"Revenge of the Internet" on George Allen

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/1/2006 6:16:49 AM

Over at MyDD, Matt Stoller has an interesting article about net neutrality, George Allen, and how "the internet is taking its revenge on bad characters."  According to Stoller (bolding added for emphasis):

It shouldn't be a surprise that Allen, in his perch on the Commerce Committee, voted against net neutrality.  The internet has practically destroyed his Presidential prospects in 2008, and may cause him to lose his Senate seat.  Ironically, Allen is now running running TV ads touting his high technology work in Virginia, evasively avoiding discussion of his vote against net neutrality...

Since that vote, the internet has hit back, hard.  It's well-known by now that George Allen's campaign is being ruined by the Macaca comment, a racist jab that flew all over the internet because of youtube and blogs, and then all over Virginia through local and national media.  Allen still can't escape it, and his polling numbers have crumbled.  But what's less well-known is how an internet draft campaign recruited his opponent, Former Reagan administration official Jim Webb.  Moreover, internet sleuths have linked Allen with the KKK descended group the Conservative Citizens Council, circulating pictures of Allen with the group's leadership online. 

So I'll just point out that net neutrality, internet politics, and electoral work are all converging on Allen.  A candidate drafted by activists on the internet, Jim Webb, is now challenging Allen, an internet foe.  There is just a very bright and stark line, and a real race, where before the Senate reelection was seen as a cakewalk and prep time for 2008.  Earlier this year, Allen was hanging out in Iowa and talking about how bored he was in the Senate.  Now he's hanging on for his political life.

The bottom line, according to Stoller, is that "George Allen got torched by internet activists."  No wonder he supports efforts aimed at destroying free expression and political activism in the blogosphere.  Hey George, why don't you turn your attention, during your remaining few months in that "wounded sea slug" of a Senate where you are so "bored," to the rabid ravings on right-wing radio or the false "facts" and faux news on Fox?  Oh yeah, I forgot, you LIKE right-wing talk radio and the corporate TV media; no "neutrality" there, that's for sure!

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign.  The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.

Comments



This is big! (chiefsjen - 9/1/2006 8:22:41 AM)
From Howard Dean to Ned Lamont to Jim Webb -- we are showing the rest of the world what the internet can do.

Any update on whether Webb will still be attending the rally tomorrow at Robinson HS? I received email saying his son is deploying earlier and that he was spending time with him.

I say we all send our best wishes to Webb and his family.



Yes, it's still on the schedule (Lowell - 9/1/2006 9:51:42 AM)
See here. Thanks.


I completely agree that (Eric - 9/1/2006 8:35:12 AM)
the internet is a new battle ground and so far the Democrats seem to have the upper hand.  In our case, there is zero doubt that Webb is completely kicking Allen's ass online.

And it is the perfect payback for Allen snubbing the internet with his vote against Net Neutrality.  Especially after Allen runs around claiming to be a friend of the internet with his "no internet taxes" bit.  Ha!

But I'm not sure about any assertion that he's doing it because the internet is hurting him.  It's all about money.  Nothing new or technologically advanced here.

Is it possible that the lose of NN would lead to an environment where politicans could have an influence of website access and usage?  Absolutely. 

Is Allen thinking about this?  Doubt it.  Money talks - Allen listens.



It Sure Is About Money for Allen (bb10 - 9/1/2006 10:55:55 AM)
Eric is certainly right that this is about money for Allen. Look at this paragraph from a story in the "National Journal’s Telecom Update” of today:

  Allen has received $260,132 in PAC money from the tech sector this cycle -- more than any senator up for re-election. NAB, NCTA, Siebel Systems and VeriSign each contributed $10,000 to Allen.

The story, [http://www.njtelecom... "Telecom, Cable Interests Channel
Donations To Republican Incumbents"] has lots of other good background information.



No different than Bush (bladerunner - 9/1/2006 9:20:10 AM)
Georgey Porgy pudin pie Allen is just like Bush in that he likes to stamp on anything or outlet that dares to speak the truth about him. Remember when Bush was working on his dad's campaign--Bush was known as the enforcer. And still today Bush will come after you if you don't agree with him 100%. Allen's style doesn't do well in an open society that can tell the truth, for that matter all the neoconservatives have trouble with constructive criticizm, because they're always right. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Poetic justice on Allen is SO SWEET.


We still need to defeat NN (Teddy - 9/1/2006 9:24:11 AM)
While you may be correct that money no doubt set Allen's policy in the beginning, I also have no doubt that Allen's sponsorship is now reinforced by a certain vindictiveness.  Allen does have a malicious and vindictive streak a mile wide down his back (next to that yellow streak which kept him out of combat in Vietnam).

That doesn't change the fact that we are on the brink of loosing, not securing Net Neutrality, contrary to the Owellian title of the legislation. Soon the right Wing will have the same control over the internet they have over the mass media.  He who laughs last...



Herein lies one of the problems (Eric - 9/1/2006 10:24:01 AM)
with Net Neutrality.  Teddy says "We still need to defeat NN".  Now we all know that Teddy didn't mean it like that, but the very nature of the wording causes confusion.  And if someone is not up to speed they could easily ask for the wrong thing.

We support NN (vote yes).  But wait, the bill in question is worded just the opposite - if it passes (i.e. a yes vote), NN is lost and the big Telecoms and people like Allen win. 

So the correct position is a "no" vote (as Teddy states) but we're FOR Net Neutrality.



Questions on NN (bladerunner - 9/1/2006 11:23:24 AM)
Eric, I agree with you that the right wing does have control over the media. At the same time they bash it, they take advantage of it in many ways. My question is how would NN effect the internet so it would be to the right wings advantage? Would we not be able to blog or something?


The new laws (Eric - 9/1/2006 12:30:11 PM)
would allow the Telecoms - the ones who control access and traffic through their infrastructure - to add restrictions in terms of connection speed and even general access.

Now, suppose you have a conservative leaning telecom who wants new legislation passed and a conservative senator who wants to get re-elected.  Sounds like prime opportunity for both to come out ahead.  The senator works the legislation in return for the telecom blocking or slowing access to Democratic blogs.

The loss of NN gives way to much power to the people in the middle - the telecoms.  And these people clearly have incentive to do favorable things for government.

And it works both ways - a left leaning telecom could block conservative blogs.  So I think ALL of us bloggers/internet users should be terrified of this situation.  It stinks - only the telecoms and special friends will gain.  The rest of us will suffer.



Thanks Eric for the NN education... (bladerunner - 9/1/2006 4:39:48 PM)
I just haven't been following the nuts and bolts of it. Just another way Allen will try to squash the truth from coming out.