WWTBAM Bored

Approximately three dozen call center workers in Indiana walked off the job, sacrificing their pay for the rest of the day, rather than read the script for anti-Obama calls paid for by the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee. --Bob

I am sick of the election, we are getting about three calls a day.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I am sick of the election, we are getting about three calls a day.

I recall that you've already voted, so I infer that Jeff has not. I understand that they stop calling once the household shows up on the list of people who have voted. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I am sick of the election, we are getting about three calls a day.

I recall that you've already voted, so I infer that Jeff has not. I understand that they stop calling once the household shows up on the list of people who have voted. --Bob

I can tell you for a fact that this is not the case here in Florida. Erika and I both already voted and we still get several phone calls a day. Today Robo Matt Damon called me.

Okay, who screwed up the "quote" button?

Bob####s said, "Approximately three dozen call center workers in Indiana walked off the job, sacrificing their pay for the rest of the day, rather than read the script for anti-Obama calls paid for by the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee."

Come on, Bob. I wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened, nor do you. I do know not to anticipate accurate and unbiased reporting from any site named TPM -- which stands for "Talking Points Memo."


(Note: The "quote" button now has returned. It wasn't there when I began my reply.)

silvercamaro wrote:Okay, who screwed up the "quote" button?

Bob####s said, "Approximately three dozen call center workers in Indiana walked off the job, sacrificing their pay for the rest of the day, rather than read the script for anti-Obama calls paid for by the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee."

Come on, Bob. I wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened, nor do you. I do know not to anticipate accurate and unbiased reporting from any site named TPM -- which stands for "Talking Points Memo."


(Note: The "quote" button now has returned. It wasn't there when I began my reply.)

The story is specific and identifies its sources by name. The script the callers were asked to read is sufficiently outrageous that I can certainly believe they would act in that manner. If the story were an over-the-top invention, I would have expected an exaggerated claim along the lines of an assertion that the workers were fired instead of merely being sent home for the day. In short, my experience on this planet tells me that the story is accurate.

Other than its location in Talking Points Memo, do you have any other reason to challenge its accuracy? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:Okay, who screwed up the "quote" button?

Bob####s said, "Approximately three dozen call center workers in Indiana walked off the job, sacrificing their pay for the rest of the day, rather than read the script for anti-Obama calls paid for by the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee."

Come on, Bob. I wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened, nor do you. I do know not to anticipate accurate and unbiased reporting from any site named TPM -- which stands for "Talking Points Memo."


(Note: The "quote" button now has returned. It wasn't there when I began my reply.)

The story is specific and identifies its sources by name. The script the callers were asked to read is sufficiently outrageous that I can certainly believe they would act in that manner. If the story were an over-the-top invention, I would have expected an exaggerated claim along the lines of an assertion that the workers were fired instead of merely being sent home for the day. In short, my experience on this planet tells me that the story is accurate.

Other than its location in Talking Points Memo, do you have any other reason to challenge its accuracy? --Bob

Just because it hasn't been reported on FOX Cartoon News doesn't mean it's not true.

Bob78164 wrote:I recall that you've already voted, so I infer that Jeff has not. I understand that they stop calling once the household shows up on the list of people who have voted. --Bob

The fact that I've voted is public record? I don't think elections bureaus should report that to anyone. Or is there an option in CA for that.

It's not that it's not true, it's just not news.

In Indiana, as the story makes clear, a law was passed to stop robocalling. It complemented the do-not-call list, and it's made a difference, at least in our household. Now, if you want to do calls of this nature, you have to either make live calls with volunteers or (as was apparently the case here) hire a third party telemarketer to read your scripts.

Americall is a pretty big organization, and pays its workers like day laborers. So when they got the contract from the McCain people, some of the workers who apparently have no problems selling unwanted crap to unaware senior citizens had a problem with the language in the script. So they threatened to leave, and the bosses said, "go ahead, but you don't get paid." The did, and they didn't. Woohoo.

If I'm an editor with any kind of conscience at all, this story doesn't even make the inside of the Galaxy Gazette, or whatever weekly it was that SSS was quoting yesterday.

