Ron Paul’s Series of Tubes

February 1, 2008

More endorsements: TechCrunch backs Obama and McCain. An interesting one though, because the uber-geek site invited its readers to vote for the ‘tech candidate’ and Ron Paul, despite not being interviewed as part of the website’s series, won big on the republican side. To TechCrunch’s credit, they resisted the vocal minority and did not endorse Dr. Paul who, as I’ve said before, really can not match his supporters when it comes to web savvy.

Now, to his credit, Paul initiated a retro-interview and attempted to deliver a more nuanced view on net neutrality. But look closely at his words Paulites: your man is not exactly straight-talking. And beyond the circular reasoning, the dr. had time to figure this net-neutrality thing out and convey and actual understanding of an actual issue (as opposed to an unrealistic stance on a non-issue, which is Paul’s usual tact):

So it’s something I really struggle with and hope that I can come up with something that is practical and also consistent with my philosophy that you don’t resort to government regulation, because I want to be very consistent. I don’t want the government involved in the internet and I don’t want taxes on internet. And I may not understand everything I have to about the internet, but I do know one thing. That we can’t allow the government intrusion into the internet, because there has even been moves on for international controls and international taxation and to me it’s a saving grace.

Surprise, surprise, TechCrunch received 300 + comments in response to its failure to endorse Paul, the readers’ pick. Just like their candidate, the Paulites aren’t really interested in engaging on the issues on an analytical level.

No Comments » | McCain, Obama, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Internet Trolls Make Appearance at Debate

January 11, 2008

Fox News’ Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina just ended. The network’s focus group and talking heads gave Fred Thompson two thumbs up, though I felt he was upstaged throughout by Huckabee who did a great job considering he was on the defensive most of the night. I also caught a glimpse of Romney finally understanding that he may be able to push the other candidates around a bit when it comes to the economy. Romney has to assert himself as the Republican candidate who can help Americans feeling the pinch. I know this sounds a little ridiculous, but none of the other Republicans are any closer to pulling it off either.

As usual, one of the best analyzes of the debate comes from NBC’s Chuck Todd. And while I personally think he should be allowed in every debate as long as he’s polling above 5%, I also agree with Todd’s characterization of Paul as a “distraction.” Ron Paul’s supporters in the audience were even more detached from the real debate than he was and their predictable boos and cheers were never rooted in rational, analytic reactions to that debate - an interesting case of life reflecting virtual life.

No Comments » | Debates, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Republicans, Romney, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

New Iowashire I Miss You Already

January 8, 2008

Big day tomorrow but before you vote (or watch the networks predict someone else’s vote) check out these resourceful links:

Electoral-Vote.Com: Back for another election to provide more than you need to know about the state by state races and polling and en ethos for every blogger should aspire to (thanks, CM).

The Technology Voter’s Guide From CNet News: Interviews with candidates on issues of technology policy like net neutrality, Government Wire Tapping, and Digital Copyright - McCain, Paul, Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Dodd are there (though the latter’s no longer a candidate).

The interviews are interesting - despite the fact that they are questionnaire-based and overly-crafted, you still get candidates who sometimes by their own admission don’t know jack about the Interwebs and others who show a keen understanding of the issues. John Edwards is particulalry good - particularly compared to Ron Paul whose web-policy knowledge does not seem to match his massive web-based support.

1 Comment | Democrats, Edwards, New Iowashire, Polls, Republicans, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Ron Paul Day

December 24, 2007

As an ongoing part of my completely anecdotal media polling, yesterday was Ron Paul Day. Saw him on Meet the Press, CSpan, and Glenn Beck - I think two were previously aired, but hey, I don’t watch much tv, and seeing Glenn Beck actually succeed in a ‘gotcha’ on Ron Paul when he asks the candidate how he plans to pay for anything without taxes was high-comedy.

