Raised From The Dead

First, a personal note to Steve:  Since you never seem to understand the arguments of your opponent (consistently claiming that they don't make sense),  I think we've discovered your root difficulties as a lawyer.  Take that as constructive criticism.  'Just glad I could help.

Now, the intermittent power outages in the Bozone on Saturday morn kilt my computer.   Of course, I had to work much of the weekend, including a meeting yesterday.  I have just now resurrected it from the dead, and I've been able to recover all the files that were 'lost'.  I still have a ways to go, software wise, but I think I'm in the clear.

So, I positively had to comment on the 'cyber-fraud' nonsense that seems to fill others with glee.  Let's be clear:  Matt was right for chiding a campaign for displaying web-wise ignorance.  It's a new world out there, and candidates who forget that are idiots.  Candidates who whine about it are even worse.

There is always opportunity in adversity ... always.  Whoops, sorry if I sound all Republicant in that, but I will repeat:  there is always opportunity in adversity.

1)  Why are candidates relying on .com?  Are politicians a business now?  I highly doubt it ... or maybe I don't.  I know that the most searched-for suffix will be .com, but let's us get a grip.  There is opportunity with .org, .gov or even .biz (if politicos want to be honest.)  The 'loss' of a .com URL is an admission that you aren't for hire, or to buy, but those are the only terms your opponent can think in.  Promote that.

2)  Be first.  The way to absolutely crush a squat on your .com is to have a website that surpasses the opposition in any Google search for your name.  Most of us commoners don't search for BlowmeQCandidate.com.  We search for "Jon Tester", or "Bob Keenen" or "Linda McCulloch".  Make damned sure that your name from your website comes up *first* in such a search, and their possession of your .com doesn't matter for shit.

3)  If you are a Democrat, use the fact that we own the online sphere against your Republicant opponent.  QUIT WHINING about unfair tactics.  The tighty-righties are attacking Kos and MoveOn and Media Matters because they are afraid.  Their bullshit is being exposed online, and they actually think that their brand of lies will carry sway here.  It won't.  They might be able to convince the simple FAUX NEWS viewer that anything said by MoveOn is bad ... but the simple FAUX NEWS viewer won't discern the difference.  Attack 'em where it hurts and use the online community to do that.  You don't need a simple ".com" to be successful in that effort.  You need links, and most of us who will support you will provide the hotlink ... regardless of whether it's a .com or a .cow.  People will find the message if you provide it.  Or you can provide the whining and the righties will make damn certain that folk find that as well.

Let's get it done, people.

Comments

[Craig]

Actually, I couldn't give less of a shit who gets whose .com address.

It's the framing of the article that was of interest to me.

[Wulfgar]

I haven't a doubt of it, Craig. I think you were probably every bit as amused as I was by the whining over a simple 4 online characters.

[Montana Headlines]

One of the things that I did before writing my post was to Google "bobkeenan.com" to see if there had been any public Republican whining about that site being grabbed.

The only rightward mention was from Jack the Blogger over at Western Word, who cited it as evidence that the Montana Dems were "on top of their game."

Even in the AP article, there were no quotations from Republicans complaining about the tactic.

My mention of Matt's memo was merely to make the point that if domain "stealing" was such a big deal, an astute AP political reporter should have known about the first instance of it in this political season when the rest of us did, back in July when Matt brought it to our attention.

And MucCulloch likening what the GOP did to identity theft or breaking and entering was pretty dang funny in light of the fact that her party had already done the same thing to a guy who was still a private citizen.

As Craig correctly notes, the interesting point (and the emphasis of my post) was how the AP story was written -- not who was "stealing" what from whom.

As reviews of your posts and mine will reveal, we agree on one thing: whining is really annoying -- not to mention unproductive.

[Mark Tokarski]

The framing of the article as evidence of media bias is not very convincing. Even though I live in Bozeman with a Republican Chronicle tossing Tammy Hall and John Baden at us without counterbalance, their non-editorial reporting is pretty good (what little of it there is - it's a pretty skinny paper), as is the Gazette - the only two I'm familiar with. If you can put together twenty such articles as evidence of bias, then you might have a case.