A reasonable response

Friday 10.12.2007 11:30PM

An update regarding my previous post:

Despite the lack of comment capability on CNBC's blog, dialogue still happens as “dozens and dozens” have emailed them, apparently. John Harwood's response is pretty positive (and comes less than 24 hours after Mr. Wastler's open letter). He agrees with the complaints and does not think the poll should have been taken offline. He also gives Ron Paul and his campaign reasonable props for their achievements to date, which is nice to see instead of the sideways glances he typically gets from the media.

This is despite the fact that he does not think Ron Paul has a chance to win the election. Maybe he is right. Mostly, I'm just satisfied to see some acknowledgment/correction about what happened rather than sweeping it under the rug.

Tagged: /
comments (0) | add to del.icio.us

An open letter to Allen Wastler

Friday 10.12.2007 12:59PM

Allen Wastler is the managing editor at CNBC.com. I just read his Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful. It's short, but my shorter summary is: Ron Paul supporters allegedly “hacked” or targeted a campaign at the post-debate poll to get Ron Paul to 75%, and that's why they removed the poll from their site.

I emailed a response and figured it would be interesting enough to post here as well:

Hello Mr. Wastler,

I did not vote in CNBC's debate poll, but you seem to indicate that 7000 plus votes in a few hours is far more than expected. I am not sure why that is; did you expect the amount of viewers to be small and therefore not receive so many votes? 7000 seems a small number for a national debate.

As a computer geek I must also nitpick a bit. You referred to the poll either being “hacked” or the target of a campaign. “Hacked” is not the right terminology, unless you have actual evidence of your polling system being compromised. You might argue that it was “spammed”; that is, a small amount of people voted repeatedly to artificially inflate the numbers. Again, there would be evidence of that. Heavy traffic coming from Ron Paul chat sites is not evidence of spamming. It's pretty logical to expect that people in the Ron Paul chat rooms were aware of the debate, watching it live, or watching recorded copies of it shortly thereafter (Ron Paul fans are quite quick about getting video available online), and would thus vote in the poll. The only evidence you offer is that you have not seen such numbers in “legit” (term undefined) polls.

Furthermore, if it was “spamming” that caused the “high” vote count, then the software running your poll clearly does not check very well for such methods. Yes, you admitted it is “unscientific”, but still you turn around and complain that Ron Paul supporters “ruined” the poll in the way they participated. Well, it is your poll and your software. You can control how the poll is run and how people participate in it. If you don't require registration, verify email addresses, check IP addresses, and use other techniques to avoid “spamming”, then you cannot rightfully complain about people using your system in the way it is set up.

I do not advocate spamming online polls, but if your poll is not “serving your readers” then you should fix the software instead of complaining about the users.

UPDATE: Please see the follow-up post, A reasonable response.

Tagged: /
comments (2) | add to del.icio.us

Ron Paul

Tuesday 05.01.2007 08:58PM

It was not long after the 2000 election (in which I voted straight Republican, as had been typical) that my eyes were opened to the nature of our one-party political system; that by and large, the Republicans and Democrats offer nothing different, just varying shades of the same crap. Realizing that the principles of “personal liberty” and “fiscally conservative, small government” were just rhetoric to the Republican Party, I parted ways with my (blind) straight party voting. Principle – not Party – became paramount for my vote; honestly politics became more fun as I could step back and see the Republicrat game for what it is. I just have to laugh and shake my head sometimes when I see people sucked into it.

I tell you this so that you will understand it's surprising when I say I will be voting Republican for President in 2008. That is, if Ron Paul receives the Republican nomination.

“Ron who?”, you probably just asked.

Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas. Stick with me, this is not another Shrub. You see, Ron Paul is what's called a “Constitutionalist”, which means that he takes his oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution” seriously. His votes are cast based on what the Constitution permits, not what is politically expedient or even popular. Because of this and his regular votes against un-Constitutional legislation, he has received the nickname “Dr. No.”

When asked why he wants to be President, he said, “My main goal to run for President is the same goal I have for all my activities in politics; and that is always to shrink the size and scope of government and maximize individual liberty.” He has a strong record of 17 years to back this up. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He voted against the Orwellian-named “PATRIOT” Act and the Iraq War. He does not participate in the congressional pension program. Few – if any – congressman can make these claims.

badgeI have been following Ron Paul for several years now and am always struck with his principled positions. Whether you agree with his positions or not, I think you'll be impressed to hear a “politician” who articulates unique positions (for Washington, at least) clearly and without the typical vague, meaningless political style. Furthermore, it's evident that he believes you are the best person to run your life – not himself, the federal government, or bureaucrats.

Don't take my word for any of this, check him out yourself:

Tagged: / /
comments (9) | add to del.icio.us

next »