Republican Robocall Pretexting Campaign 674
WCityMike writes, "In 53 Congressional campaigns across the country, including the Pennsylvania 6th, the Connecticut 4th, the North Carolina 11th, the New Hampshire 2nd, and the Illinois 6th and 8th (and possibly all races), the National Republican Congressional Committee is conducting a $2.1 million campaign to make it appear as if Democrats are spamming callers with telemarketing calls. The NRCC hired Conquest Communications Group to conduct a massive nationwide robocalling campaign with calls specifically scripted to appear as if they're coming from the Democratic candidate — in violation of FCC regulations on such 'robocalls,' which requires the identity of the caller to be stated at the beginning of the message [47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1)]. The call begins with 'Hello. I'm calling with information about,' and then says the name of the Democratic candidate. There is then a pause; if the recipient hangs up here, they will receive repeated calls back with the same message, potentially up to 18 times or more (according to one callee). If the callee doesn't hang up, they hear a smear message from the machine about the Democratic candidate. The NRCC thinks the legality of the calls is, conveniently, a 'complicated legal question that's not going to get adjudicated this weekend.'" Update 20:47 GMT by SM: Thankfully we all learned how to deal with these folks last week.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would not believe how difficult it is to effectively judge a candidate unless you hear them speak live. I spent quite a bit of time perusing newspapers, candidate websites, and Google trying to find information to base my determinations for voting this election.
I am getting so much negative campaigning but not enough real facts from the candidates themselves. I really wish that someone would stop the fucking smear campaigns and instead clearly list what they intend to do. If they ran before, I want someone (obviously the campaigns website won't) to list exactly what they said they were going to do and exactly what they did do so I can compare.
If this information is easily accessible in the State of Minnesota, please let me know where it is. My current vote is based on what I have gleamed from the newspapers and the campaign websites. Bleh.
I suppose my methodology is better than my co-workers who are "voting Union line" or someone who is "voting Party line."
To quote Matt Groening: (Score:5, Insightful)
What'd you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Should do things the DNC way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's quite the motivation.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere along the line, they decided that the best motivator was to get you pissed off enough at the other guy that you would make the time to get into the polls.
Unfortunately, this has caused campaigns to go from "vote for me because" to "don't vote for the other guy because".
It just seems to get worse with time.
Re:Should do things the DNC way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so morally corrupt that I find it hard to believe that half the country is in the same party as these people. I know that half the country isn't morally corrupt, yet they allow (and often support) this sort of thing.
What the hell is wrong with you Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
The RNCC must have lost it's freaking mind.
Between this, electronic voting, the whole WMD/invade Iraq decision and the Mexican border issue, half of you still vote Republican?
Not that the Dems are much better, but when are people going to start pushing back on the government?
America used to be admired. Now, I just pity you.
What's the problem with breaking an FCC reg? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously, have Republicans no shame?
They have Morality, which is different. Shame prevents you from being evil. Morality allows you to be as evil as you like, as long as you feel really bad about it.
Please mod this troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr! (Score:2, Insightful)
And don't forget to vote, and encourage your friends to vote, against the motherfuckers who're doing this.
(Posted w/o karma bonus because even I think this is kinda trollish, but seriously, people... If *any* party pulls shit like this and gets rewarded with (re)election, that just encourages the thinking that this is an appropriate / acceptable / beneficial thing to be doing.)
Calling All Voters (Score:4, Insightful)
Their untypical reaction was to call the Democrat's office demanding an explanation. Which turned out to be "it's a Republican dirty trick". But how many people will find out before voting? And how many people will believe it's not Democrats lying to blame Republicans, when they already believe Democrats have been harassing them with robocalls?
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Republicans have followed up their 2002 phonejamming [wikipedia.org] of Democrats' lines (preventing Democrats from getting voters to polls) with enough illegal robocalls to cost $100 MILLION in fines [dailykos.com]. Of course, those 2002 robocalls got John Sununu Jr (R-NH) into the Senate, where he controls the FCC, and he hasn't given up the job he DDoS'ed his way into. So I don't expect Republicans to cough up the $100M they'd owe for this year's attack on the election process.
Unless maybe enough Republicans get fired in the election tomorrow that they can't do these crimes unpunished anymore. Go to the polls and do your part.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, never going after your opponent won't do a lot for you either. In northeast Texas there's a state race that's caught my interest. Chuck Hopson, the Dem incumbent, has from the start been in a heavy smear campaign against his Republican rival. His rival (Durrett, I think) has responded largely by addressing the issues, with only a handful of attacks on Hopson (all of which that I've seen were based on Hopson's own voting record conflicting--or seeming to--with his campaign messages).
