techPresident - Duncan Hunter - Comments

Off the Bus

Jon Garfunkel — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:16:24 -0500

I'm still failing to see how "Off the Bus" is any different from any other blog/press coverage... Amanda and Zack are nice folks, I've met them both, but under what sort of metrics is their coverage better?

There's no way to view the archives, so it's very difficult to compare. The Nevada caucus coverage is telling:

On January 18th, "psericks" (who he?) blogs:

"On the eve of the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign is again betting against voter turnout, making encouraging statements about a lawsuit that would have shut down nine caucus locations and disenfranchised tens of thousands of shifts workers just hours before the caucus --- with little chance to make other plans to participate."

(psericks was merely repeating what he read in that ol' standby of horserace coverage, the MSM-- specifically, the Las Vegas Sun.)

But, after the caucus, Zack Exley was telling a different story:
"Before the mainstream media descended on Nevada, I spent several days with the Clinton campaign there in early December. The field campaign, led by State Director Robby Mook and field director Marlon Marshall turned out to be an incredible example of passionate, yet cool-headed management and results-focused organizing. ... Meticulous organizing and good management by the local Clinton Nevada staff have made the difference."

Obviously, Zack had put a lot of time into this story (a habit of the ol' MSM) and couldn't quite abandon it (another MSM habit). But the rest of Off The Bus was making the case that it was dirty politics that would put Clinton over the top (Meanwhile, as was reported elsewhere, Obama still won in the delegate count.)

I read the NYT coverage as well. It briefly noted the lawsuite, as well as this point: "The campaign took on an increasingly negative tone, with phone calls identifying Mr. Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama' and Spanish language radio ads suggesting that Mrs. Clinton 'does not respect our people.'"

Aha, this is interesting. So I go Google around, and learn about anonymous robocalls, and their inconsistent enforcement at the state level. Elsewhere on Off the Bus I read about the whisper campaign against Obama in S.C.-- via flyers handed out through church membership.

So here's what I'd like to see: something like UPenn's FactCheck.org, but strictly covering dirty tricks and rumor campaigns, and using investigative journalism skills to figure out who's behind them.

FCC and other state monsters.

voluntaryist — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:46:00 -0500

Celebrate the sovereign individual

Ron Paul would abolish the FCC, IRS, Federal Reserve, and much more. Without the net he wouldn't have a chance and vice versa. They need each other. The net represents the last vestige of freedom of speech. Paul is the only candidate who will protect it.

Mixing state and technology is a clumsy "dance"

johnfkosanke — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:16:23 -0500

Perhaps another example would be illustrative. The FCC was created after the invention of the radio. Bleeding heart statists wanted to protect the "scarcity" of the airwaves. While this idea has been long since disproven, The FCC continues to heavily dictate spectral property and broadcasting in the same way the USSR distributed physical property and the Politbureau centrally "planned" the economy, keeping the big boys up on top.

Start-up technologies are fighting tooth and nail for a tiny piece of the spectrum - begging the omnicient and omnipotent FCC for mercy.

Now the FCC has declared by fiat that all television broadcasts must be digital by a certain date. Just when landfills are beginning to embrace the technology of recovery and recycle, they are struggling in anticipation of the mountains of toxic waste from TV sets that will become obsolete overnight.

All with a stroke of a pen.

Failure to Connect

littlebier8 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:37:26 -0500

I had hoped that techPresident would show some sense of democracy in their ratings, but no, once again, the damning liberal-conservative bias has crushed a great opportunity to explore the Internet's choice for president. When I read the title I thought, "Hey, this is a pretty cool idea. Who WOULD the Internet generation pick for president?" But that was far from what I got. This article was not an investigation of the Republican Internet-goers choice (and marginalizing the thousands of silly "Ron Paul iz great in 08" comments), but instead it was the vision of the anointed authors of techPresident.com, totally disconnected from what the people might actually want. This article despises the intelligence of the people they claim to represent. Rather than investigating and providing proofs for the people's desire for their six points, they have handed down their pre-formulated vision for a good "Tech President". They expect us to just swallow the party line of techPresident.com without a thought given to the practical, moral, or legal implications of that grand plan.
But that is just the metaphysical objections to this article. Now lets give it shoes and show what a sham it is. We can begin by taking for granted that Rep. Paul is the Internet's choice for president (since even they admitted that). Keeping that in mind, we must assume that the people have REASONS for voting for him and have done RESEARCH about his positions. Since most people on the Internet would pick him, logically they have looked at his positions (particularly about the Internet) and decided that it is in their best interest that he be president. Net Neutrality is a door for the government to control the Internet, as is the government providing high speed to the people. If they can give it to us, then they can punish us and take it away. Since it is a [socialist] gift, they can also regulate and monitor our doings. And what is wrong with letting the market provide it? It has provided tens of millions of people with Internet access at speeds never before imagined. Can you imagine a government bureaucracy doing that? Yeah, just like the government controlled phone company did. The comparison to interstate highways is a non sequitur. Finally, his commitment to transparency is very clear in his statements, actions, and websites.
This article is basically the unilateral decision of a small group of people, predominantly neo-socialists, with a poorly researched agenda. I am most disappointed by this, considering the otherwise excellent work of the techPresident crew. This just represents a failure to connect with the people's opinions. It looks down on the masses as unintelligent people that need to be spoon-fed opinions, since theirs are the wrong ones. This isn’t a Personal Democracy Forum, it’s an Oligarchy Caucus.

Samuel Shaw
Mt. Laurel, of the sovereign state of South Jersey

Imagine freedom

Tex MacRae — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:14:07 -0500

"… every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

Pro-State Anti-Market Tech President Criteria is Suspect

johnfkosanke — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:40:43 -0500

How can McCain - or any candidate for that matter - can get a better Internet grade than Paul (Dr. Internet)?