Like most, I knew two things about Mr. Paul for sure before yesterday: his positions are extreme and his fundraising is speedy. Half-way through yesterday’s media blitz, my view on him hadn’t changed but I was definitely more miffed about where in the hell all his money is coming from. I mean, it’s pretty amazing that so many people with money don’t think our history of liberal internationalism, federal economic institutions, or  timely government-backed market corrections have had anything to do with the economic stability that has allowed those same people to accumulate enough money that they can give some of it away to Ron Paul.

But thanks to Ron Paul Day, I have a little better understanding of how this man is pulling it off:

1. Just enough Ross Perot in him - there are clearly plenty of people in Texas with money to support these guys.

2. Endorsements from people who simply want the hype to continue, who don’t really care but aren’t gonna take it anymore, and who actually don’t want him to win but are trying to make a statement.

3. Support from radicals whose positions are just as ridiculous and contradictory as Paul’s.

That’s not to say I’m entirely dismissing the Infowars folks here - it is definitely a problem that so many are so fed-up and disconnected that they’re willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. The rest of the candidates should be trying to communicate with these folks, while Ron Paul will happily do the cutting.

2 Comments | Press, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

The Crazies Deserve Each Other

November 26, 2007

So Kucinich suggested that Ron Paul would make a good running mate.

Not quite perhaps what the Unity08 people had in mind…

So we abolish the federal reserve and use the building for the new Department of Peace?

Amusingly, Ron Paul (I suppose we don’t call him by just his last name since then everyone would ask “Paul Who?”) is showing a heck of a lot more motion than Dennis - he’s got an impressive operation. He and Huckabee are seriously screwing with people’s expectations for the Grand Old Party.

No Comments » | Kucinich, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by cdog

Talk To Me Ron Paul

October 15, 2007

Washingtonpost.com is featuring an online chat with a different candidate every Friday. This week, it’s Joe Biden. Last week it was Ron Paul. If you want to take a break from complaining about candidates not having to answer the tough questions, submit a question and check these out. Ok, now start complaining about how candidates can easily evade tough questions in online forums.

But check out the Free-wheelin Ron Paul:

Philadelphia: As a physician, you have operated in the increasingly regulated private sector of medicine and in the government-run VA hospitals. Can you speak more in-depth on the problems with our current semi-private health care system and compare and contrast the two possible options — namely, more government involvement or less government involvement? Thank you.

Rep. Ron Paul: That’s easy for me — less government involvement. Government got involved in the early ’70s and directed medical care be delivered by corporations, which is failing and nobody is happy and it’s very costly. We need a lot less government and to have confidence that in a free society medical care can be delivered as well as computers are. We have to restore confidence that the marketplace can deliver services as well as it can goods. In Washington if we have a bill come up for a prescription drug program, it’s the corporations, not the people lobbying for it. You don’t need the government or huge corporations out of Wall Street between patients and doctors. We need to make sure that people can save all the money they spend on medical care by getting it back from their taxes, by reducing their tax burden.

Ok, he eventually makes sense: his plan is based on tax-credits and getting government completely out of the picture, which will then get the corporate lobby completely out of government. No doubt that is a perfect model, but come on: any reduction in Government regulation short of complete deregulation will mean more room for corporate lobbyists. And my biggest beef with Paul here: “We need a lot less government and to have confidence that in a free society medical care can be delivered as well as computers are.”

Can someone tap Mr. Paul on the shoulder and whisper two words - ‘digital divide.’ Now I know what Mr. Paul is trying to say here, that health care should be a good, like computers. But computers, like health care, are also enormously beneficial to social welfare, and decidedly beyond that of most goods. Which is why the market for computers is not completely free and there are plenty of programs, benefits, incentives, and other market interferences that represent attempts to distribute computers beyond market constraints.

I believe Ron Paul is very smart and holds a special place in my heart as the Reason(able) candidate for 2008, but he should at least use examples that comport to his world view.

