will ever run for office again, because they won't want to subject their family to constant paparazzi-style intimidation in their daily lives.

Would YOU run for office if it meant subjecting your school-age children to video surveillence by your "constituents"?

"Look! There's little Johnny Congresscritterson peeing his pants in gym class! Look! There's his 15-year-old daughter making out under the bleachers at the football game!"

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694323)

That's already the case. You think that a population of 300 million people can't produce as many great leaders, statistically, as a population of 3-10 million did? The colonies produced Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, and Lincoln. None of these people would ever touch public office now. I can't imagine that there aren't people something like them in modern society, but somehow either none of them are interested in acquiring leadership or they are weeded out of the system.

Now we have termite exterminators and unbelievably unqualified oil speculators running the show. Which is what it has become. Frustrating, or tragic?

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694409)

Or.... more likely....

Nobody worth voting for will ever run for office again, because they won't want to subject their family to constant paparazzi-style intimidation in their daily lives.


I think you are a little too late on that. Nobody worth voting for became the Republican party. Democrats merely became the choice for "no fascism, please."

I think it Ironic that the parent post talks about "Dean, shooting his mouth off." as though that were equivalent to Allen being a fascist. News Flash -- everyone has a spirited pep rally among their supporters. The only difference between Dean and all the other candidates was, that he was the only one criticizing the FCC for media consolidation the week before. The result? The "Yeehaw!" heard round the world was played over 2000 times that week. How is that a news story? It isn't, the Media was picking a tamer Democratic candidate for us.

"14erCleaner" proves the point that others make; People need to read about candidates.
We have to go to publicly-funded elections, and we have to remove the horse-race nonsense that appears on TV. Public broadcasting, and free access to TV and Radio airwaves (which is included in broadcasting licenses) needs to be fairly distributed to candidates.

Otherwise, you let the media pick the candidate for people like 14erCleaner, who don't know anything about Howard Dean, but yet are easily manipulated by nonsense and cannot discern real outbursts from clips taken out of context.

The problem is the education and BS detecting abilities of the electorate -- The Bush Administration is only the natural symptom of the disease.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694125)

In that case, why don't we switch to an election process that mimics a reality show. All candidates that throw their hats in the ring will be filmed by a camera crew during all aspects of their daily lives. That means if they are currently an elected official, you get to see what they do on the job and you get to see what kind of person they are off the job (do they fly off the handle easily? Are they good husbands/wives?). The on the job footage would be great because you could see for yourself what bills they voted for or didn't vote for (and most importantly WHY they voted this way) instead of their opponent informing you that they voted against sending more body armor to the troops with no other explanation than they hate America (when in reality, it was probably because there was a "rider" attached that legalized feeding live babies to tigers for entertainment purposes [OK maybe not that, but you get the idea]). The show would be long enough so that the candidates start forgetting about the cameras, or even continues after they are already elected to help keep them in line. The only problem with this is that reality shows must be edited into a show, and creative editing can make Satan himself look like Jesus on camera or the other way around. I'm sure someone could figure out a way around this problem, though. I'm usually not one for reality TV, but as someone who tries to be somewhat politically concious, I would probably watch it so that come election day, I can make a more informed decision.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694379)

Fortunately the lives of politicians are a passing fancy for most people, only being important to them just before an election. This is good, because rooting around someone's personal life can get out of hand quickly and it usually doesn't offer much insight into who they actually are or what they stand for in political terms.

I have a friend/colleague (I'm a professional photographer) who does 'celebrity photojournalism' on a regular basis for a couple of big magazines. He can afford to rent a helicopter and buy fuel for the day to cover an A list celbrity wedding and still walk off with a nice profit, just because there are so many people who want to see those shots. I would hate to see that same appetite for substanceless voyeurism applied to politicians.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694061)

Everything changed? Not really, Dean was removed from contention in 2004 in much the same way Allen was removed in 2006, by shooting his mouth off in front of a video camera.

Speaking of shooting off and the nature of video as a communications medium, I wonder why no one has yet assembled clips of George Bush farting around the Whitehouse. (Gentle Slashdot readers should feel free to Google using those keywords.) It's debatable if such videos would have a direct effect on the outcome of an election, but the commercials would be more fun to watch.