Given the recent stunts pulled by both sides in the races, Durrett's style has earned my respect.
On the subject of the article, I keep getting messages from Bill Clinton telling me how great the Dem candidate for governor is. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican scheme, and I've deleted the same message four times so far. The Dems don't need any help on annoying voters
If that isn't spin, I don't know what is. (Score:5, Insightful)
The actions of a few Democratic campaign workers who affected a few Republican voters in no way compares to a coordinated, tens or hundreds of thousand dollar strategy by a national Republican organization, affecting over 300,000 Democratic voters.
Sad, sad, sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your taxes are not lower. The Bush administration has failed to cut spending to pay their tax cuts and in fact has dramatically increased spending. Thus the present value of taxes you will pay over your lifetime has risen under the Bush administration since the 100s of billions of dollars of debt the Bush administration has run up will have to be paid from future taxes. You are not paying these taxes this year but you will have to pay them in the future. Ask any economist and they will tell that lowering taxes without cutting spending is an increase and not a reduction in your lifetime tax payments.
Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.
Re:To quote Matt Groening: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit.
You heard some astroturfer call in to Rush Limbaugh today with this and now you are claiming it is happening to you.
It's very easy to see what Republicans are up to.... just look for what they are accusing Democrats of doing, and then you'll know.
As Haggard, Foley, and others continue to prove... the GOP is the party of extreme hypocrisy. If you want to know what they're up to, just listen for what they're yelling about from the other side.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not in their interest to do that, because they'll lose the votes of everyone who hates that. They want to be as ambiguous as possible so that nobody can find a reason to vote against them.
Re:To quote Matt Groening: (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a very valid reason to vote Democrat.
This election is more of an intervention than an election. In order to begin repairing the damage, you have to first stop the abuse. Saying "NO!" to the current administration... or more accurately, "NO MORE!", is a VERY GOOD reason to vote for the opposition.
As Tom Friedman wrote recently.... If America elects to keep the GOP in control of every branch of government tommorow, then we are no more than a banana republic.
Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.
Re:I don't think that's quite the motivation.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Those voters are not up for grabs. It's everyone else.
the best motivator was to get you pissed off enough at the other guy that you would make the time to get into the polls.
Exactly. "Vote for the R (or D) because otherwise that slimy bastard will get elected." That's the problem with two-party elections.
gop and dirty tricks? how surpising! (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Democrats don't do these sort of things.. Arguably, because liberals are "too pussy" to cheat, and "too naive" and believe in fair elections.
There was a time when the "Vote Facist for Law and Order" bumper stickers were funny. Now the seem just a bit too truthful.
--
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
-- Richard Nixon, May 19, 1977 interview with Robert Frost [landmarkcases.org]
Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct, this typically is something done by the Republicans and not the Democrats. Sure, if you dig deep enough, you can find the story about a couple of Democratic supporters slashing the tires on the Republican parties "get out the vote" mobiles the night before the election, but such incidents are extremely few and far between, and I have yet to see one that was orchestrated on the party rather than individual level.
On the other hand, the Republican party thinks systematically, and when they find something that works they try to milk it in all of their campaigns. Hence the multiple sightings of lether-clad men in lingerie, the robo-calls, the fliers, the push polls, the recent NAMBLA-related smears showing up in close races all across the country (always raised, of course, by the Republicans). In the 2004 election is was church ministers talking about how Kerry (a Catholic) wanted to ban the bible, or mysterious robo-calls claiming to be from the Kerry campaign reminding people that "A vote for John Kerry is a vote for gay marriage," (even though Kerry had never taken a pro-gay marriage stance in his career).
I think, what it comes down to (I'm about to open myself for being flamed senseless), is that the party leadership in the Republican and Democratic parties have very different philosophies of what it means to run an election. Now, I'm speaking in generalities here, as there are some Republicans who I am rather fond of, and some Democrats that I intensely dislike. But in general, it seems that the Democrats have a philosophy more true to what has been enshrined in the constitution, and an overall sense of fairness. They seem to believe that all citizens have the right to vote, and have their vote counted, and have their voice heard no matter what their opinion is. They seem to want (generally) to allow the truth to speak for itself, and to get elected on the issues.