1 Comment | Health Care, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Finding Their Inner-Geek

August 22, 2007

The class of ‘08 isn’t exactly ready to establish a policy platform on Java vs. C++ (nor am I…I have no idea what that means), but we are definitely seeing some major progress this campaign in candidate awareness of tech policy issues. The National Journal presents an excellent overview of candidate positions on everything from Net Neutrality, to spectrum auctions, to how well the campaigns themselves are utilizing web 2.0. That’s fun and important to many of us, but what I find fascinating is how much a candidate’s position on tech issues - or sometimes simply what tech issues they choose to focus on - can tell you about the candidate. I’ll use some excerpts from the National Journal piece to explain:

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has incorporated technology into almost every aspect of her policy platform — from using information technology to overhaul health care to likening her plan to build a national, high-speed Internet system to the wiring of America after the development of the telephone and electricity.

This is hardly even a policy stance, this is about infrastructure investment, but it says a lot about the Clinton campaign: think big, stick with the can’t-lose issues, don’t get mired in a technical debate. Just ask the other candidates, right now, you don’t want to argue with this woman.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has come out in strong support of network neutrality, a term that describes efforts to ensure equal treatment of broadband content. He is also the only candidate to write the FCC and ask commissioners to use the upcoming spectrum auction to make the Internet more affordable and accessible.

Ever the populist. Sticks with name-brand issues that seem simpler than they really are: make a good name for yourself among the activist left and ignore the dirty work of actually accomplishing the policy objectives.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wants to focus on expanding Internet access in rural areas and inner cities, and he has a plan for granting vouchers to low-income households for converter boxes to help them transition from analog to digital television broadcasts.

High-impact, low-commitment (from a policy standpoint). Obama is constituent-focused and wants to be seen as a candidate for progress, giving himself measurable and achievable objectives.

Meanwhile, read on in the NJ piece to see how the second-tier Democrats utilize technology issues as a conduit to get the voter to their real strengths: Kucinich focuses on technology and outsourcing, Biden is concerned w/ technology when it harms national security, and Mike Gravel has refocused his campaign and has an excellent shot at being elected President of SecondLife.

From Left to Right:

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been active in pushing legislation related to “decency” and regulatory controls on various forms of media. Sen. John McCain this year has sponsored a bill aimed at making the moratorium on certain Internet-related taxes permanent.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas…has been a vocal opponent of Internet regulation of any type…

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has been vocal about his opposition to Internet pornography and the need for better protections for children surfing the Internet. And Mike Huckabee of Arkansas received praise while in office for brining e-government to his largely rural state.

Pretty straight forward: only need a policy when it comes to pornography and terrorism, which is about all the Internet is good for anyway. And Giuliani’s my favorite:

 ”Mayor Giuliani believes that the free flow of information on the Internet and the development of new technologies are essential to America’s global leadership in the 21st century,” a spokesman said. “Open competition should be encouraged, and federal government intervention in these areas should be limited to reasonable regulation and vigilant security against those who want to exploit it for illegal or unethical acts.”

Mr. Mayor, whatever you do, don’t forget the three Rs: Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Giuliani’s tendency to equivocate and rely on tough-guy tropes has been covered on this blog and elsewhere and we see above that he can pull this off for any issue.

To be fair, conventional campaign wisdom says the Democrats are the only earthly-party with a geek constituency, hence their more nuanced and focused approach. However, conventional wisdom also allows the Dems to stick to their own little cottage-industries within the wider landscape of technology policy issues, and the absence of engagement from the Republicans leaves voters with a dearth of substantive debate. However, I wouldn’t say the Right writ-large is not engaged in the debate. Full disclosure, I work and study in the field of technologies policy and see plenty of voices and powerful forces balancing what Bill O’Reilly likes to call the Netroots Ku Klux Klan. Makes me wonder if the Republicans couldn’t gain some ground in the netroots community by actually engaging them and getting the backs of their consituents already in the debate. There’s a loose parallel here to the battle over the Latino vote that Bush, Rove, and others think the Republicans are ceding to the Left. When I see the Republicans unsure of whether the YouTube debates are even a good idea, I wonder if they’re not doing the same with the geeks.