Re:Oh, boy, "Everything's changed" once again (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694093)

Speaking of shooting off and the nature of video as a communications medium, I wonder why no one has yet assembled clips of George Bush farting around the Whitehouse. (Gentle Slashdot readers should feel free to Google using those keywords.) It's debatable if such videos would have a direct effect on the outcome of an election, but the commercials would be more fun to watch.

Nah... this would get spun on FNC as another example of how Bush is a "regular guy" just like us.

...and to those on the right, his farts don't stink anyway.

"Crashing the Gates" and webroots (1)

coyote-san (38515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694211)

Everything HAS changed.

The established Democrats wanted to focus on a handful of races in a few safe states. BFD -- the Democrats might have won a few seats but been totally unable to pull of a landslide.

In contrast, Dean insisted on rebuilding the party in all fifty states, even "when hell freezes over" states like Montana and Wyoming, and the "webroots" gave a forum for candidates (and way for them to raise money $5 and $10 at a time from hundreds or thousands of small contributors). Almost all of the "red to blue" races started out on the webroots, and every established pol would have insisted you were crazy if you told them that Cheney AND Bush would be in WYOMING, of all places, the week before the election to shore up the Republican candidate. People were openly ridiculed for suggesting that 80 seats would be in play, not 15 or so, yet the last I heard the number of seats in serious contention was 72 and climbing.

The world has changed. Get used to it.

BTW, go to the corner and put on the dunce cap if you think Dean shot off his mouth in 2004. He was trying to speak over a loud crowd after a long day, of course his voice was hoarse. The thing that Faux and ABC didn't bother telling you is that the mike was right in front of him and somehow able to filter out the crowd noise. (I don't know if it was mechanical shielding or if they did it electronically.) How do you think you would sound if someone had miked you in a crowded and extremely loud bar? Now multiply that ten-fold since you weren't talking all day. The mainstream media long ago decided to focus on 'reactions' instead of actually covering the news and they ran with the story primarily because the Republicans were oh so happy to make a strong contender look like an idiot.

P.S. Olbermann (MSNBC) Rocks!

Re:"Crashing the Gates" and webroots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694407)

Sorry to piss on your liberal love-fest, dude... But that "YEAAARRRGH!!!" was just plain creepy, hoarse voice or not.

Re:"Crashing the Gates" and webroots (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694725)

"The world has changed. Get used to it."

By this do you mean that Dean has somehow changed all of the rules and will use them to the Democrat party's advantage while the clueless Republicans wither away? The internet stock bubble is calling - they want their paradigm back.

"He was trying to speak over a loud crowd after a long day, of course his voice was hoarse. The thing that Faux and ABC didn't bother telling you is that the mike was right in front of him and somehow able to filter out the crowd noise."

Did you actually watch the video? Yeah, he was hoarse and speaking loudly - no one thought that amiss. Then he SCREAMED INARTICULATELY AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS!!! (Text shouting placed for effect). It was interpreted as a loss of control and letting his emotions govern him, and folks decided that maybe he wasn't the best guy for a high pressure job.

Reach out and elect someone (1)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693595)

This isn't any way to run a body politic.

Television means politics is now about the *appearance* of honesty, integrity, competence.

ACTUAL honesty, integrity and competence - who knows? how can you tell through television?

You can tell be learning the history of a candidate, by learning about his position on major issues and what he thinks could be done.

This doesn't happen, because it requires reading, and reading is no longer the primary communication medium in our culture. Television is. We turn to television to learn who to elect; and television is all about *apperance*. Television is all about *show business*. And we do politics through television.

Re:Reach out and elect someone (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694171)

ACTUAL honesty, integrity and competence - who knows? how can you tell through television?

Oh, that's easy. Read a newspaper.

KFG

Nothing new... (1)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693677)

The internet is just another (powerful) means for... for just anything.
You have free knowledge, easy collaboration, multi-party communication.
And also dirty politics, lies, deception, crime, etc.

Internet (and YouTube and Google and Wikipedia and ...) can only be good or bad only technicalwise.
From a moral standpoint only the human user can be good or bad.

2008 Elections (3, Interesting)

twifosp (532320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693703)

This is really the first election where online material might have significantly moved a vote. You can bet it will be much worse in 2008.