* Ron Paul is ranked as the member of Congress with the most
Internet-friendly voting record by C-NET.

* He is cosponsor of HR 743, which provides for a permanent moratorium on Internet taxes.

* He is the leading Republican opponent of laws banning Internet Gambling and leading supporter of HR 2046, legislation restoring the American people's right to gamble online.

*He also opposes giving government power to monitor our Internet use absent meeting the Constitutional requirements of probable cause.

Anyone who understands fundamental market laws, knows that abusive monopolies can not last without an alliance with the state. Before Internetters go activist, they'd better get an education. Otherwise they will cut their own throats.

Why Paul's Bad Grade

Micah L. Sifry — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:53:49 -0500

Couple of quick points, as I'm about to get on a plane. First, the internet didn't rise spontaneously. It was originally a govt-funded network, under DARPA and various govt-funded research universities. Its growth has occurred thru a dynamic public-private dance that has yes, horrors, included all sorts of regulation. Net neutrality and the separation of content from service providers are vital to protect the very freedom the Paulites so cherish. Left to their own devices, the telcos would turn the internet into something like pay per view cable.
As for the claim that the EFF strongly supports Dr. Paul--I'd like to see some documentation, because it's highly unlikely the foundation is risking its non-profit status by supporting a candidate for office.
Micah

Draft Bloomberg to Become the First Independent TechPresident!

CitizenSmith — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:16:21 -0500

If we want a Tech President we need a President that understands the importance of technology, no-one has close to the technological background of Mike Bloomberg. He would make a fantastic leader for this and many other issues, which is why we are trying to Draft Mike Bloomberg for President UniteForMike

The Constitution Can Be Updated

canadaduane — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:16:47 -0500

"We guess he thinks the government's investment in the interstate highway system was also interference in the market."

While it's true that Ron Paul is a strong advocate of the free-market system, he is also strongly in favor of everything the constitution stands for. In the case of an interstate highway, this is a clear mandate of the federal government, and is therefore an appropriate expediture.

Ron Paul stands for the rule of law. In other words, if the constitution does not authorize it--and especially if the constitution expressly forbids it--Ron Paul does not support it. His clear integrity on this issue has caused him to propose numerous amendments to the constitution (amendments such as the anti-flag burning amendment) which he himself opposes.

The point is that we, as a people, must return the constitution to its rightful place as our founding law, and, if we see fit to modernize it, do so by amending it rather than skirting around it.

P.S. I am a permanent resident of the USA.

The editors miss the grade

Avery Knapp Jr — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:57:49 -0500

The editors of techpresident.com are clearly in favor of government regulation of the internet under the guise of the likes of "net neutrality," and hence the low grade given to Dr. Paul. Just today, Dr. Paul was one of only two congressmen who had the courage to stand up against an overarching law - "Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act"
(http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html?tag=nefd.top)

There is a reason that the Electronic Frontier Foundation strongly supports Dr. Paul, CNET has called him "The Internet's Favorite Candidate," and more Google employees went to see him at their headquarters than any other candidate (and they submitted more questions). The internet is BFF with Ron Paul. The internet was the last bastion of freedom on this earth, although that is changing with the ever-encroaching role of government into our daily lives, our economic lives in the form of taxes, and our online lives under the guise of "protecting the children," "fighting the terrorists online," and "providing for the common good" - statist dogma.

The advantage of user-driven content and rating systems such as are in place at digg.com, youtube.com, and the likes is that the truth will bear out more quickly as data is transmitted more rapidly. The truth that the internet should never be regulated and never be taxed and that government is necessarily the enemy of freedom is being taught by Dr. Paul and learned by the world. Perhaps the editors would do well to read Hayek and perhaps I would do well to read Marx.

Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D.

Internet Freedom

Buddy1012 — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:31:11 -0500

The editorial staff of this generally worthwhile site are biting the hand that feeds them. The internet has grown spontaneously, mostly without government involvement. Any voice that wants to be heard is heard. This is the closest thing to a free market remaining on earth.

Despite this, the editors grade the candidates on tech-friendliness using a list of bogus criteria. Each of the editors grading tools involves government intervention in the internet. The current idiot in the White House would surely approve of every one of these criteria. If the editorial staff really wants the internet to continue to flourish, they should grade the candidates on the degree to which the oppose any subsidy, regulation, or other government involvement. Obviously, Ron Paul should get an A+. I have not researched the degree to which the other candidates support government involvement in the internet.

Ron Paul Rules...

rtester — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:16:59 -0400

...Period! Now, if we could just get the mainstream media to figure it out... They seem to be a bit lost on this one:)

meetup charts

RPmaniac — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:34:02 -0400

To the editors
Thank you so much for putting these charts on, it's good for people to see just how much support Dr. Paul really has,so much of the mainstream media is constantly shoving their bias opinion down every ones throat,showing these numbers will wake people up to what is really going on, THE REVOLUTION !!

Ron Paul rules MeetUp

Tex MacRae — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:18:28 -0400

Those charts are pretty funny.

See some Ron Paul MeetUps in action.

SEO for candidate sites

Joebergeron — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:59:14 -0400

Neil,
This is good information; I hope the candidates (and their webmasters) take note. I'd also suggest including Robot.txt and an XML sitemap in the root directory.

However, my sense is that SEO is less important in the political arena than in other sectors, due to a simple fact: the candidate's URL includes their name. When you search a person's complete name, a high SERP is virtually guaranteed -- particularly if the individual has had any presence on the Web.

Thanks again for an interesting interview.

Joseph Bergeron, Webmaster, LostNation.tv