A couple of points:

1. Hey, BobJ, there's some job openings if you hurry....I'm thinking the economy in that part of Indiana must not be too bad if these 'principled employees' walked.

2. Interesting Campbell Brown column from CNN (she's been in the tank in my opinion, so this is surprising):

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.

Flybrick wrote:A couple of points:

1. Hey, BobJ, there's some job openings if you hurry....I'm thinking the economy in that part of Indiana must not be too bad if these 'principled employees' walked.

2. Interesting Campbell Brown column from CNN (she's been in the tank in my opinion, so this is surprising):

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.

I should thank Senator Obama. I always felt a little guilty when I did not check the boxes on our tax form to donate to the election fund. As this election has ended such funding for Presidential elections, I no longer have to feel guilty.

The current estimate that I heard was that a serious contender will have to raise over $600 million in 2012 in order to win the Presidency. I imagine that in 2012 that there still will not be any reporting or breakdown of how much funding is coming from outisde of the US, by non-citizens.

Y'know, when the GOP regularly out-raised and outspent the Dems, the Dems would complain a bit then suck it up and go with what they had. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the complaining has been loud and long. Deal with it, folks. You'd have done the same thing.

The system won't change unless laws are created to set fundraising and spending limits ("You can use $X for your campaign and no more, raised from any source including your own wealth."). Doesn't matter if it's tax form check-offs or privately raised. Won't happen because of 1st amendment issues.

gsabc wrote:Y'know, when the GOP regularly out-raised and outspent the Dems, the Dems would complain a bit then suck it up and go with what they had. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the complaining has been loud and long. Deal with it, folks. You'd have done the same thing.

The system won't change unless laws are created to set fundraising and spending limits ("You can use $X for your campaign and no more, raised from any source including your own wealth."). Doesn't matter if it's tax form check-offs or privately raised. Won't happen because of 1st amendment issues.

I still wish we'd adopt the British model.

Six week campaign season- all public financing. Boom- done.

Instead we have perpetual campaigning because of all the fundraising that needs to be done.

mrkelley23 wrote:It's not that it's not true, it's just not news.

In Indiana, as the story makes clear, a law was passed to stop robocalling. It complemented the do-not-call list, and it's made a difference, at least in our household. Now, if you want to do calls of this nature, you have to either make live calls with volunteers or (as was apparently the case here) hire a third party telemarketer to read your scripts.

Americall is a pretty big organization, and pays its workers like day laborers. So when they got the contract from the McCain people, some of the workers who apparently have no problems selling unwanted crap to unaware senior citizens had a problem with the language in the script. So they threatened to leave, and the bosses said, "go ahead, but you don't get paid." The did, and they didn't. Woohoo.

If I'm an editor with any kind of conscience at all, this story doesn't even make the inside of the Galaxy Gazette, or whatever weekly it was that SSS was quoting yesterday.

It's news because it can be spun to make one candidate look bad.

That's how it works in this country nowadays.

Jeemie wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:It's not that it's not true, it's just not news.

In Indiana, as the story makes clear, a law was passed to stop robocalling. It complemented the do-not-call list, and it's made a difference, at least in our household. Now, if you want to do calls of this nature, you have to either make live calls with volunteers or (as was apparently the case here) hire a third party telemarketer to read your scripts.

Americall is a pretty big organization, and pays its workers like day laborers. So when they got the contract from the McCain people, some of the workers who apparently have no problems selling unwanted crap to unaware senior citizens had a problem with the language in the script. So they threatened to leave, and the bosses said, "go ahead, but you don't get paid." The did, and they didn't. Woohoo.

If I'm an editor with any kind of conscience at all, this story doesn't even make the inside of the Galaxy Gazette, or whatever weekly it was that SSS was quoting yesterday.

It's news because it can be spun to make one candidate look bad.

That's how it works in this country nowadays.

Jeemie, are you saying that it is news because it makes one specific candidate look bad, rather than another specific candidate?

jeemie, I agree, shorter season, less money, done with it.


gsabc, no, it's not whining because the Democrats are outraising and outspending the Republicans, it's that Obama gave his word, both verbally and in writing, that he'd use the federal money.

It's the not keeping his word that is the issue.