Given that YouTube is unregulated, I bet we start seeing fake videos hit the networks. Some anonymous user posts a video of Joe Schmo canidate talking about some random topic. A bit of audio editing (think voice boards) later, some grainy artifacts in the right place, and some clever timing and suddenly Joe Schmo just got caught saying something bad. Will it matter if the politician refutes the video? Even if they prove it to be fake, the damage will probably already be done. No real account to tie the slandering back to. No one to sue, and all YouTube can do is take down the video and ban the account. Damage already done, and no real risk.

In the 50's we had the red scare. In the next election there migth be a YouTube scare.

Re:2008 Elections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693801)

In the 50's we had the red scare. In the next election there migth be a YouTube scare.

You are over-estimating the number of people who vote, watch YouTube, and watch political videos. The key limiter being the 3rd portion of that "and".

Re:2008 Elections (1)

twifosp (532320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693909)

You are over-estimating the number of people who vote, watch YouTube, and watch political videos. The key limiter being the 3rd portion of that "and".

Hey, you maybe right. Man, it's too bad there are no examples of of prior circumstance to support my theory. I just wish there was a video on YouTube affecting poll numbers that I could show you to support this crackpot theory of mine.

Re:2008 Elections (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694039)

But, with the prevalence of videocameras, another tape is bound to surface showing what really happened, much like the real photos of the rally with Kerry and Fonda surfaced.

Or, the "many eyes" on the internet will find and dismantle the tampering, backlashing on the opposing candidate - see Rather andd the tampered memo.

The real risk to politicians is exactly what happened to Allen. When Allen used the word "macaca", he was referring to the political operative who had been following him around to videotape everything he said, in the hopes of getting something to ridicule him with. And Allen stepped right in - racist AND an idiot.

Re:2008 Elections (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694161)

Given that YouTube is unregulated, I bet we start seeing fake videos hit the networks.

Uhh, they already do this on network television. They are constantly showing video clips that are specifically to bolster election campaigns and give better attention to the desires of specific campaigns.

If anything YouTube users would end up figuring this shit out and mod the stuff down to infinity. You can't exactly do that with network TV.

Already been done! (1)

fizzup (788545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694325)

Gurmant Grewal, a Canadian member of parliament, already edited a voice recording and released it to the media to embarass his opponents. (Not during an election campaign, though.)

Fortunately, it did not go well for him.

Linky. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Already been done! (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694373)

Gurmant Grewal, a Canadian member of parliament, already edited a voice recording and released it to the media to embarass his opponents. (Not during an election campaign, though.) Fortunately, it did not go well for him.

A guy with a name like "Gurmant Grewal" would need to pull out ALL the stops to get ahead.

My God... does Canada have a difficult procedure for acquiring a name-change or something?

Re:Already been done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694523)

Really, someone's name is significant to whether you'd vote for them? That's just sad.

Re:Already been done! (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694539)

It was a joke, dude....

Damn.. and they think that John Kerry is "humor-impaired".

They are losing seats because they deserve to lose (1)

Jennifer York (1021509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694021)

The GOP is losing ground because they deserve to lose. It starts at the top, and all the way down they are rotten. The sheer number of scandals is a very good inidcator that they need to gut the party and remove the cancers from within.

YouTube is simply a new tool to help inform the electorate. The content is a product of the available interesting stories to tell. And the GOP has many "interesting" stories...

Re:They are losing seats because they deserve to l (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694429)

It starts at the top, and all the way down they are rotten

Whew! It's a good thing that the democrat's leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, is clean as a whistle [nypost.com] . Not counting good old fashioned $90k-in-the-freezer [cnn.com] bribe-taking by a congressional democrat, or president who hands out pardons in exchange for cashflow [cnn.com] or sells access in exchange for illegal donations from China [sfgate.com] , it seems that high-end real estate transactions are a favorite pastime for the traditional representatives of the poor working slobs of the country. *cough Hillary*

Losing seats is normal (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694713)

The GOP is losing ground because they deserve to lose.

Historically, the ruling party loses seats in the 6th year of a presidency. A loss of 40 seats is average. The projected loss of 15 is no big switch. America likes divided government. It is really only imperative that the GOP keep the Senate so that it can continue to stock the supreme court with conservative justices.

It starts at the top, and all the way down they are rotten. The sheer number of scandals is a very good inidcator that they need to gut the party and remove the cancers from within.

Yes, scandals like this [npr.org] , and this [zaman.com] turn my stomach.