No doubt that there are many Republicans who feel the same way, but the party leadership (the Ken Mehlman and the Karl Rove types) either don't see or don't care about the importance of voting. They don't see it as a sacred right or responsibility. They see it as a means to an end, and that end is the Republicans getting and holding onto power. They (and again I'm referring to the party leadership and those that enable them, not necessarily the rank and file) believe that they are at war with the Democrats, and that any action that they can take that will result in their accruing more power is justified. They don't care how immoral or unethical it is, or even how illegal it is. They simply do whatever they can to win and then (if they get caught) pay the fines/do the time, though the punishment hardly matters if they had already achieved their goal. What's $5 million dollars in fines to the richest political party in the country, if it means that they can keep control of Congress or the White House? They can make that money back in a heartbeat by awarding no-bid contracts to the companies that are their staunchest supporters. The Republican leadership has come to terms with the notion of "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage" during the campaign, and unfortunately those losses include ethics and morals.
Now, I live in Ohio, and I'm sure that you've heard a lot about what sort of t
Re:Should do things the DNC way ... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you don't understand.
Anyone, doing anything, is the fault of the Democratic party. Someone make comments about how they don't think bin Laden's that bad? That's what Democrats think. Someone make a video mocking Bush and post it on YouTube? That's what Democrats think. Someone publish personal information about a congressman mother and urge poeple to harrass her? That's what Democrats think. A random blogger make a comment about how thinks only idiots would join the military at this moment? That's what Democrats think.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, people like Limbaugh and Malkin can say and do whatever they want, because they're not representive of the Republican party at all and the Republican party has nothing to do with them. Hell, actual Republican elected officials, if they get caught doing something evil, can just blame it on alcohol or cry some and it obviously doesn't reflect on the Real Republicans.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
This has no bearing on whether or not you like getting phone calls during election season.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:To quote Matt Groening: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know! It's crazy!
The same thing happened to me. There were two burger places in town, let's call them Repuburger, and Demoburgers.
Well, I used to eat at Repuburgers, but they started poisoning customers who ordered their fries, although I was smart enough not to do that. (I like onion rings.) And sometimes they physically assaulted me with forks, but never seriously enough to make me get medical attention, so it was okay. I guess the thing that finally made me dislike them was the fact they blinded me by holding my face in the grease cooker thing.
I called up the Demoburgers, but they refused to say they wouldn't physically harm me. In fact, they seemed completely outraged I would ask the question, and hung up on me.
So, I guess I'll attempt to find my way back to Repuburger. It's closer to my house anyway.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your logic is that Bush is spending much more than you're saving. Even if he hadn't pushed through the tax cuts, we would be running a deficit right now. The tax cuts just add insult to injury.
Furthermore, this isn't just a issue for us, it's an issue for our children and grandchildren. THEY will be paying for the excesses of this decade, and they'll have to pay our debts at the same time they're funding Social Security for the baby boomers.
Seriously, this is bad.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot assume that because there was 3000 + killed on 9/11 that this is part of traditional terrorist activities.
IN fact, we will not even be sure if we have been successful in limiting terror until mid 2007, which is about the date, traditionally, that we could expect the next attack if you add in the terrorist bombing in Okalahoma as the most recent,successful, mass death terrorist attack on American soil.
If you want to use foreign acts of terror on US soil, that successfully set off a bomb on our soil targeted at a major monument, then the frequency between attacks (using only the two most recent data points) is actually 8 years, because the last attack (also against WTC) was done in 1993.
So, if the president/you/Republicans don't want to count your buddy Tim McViegh as a terrorist, then we would have to wait until 2009 before we know if the President has been successful in stopping terrorism on American soil.
Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called learning from the past. Vietnam ring any bells? You can't force people to take on a form of government they don't want. In a recent poll 60% of Iraqi's supported attacks on American troops. Not just wanted American troops to leave, actually supported them being attacked. Sorry, we haven't won any hearts or minds. We are just making more enemies. Staying gains us nothing, they aren't 'coming around to our way of thinking'.
