Opposition research (political)

Message

#1 Post by **Bob78164** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:02 pm

The Democratic Party is taking opposition research to a whole new level. I like the idea.

People are simply taking video of events attended by Republican candidates. Not merely the big events that everyone will cover, but small events where a candidate may only be speaking to a dozen or so voters. They're then placing that video on the Web, and allowing anyone so inclined to test a candidate's public position against putatively more private statements.

Open source meets opposition research -- powered by the Internet. --Bob

ToLiveIsToFly · #2 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:25 pm

Isn't that what prompted the "Macaca" comment?

flockofseagulls104 · #3 Post by **flockofseagulls104** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:41 pm

People are simply taking video of events attended by Republican candidates. Not merely the big events that everyone will cover, but small events where a candidate may only be speaking to a dozen or so voters. They're then placing that video on the Web, and allowing anyone so inclined to test a candidate's public position against putatively more private statements.

You don't have to do that with Democrats. They contradict themselves daily at any event.

#4 Post by **Bob78164** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:23 pm

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:Isn't that what prompted the "Macaca" comment?

Sure, but that one pretty much spoke for itself. What's nice about this technique is that lots and lots of amateur researchers now will have the opportunity to ferret out problems that might not be obvious. --Bob

SportsFan68 · #5 Post by **SportsFan68** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:39 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You don't have to do that with Democrats. They contradict themselves daily at any event.

To quote the person who's probably your 20th Century hero, Flock, "There you go again," making an assertion with hundreds of examples to the contrary.

flockofseagulls104 · #6 Post by **flockofseagulls104** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:12 pm

SportsFan68 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You don't have to do that with Democrats. They contradict themselves daily at any event.
To quote the person who's probably your 20th Century hero, Flock, "There you go again," making an assertion with hundreds of examples to the contrary.

Huh? Hundreds of examples to the contrary? I guess you are right. There are probably hundreds of times a Dem doesn't contradict him (or her) self when making a statement. But just recently you could cite Hillary's difficulty in stating a coherent position on drivers licenses for ILLEGAL immigrants and her husband's forgetting his original position on Iraq as examples to prove my point.

Did you bother to read what I said or did you just type a knee jerk response?

Oh, and yes, Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes. We could use someone with his leadership skills about now.

mrkelley23 · #7 Post by **mrkelley23** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:19 pm

What I don't get, flock, is that you think this is somehow limited to Democrats.

The two leading Republican contenders (in national polls, anyway) put John Kerry to shame in contradicting themselves. I don't think it's a Democrat Republican thing. I think it's an American presidential politics thing, and has been for at least a generation.

flockofseagulls104 · #8 Post by **flockofseagulls104** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:22 pm

mrkelley23 wrote:What I don't get, flock, is that you think this is somehow limited to Democrats.

The two leading Republican contenders (in national polls, anyway) put John Kerry to shame in contradicting themselves. I don't think it's a Democrat Republican thing. I think it's an American presidential politics thing, and has been for at least a generation.

I never said it was limited to Democrats. There are plenty of scumbag Republicans too. The original point of this thread was how clever the far left is in procuring clandestine videos to find mud to fling at Republicans.

mrkelley23 · #9 Post by **mrkelley23** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:29 pm

I am often angered by people using emotionally loaded words in their messages to try to win people over. This is something you're not normally guilty of, flock, but this last one has too many for me to overlook.

It is not the "far left," it is the Democratic Party. They are not "clandestine videos," they are video clips of public events, featuring people who have announced their intention to run for the most public office in the country, if not the world. No one is flinging mud -- they are offering raw, unfiltered video for people to view in making up their minds. That was supposedly what all these politicians wanted just a few years ago -- a way to reach the peepul without the filter of the liberal media.

Unless your claim is that somehow the boogeyman (i.e., George Soros) is somehow doctoring these videos, I think what they're doing is a great thing. And I think the Republicans should do the same thing to the Dems.

flockofseagulls104 · #10 Post by **flockofseagulls104** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:01 pm

mrkelley23 wrote:I am often angered by people using emotionally loaded words in their messages to try to win people over. This is something you're not normally guilty of, flock, but this last one has too many for me to overlook.

It is not the "far left," it is the Democratic Party. They are not "clandestine videos," they are video clips of public events, featuring people who have announced their intention to run for the most public office in the country, if not the world. No one is flinging mud -- they are offering raw, unfiltered video for people to view in making up their minds. That was supposedly what all these politicians wanted just a few years ago -- a way to reach the peepul without the filter of the liberal media.

Unless your claim is that somehow the boogeyman (i.e., George Soros) is somehow doctoring these videos, I think what they're doing is a great thing. And I think the Republicans should do the same thing to the Dems.

Join the club. For a lot of people on this bored, I could say "Joy to the World" and they'd get mad.

Just my opinion, but the more we make politics a strip search process where everyone's dirty laundry is put under a microscope, the less truly able people we will get to run for office. We will only get scoundrels who are good at covering things up. ON BOTH SIDES.

wbtravis007 · #11 Post by **wbtravis007** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:17 pm

About Reagan, the biggest big-time-cut-and-runnerer that I can think of right now, I'll definitely give him more credit now about a lot of things -- in terms of his depth and what not -- than I would have then.

Still, though, I can't help thinking that all of this hoo-hah about him is kind of becoming a gay thing.

Like the Jesus thing has become in some respects.

NTTAWWT.

flockofseagulls104 · #12 Post by **flockofseagulls104** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:39 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:About Reagan, the biggest big-time-cut-and-runnerer that I can think of right now, I'll definitely give him more credit now about a lot of things -- in terms of his depth and what not -- than I would have then.

Still, though, I can't help thinking that all of this hoo-hah about him is kind of becoming a gay thing.

Like the Jesus thing has become in some respects.

NTTAWWT.

If you remember, you made a pledge a while ago. But I guess it's too much to expect someone like you to live up to their word. Someone somewhere might find your remarks funny in some way. I can't imagine in what way. But I'm sure that's not why you wrote them. I was very tempted to stoop to your level, but I think anyone with an open mind will see you for what you are.

SportsFan68 · #13 Post by **SportsFan68** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:10 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Did you bother to read what I said or did you just type a knee jerk response?

Indeed I did. I usually don't find it a bother to read two sentences. Here it is in its entirety: "You don't have to do that with Democrats. They contradict themselves daily at any event."

Pick on Hillary all you want (you will anyway, with or without my permission), but what you will not do is prove that point with one example. This is more accurate: "I guess you are right. There are probably hundreds of times a Dem doesn't contradict him (or her) self when making a statement. " I would leave out the probably, but I appreciate your coming that far to agree with me.