A politician breaking his word, I shocked, I tell you, shocked!

gotribego26 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I recall that you've already voted, so I infer that Jeff has not. I understand that they stop calling once the household shows up on the list of people who have voted. --Bob

The fact that I've voted is public record? I don't think elections bureaus should report that to anyone. Or is there an option in CA for that.

In Colorado, the fact that you have voted is public record. If you voted in the previous three general elections AND the previous three primaries, you're "super-active;" in the previous three generals, you're "active." If you're affiliated, you're very attractive to your party and will get calls from them. If you're unaffiliated, you're attractive to both parties and will get calls from both.

I'll say again what I said yesterday -- do not list your phone number when you register to vote. If it's already listed, change it after the election. Your County Clerk will almost certainly contact you by mail if the need arises.

I don't suggest trying to change the fact that you voted is public record. I think you should be proud of it. I'll post an article about it later if I think of it.

What I do think you should try for, as somebody else said, is a law making robocalls illegal. We tried them once and will never do so again, as long as I'm involved with the local party anyway. I hung up on Bill Clinton. It was a disaster in our area. But apparently they have some effectiveness, or they wouldn't be used.

Bob78164 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:Okay, who screwed up the "quote" button?

Bob####s said, "Approximately three dozen call center workers in Indiana walked off the job, sacrificing their pay for the rest of the day, rather than read the script for anti-Obama calls paid for by the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee."

Come on, Bob. I wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened, nor do you. I do know not to anticipate accurate and unbiased reporting from any site named TPM -- which stands for "Talking Points Memo."


(Note: The "quote" button now has returned. It wasn't there when I began my reply.)

The story is specific and identifies its sources by name. The script the callers were asked to read is sufficiently outrageous that I can certainly believe they would act in that manner. If the story were an over-the-top invention, I would have expected an exaggerated claim along the lines of an assertion that the workers were fired instead of merely being sent home for the day. In short, my experience on this planet tells me that the story is accurate.

Other than its location in Talking Points Memo, do you have any other reason to challenge its accuracy? --Bob

So where are the Obama workers with a conscience? Who quit because Obama keeps taking "donations" from Seorge Goros and Max Payne and every other made up name?

No one.

So, basically, a bunch of random people off the street have a "conscience," but no one in the Obama campaign has shred of integrity. But Bob thinks that is okay, because it's win at all costs!

Flybrick wrote:jeemie, I agree, shorter season, less money, done with it.


gsabc, no, it's not whining because the Democrats are outraising and outspending the Republicans, it's that Obama gave his word, both verbally and in writing, that he'd use the federal money.

It's the not keeping his word that is the issue.




A politician breaking his word, I shocked, I tell you, shocked!

So you're basically upset he's not spending your tax dollars?

gsabc wrote:Y'know, when the GOP regularly out-raised and outspent the Dems, the Dems would complain a bit then suck it up and go with what they had. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the complaining has been loud and long. Deal with it, folks. You'd have done the same thing.

The system won't change unless laws are created to set fundraising and spending limits ("You can use $X for your campaign and no more, raised from any source including your own wealth."). Doesn't matter if it's tax form check-offs or privately raised. Won't happen because of 1st amendment issues.

When was this? It's hard to sort through all the party money, the union money, etc, but it's generally agreed that the Dems have outspent the GOP for the last three presidential elections now.

Weyoun wrote:

gsabc wrote:Y'know, when the GOP regularly out-raised and outspent the Dems, the Dems would complain a bit then suck it up and go with what they had. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the complaining has been loud and long. Deal with it, folks. You'd have done the same thing.

The system won't change unless laws are created to set fundraising and spending limits ("You can use $X for your campaign and no more, raised from any source including your own wealth."). Doesn't matter if it's tax form check-offs or privately raised. Won't happen because of 1st amendment issues.

When was this? It's hard to sort through all the party money, the union money, etc, but it's generally agreed that the Dems have outspent the GOP for the last three presidential elections now.

Can you point me to a site that supports that - I'm not saying you are wrong I just would like to see the data, a quick search only finds the presidential numbers showing Bush outraising and outspending Kerry - so I would like to some other data.