(and let another Saddam come to power..or worse)
Only a dictatorship of some sort can force those three peoples who hate each other (Kurd's, Sunni, Shia) to keep one government rather than split up, as they are eventually going to, into 3 separate countries. We are babysitting a civil war and it's going to stay that way until we leave and they break up. Either way, all we are doing is creating a new generation who hate us even more, producing more future terrorists. This ain't winning the war on terror. It's shooting yourself (ourselves) in the foot.
ignore the NK threat
You mean get so entrapped in unnecessary foreign wars that you have no excess military muscle to show, and have NK know it? Sorry, the Neo-cons have made sure our threats mean nothing to NK.
pay higher taxes (1st thing Dems will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts, especially the child tax credit)
HAHHAHA, god Neo-cons are idiots. I'm an old-time fiscal conservative, which means I absolutely hate the Republican party since the neo-cons took it over. Here's a clue. If you like low taxes, don't deficit spend out the wazoo. Republicans have created a vastly bigger 'big government' than the Democrats ever did. Think the tooth fairy is going to pay for that? No, sorry neo-cons, Jesus isn't whipping out his wallet either. You and I have to pay for this huge monstrosity of a government the Repubs have built. That takes tax money.
Hopefully the Democrats won't be as stupid as the Republicans and leave the debt for the future. Paying off your credit cards each month is the only sane way to build a future. Having such a huge national debt building up is forfeiting our future.
see Wall Street go DOWN
Hahahaha, god you neo-cons are funny. Yeah, that Clinton era did just terrible things for Wall Street. What a moron.
increase the chance for another 9/11
Funny, all the liberals I know supported going into Afghanistan. You know, that place the terrorists were actually based out of. Democrats were all for defending ourselves and getting retribution. They, however, limit it to the folks who actually attacked us. Not someone with make-believe WMDs.
see all progress on illegal immigration stop
Once again you prove to be a total idiot. Democrats aren't the ones hiring illegals to work for them cheaply, displacing jobs for legal Americans. Republican businessmen are.
Re:Then we can be like Italy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a damn good reason for that.
There have been studies done, and on 'important' political issues, about 3/4th of all people agree. Seriously. That's a frickin supermajority. I'm talking stuff about abortion and gay marriage and teaching evolution in school and all the stuff the Republicans like to make issues about.
And, when you look at what these positions are, they are slightly to the right of where the Democratic party stands. If you were to draw a scale on every issue from 0 to 100 between the far right and the far left, and put the Democrats at 75 and the Republicans at 25, almost 70% of people over 18 are somewhere between 60 to 70 on that issue.
Probably another 15% is spread between 60 and 15, and 5% between 70 and 85, with the remaining 10% making up both edges. (Aka, the 'far' right and left.)
Another way of looking at this would be to draw a bell curve, and put the Democrats almost right in the middle, and Republicans way over in the 15 percentile.
However, I have to point out, in this country, only 1/4th the people vote. People who outside the system, the 10% on the ends, almost always vote. But they cancel each other out, mostly, or vote for third parties.
So, we're left with 15% of the sane people. And, statistically, most of them would vote Democratic. It's a very fine line the Republicans have to walk. Punching the right button with the churchgoers are one way to do it, demonizing their opponants, trying to portray them as 85ers instead of 70ers, in hopes of catching the 60ers.
Randomly selecting, say, 10% of the unregistered voters in this country, making them spend a week listening to the issues, and then making them vote, would be a total disaster for the Republicans.
Re:"smear message"? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Kent Brockman's surprise write-in victory. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's not quite how I'd put it. Again, I'd say that the people calling the shots in the GOP are, if not actually evil, extremely nasty, unethical, and willing to stoop to almost any level to get/keep power. I'm not sure that I would call the Democrats incompetent, but I think that there are a lot of progressive types in the Democratic party (go figure) who are willing to put principles over power. Maybe that makes them foolish, but I think that there is a certain reason to it. I think it's similar to saying that if the US tortures it's POWs then we aren't any different than the insurgents who kidnap, torture and kill people to make Jihadi videos. If we are willing to take our own citizens off the streets and lock them away forever without access to the courts, or even without their families knowing what happened to them, then we are no better than the Iraqi regime that we helped to topple. By the same token, I think that the Democrats largely believe that if they stoop to the level of the Ken Mehlmens and Karl Roves of the world, then they would be no better and no more worthy of governing than the Republicans are.
It undoubtedly sucks to get repeatedly beaten by dirty tricks, but the tricksters don't always win. And how much better must it feel if you can win cleanly?
Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"smear message"4 (Score:3, Insightful)
What, the 2,800+ Americans killed in Iraq by IEDs, snipers, etc, don't count? By my accounting, that's nearly another September 11th's worth of dead Americans.