1 Comment | Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Ron Paul, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Name that Candidate!

June 18, 2007

Since it’s Monday, and Mondays always stink, I thought I’d write a lighthearted post to lift the spirits of all the other cubeconvicts out there.  The WaPo published an article it its Sunday edition discussing Secret Service names for former presidents and other elected officials.  Some of the names are pretty funny, but I think we here at the 8oh8 can do much better. So, why don’t you all start throwing out some names for our eight-plus candidates? Feel free to rename Clinton and Obama.  I’ll start by giving Rudy Guiliani the code name “Scarlett,” a Nathaniel Hawthorne reference. After all, he’s had three wives.

Keep in mind, this game is funniest when picturing big burly men dressed in black whispering these code names into their wrist mics…

3 Comments | Clinton, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo | Permalink
Posted by hilljunkie

Feeding the Hand that Bites You

June 8, 2007

For my first post, first a few disclaimers/identifiers: I live in Nevada, and due to our ratcheted up early Democratic caucus date, I’m probably more into this race than I have been previously, at least this early in the game. More importantly, I am a civil rights/civil liberties attorney for the ACLU.

It is hard for me to focus on much else: I obsessively watched for references to civil liberties in the Dems debate. While I consider abortion a civil liberties issue and am heartened to see discussions of traditional civil rights memes such as equal opportunity, I am most focused on what I consider to be the greatest threat to the American people - namely, specific restrictions on liberty in the name of the ‘war on terror.’ (For the record, no one mentioned them in South Carolina. In NH, Obama gave them a nod, Edwards mentioned them briefly).

I didn’t have to look so hard during the Republican debates. Guiliani and Romney fell all over themselves to out-anti-civil liberties themselves (from Romney’s “Double Guantanamo” to Guiliani’s relentless fear-mongering). Even Chris Matthews, of whom I am NO great fan, has publicly said (OK, maybe he’s flirting w/ Ben Affleck) that he agrees that Guiliani’s tactics are themselves the heart of what terrorism aims to accomplish - that is, giving the terrorists what they want by changing our fundamental American values (hence the title of this post). Check it out: Hardball.

While it’s no bombshell that civil libertarians view internal threats to our liberties as the Real terrorist threat, it’s nice to see it appearing sporadically in the corporate media. And while I reel at the shamelessness of Romney’s and Giuliani’s race to the bottom of the Bill of Rights, it’s nice at least one of their compatriots takes our constitutional rights seriously. If it takes a racist, anti-choice, Texan psycho to provide a foil for the civil liberties ‘mala fides’ of our anointed Eight, I’m all for it. I leave you with Ron Paul:

I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches, and I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus.

2 Comments | About, Giuliani, Romney, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by fleee

A transvestite for Republican presidential candidate?

June 5, 2007

At first I thought Meg was referring to RuPaul in her post below. Now that would make for some interesting debates.

Seriously, though, how much weirder would s/he be than the line-up that we have for the Grand Old Party today? The party of Religion, of Tough Moral Fibre. (I put some on my cereal every morning.) Who do we have? Let’s review the candidates.

Mitt Romney: not only has to deal with the life-long trauma of being called “Mitt” but is Mormon. Many Christian fundies see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I think they should go with CoJCoLDS rather than “Mormon” - it’s catchier) as a half-step shy of a bizarre cult.

Rudy Giuliani: The twice-divorced go-to guy for all those pro-gay, pro-abortion Iowa caucus-goers out there.

John McCain: Spent his entire career thumbing his nose at the conservative Christian establishment and cultivating a reputation as a “maverick”, only to try to embrace the Religious Right in a bear-hug kind of like one of those uncomfortable ones from your uncle that make you feel a bit funny inside.

Only with such a list could a man whose primary attribute appears to be indolence and whose main credential is having played a president on TV be hailed as the savior for the Party of Lincoln.

No Comments » | Fred Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by cdog

« Previous Entries