As an aside - I think that the Obama spending is not getting such airplay/concern is that, at least for Sept and IIRC previous months as well, is from huge number of people giving an average of under $100 - this results in less individual influence from large or agragate doners - and I think that was the primary concern of campaign finance laws - making sure that a relative small number of doners having undo influence because the candidate is dependent on them for the big bucks it takes to run a campaign. By having a huge number of donors and primarly small donations that unseamly sense of influence seems to disapate - which personally I think is a good thing.

Granted there might be a small percentage that may be trying to scam the system, but given the size of the crowds at Obama rally's, such as 100,000 in St. Louis recently, I don't think it is hard to imagine that the vast majority of his donations are of the 'lots of small donotions from lots of people' kind - I think it would be both expenses, difficult and enormously stupid to try to orginize a scam so that Obama was really getting the majority of his donations from a small group of people trying to buy influence but making it seem like it was actually from millions of different donors.

Regardless of the party, I would like to see this trend continue for everyone running for office - lots of small donations from lots of people who support their candidate, IMHO.

---Jay

frogman042 wrote: As an aside - I think that the Obama spending is not getting such airplay/concern is that, at least for Sept and IIRC previous months as well, is from huge number of people giving an average of under $100 - this results in less individual influence from large or agragate doners - and I think that was the primary concern of campaign finance laws - making sure that a relative small number of doners having undo influence because the candidate is dependent on them for the big bucks it takes to run a campaign. By having a huge number of donors and primarly small donations that unseamly sense of influence seems to disapate - which personally I think is a good thing.

There's an irony there, if that is true and accurate (and, of course, there are those who would suggest that the reason for all the very low dollar amount contributions is that big contributors are making donations through a lot of fake names and such). Traditionally, while the Republicans usually raised more total dollars than the Democrats, they did so using smaller average donations from a larger number of total contributors-- while a lot of news coverage would go to the people like Clement Stone (gave Nixon like millions for his campaigns), most of the donors were small timers, there were just a LOT of them. When Eugene McCarthy ran against Johnson in the primaries (well, Johnson didn't actually run, he was a write-in in New Hampshire and formally dropped out soon after he beat McCarthy), McCarthy raised 95% of his entire funding from 5 (FIVE!!!) very wealthy donors. Although that is an extreme, it is directionally the way things used to go.

Hell Kitty wrote:
So you're basically upset he's not spending your tax dollars?

It's called irony.


My complaint, such as it is, is that Obama went back on his word. That's a very crucial indicator of a man's character.

As an aside, from a practical standpoint, I don't blame Obama for breaking his word, he saw that he could raise a ton more money than what he originally believed. Not much use running if you aren't doing everything you can to win.

However, I don't respect the decision.

The opposite side of this coin is McCain not using Rev Wright to attack Obama. McCain said it was out of bounds and has, thus far, kept to that.

So, he kept his word, but at, probably, great political cost.

I respect the act of keeping his word, not the practical matter of giving up a big political gain.

Flybrick wrote:

Hell Kitty wrote:
So you're basically upset he's not spending your tax dollars?

It's called irony.


My complaint, such as it is, is that Obama went back on his word. That's a very crucial indicator of a man's character.

As an aside, from a practical standpoint, I don't blame Obama for breaking his word, he saw that he could raise a ton more money than what he originally believed. Not much use running if you aren't doing everything you can to win.

However, I don't respect the decision.

The opposite side of this coin is McCain not using Rev Wright to attack Obama. McCain said it was out of bounds and has, thus far, kept to that.

So, he kept his word, but at, probably, great political cost.

I respect the act of keeping his word, not the practical matter of giving up a big political gain.

Read my lips:....oh, nevermind. You know the rest.....

mrkelley23 wrote: Americall is a pretty big organization, and pays its workers like day laborers. So when they got the contract from the McCain people, some of the workers who apparently have no problems selling unwanted crap to unaware senior citizens had a problem with the language in the script. So they threatened to leave, and the bosses said, "go ahead, but you don't get paid." The did, and they didn't. Woohoo.

This is one reason why in-person phone polling may be somewhat suspect too. The pollsters get their employees from the same general segment of the population as do the telemarketers: poorly paid, poor working conditions, usually very young, usually not lasting too long (for a lot of reasons). Turnover rate tends to be extremely high.