Yes, I can't wait to see who

With vaudvillians like Kerry, Dean, and Hillary loose in the land I expect YouTube to stay well stocked!

Not your father's mudslinging (1)

Azathfeld (725855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694083)

The YouTube revolution has more to it than just a shift in the location of old-style campaign mudslinging. What's going on now is that when a politician makes a blunder, like Allen did, or, as another commenter noted, Dean, it's immediately available for evaluation by everyone. The carefully-crafted facade that these men and women put up inevitably cracks, and we get to see the real person. Dean is an overeager nerd, Allen is a violent racist, John Kerry is an elitist, etc. Of the three things I just mentioned, only one would make me vote against someone, but what do I know? I'm a Democrat, mostly because we don't tend to put people like Allen up for election.

The rapid access to information is going to make campaigns more and more about the actual person campaigning, because they'll be watched every moment of every day and the slip-ups will instantly be available to everyone. I think that's good, but I'm happy to drop the pretense that politicians don't have unpleasant aspects to their personalities. I'm also happy to toss out the ability for someone to have repugnant beliefs and keep them quiet except when talking to his or her base. But, again, what do I know? I'm sure it's more fun to pretend that racists aren't really racist while in public and then vote for them.

Mudslinging at an all-time high (2, Insightful)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694091)

Check out this report on this election's ads [factcheck.org] by an independent group. Democrats have 81% negative ads and Republicans 91% negative, and many of the claims are misleading or flat-out false (mostly on the Republican side -- they're getting desperate, and they learned from Rove that playing dirty works). It may be a "time-honored tradition" but if so it's getting more traditional by the year.

The George Allen case isn't mudslinging -- this is mudslinging:
"Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association (North American Man/Boy Love Association), a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon's actions 'utterly disgusting.' He's right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona."
(taken from here [azdailysun.com] ). The worst is that the 100 Democratic officials can't be accounted for, the mayor is a Democrat in name only, and best of all Simon was not the president of the ACLU but only worked for them as a lawyer on a single non-NAMBLA-related case!

Pictures of blogger pushing before TV footage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694375)

There is far more to this story that the footage on YouTube. How about this Mike Stark forcing/pushing his way past staffers. This was not some nice quiet person who walked up, asked a question, and was tackled. This was someone aggressively forcing his way to a confrontation with a candidate, and this is before the footage that has been seen on TV.

Look in particular in the first few photos at the left side of the pictures as Allen exits a room.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2006/102006/103 1allen/index2_html?qstart=1 [fredericksburg.com]

By the way, most political analysts think Allen's problems are more from trying to make an issue about some of Jim Webb's novels than this.

Re:Pictures of blogger pushing before TV footage (1)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694433)

By the way, most political analysts think Allen's problems are more from trying to make an issue about some of Jim Webb's novels than this.

Especially since those novels got rave reviews from conservative media when they came out.

..and they are on the Naval Academy's own recommended reading list...

But the bible-thumping puritans that STILL run the GOP can't stand for any "adult themes" in their reading material.

Dissemination of Information (1)

aron1231 (895831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694447)

This is a perfect example of the Internet working exactly as it is supposed to - informing the masses in a way that was never possible before. It is becoming increasingly difficult for government and corporate America to lie through their teeth and get away with it. The guises are falling and everyone is invited to watch.

This is proof that they're all dirty! (1)

rubberbando (784342) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694469)

Hey politicians!

Whether you are doing the mugslinging or getting it done to you, you are still covered in filth.

No amount of whitewashing can clean you of the stench of filth that you reek of.

You all need to be booted from office and we need to start from scratch to get some honest citizens in your place that will actually do the job for the people instead of for the money.

"VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE!" -Montgomery Brewster (Brewster's Millions)

I have used YouTube for political statements. (1)

BrianRagle (1016523) | more than 7 years ago | (#16694485)

I can see sites like YouTube and later incarnations of the same being used far more heavily for political purposes. I have used it to promote my friend's music and also to make political music videos (two of which are listed below). In the future, I plan to utilize it as my video blog and just link to it from my normal blog. It's only a matter of time before politicians, their supporters, and their opponents catch on to it in an even bigger way than now. Look for it to happen as more of the younger generation matures to the point of being serious candidates for office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoSnTHB7hZI [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW-E_svcwDo [youtube.com]

(pl0us One Informative) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16694651)

A pRoductivity
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>