Comments on: Would President Kerry defang the DMCA?

CNET News.com Washington watcher Declan McCullagh says the senator's first major departure from Bush hints at bolstering consumer rights over copyrights.

[fgoldstein]

Trying hard to cover up the differences, Declan?

Only a serious spinmeister for, say, Badnarik would claim that there's not much difference in substance between Bush and Kerry! Finding grains of agreement hither and yon is a lot different from the conclusions that the "reporter" here draws.

On telecom policy in particular, the two are miles and miles apart. Bush supports giving the telcos (VZ, SBC, BellSouth, Q, etc.) almost full property rights over their networks, unregulated monopolies with only minimal obligations to cooperate with competitors. ISPs themseleves are the enemy, to be cut out of the equation, while consumers end up wiht a choice of cable vs. telco, and just maybe a third wireless or power-line (mostly a farcical fraud, just to give Bush/Powell cover) option. Kerry supports the Telecom Act, including competition at all levels, which means that dominant monopolies have to be regulated.

Kerry is probably more interested in a balancing act on the DMCA. He probably knows that it went way too far, but has to balance it against his funding sources who support it. Bush gets money from Gates and other DMCA beneficiaries too; but he doesn't worry about balancing anything -- his world is black and white, so people who back up their CDs are evil-deuurrs that he and Ashcroft can go after everywhere. Hell, if Kerry were too open about wanting to fix the DMCA, Bush would yell "waffle" or something like that, because Bush, claiming infallibility, never has to correct himself, and attacks those who do claim or have his alleged infallibility.

[declan00]

Republicrat non-differences...

Fred: Only someone who's a diehard see-no-evil Democrat could claim that Bush and Kerry are as similar as you seem to believe.

Unfortunately for your argument, both B&K would keep federal spending at about the same level (~$1.3 trillion more over the next few years), randomly invade or attack other nations (happened under Clinton, let's not forget), keep the military at about the same size, keep taxes at around the same level (give or take a percentage point or two), continue federal meddling in education, keep the size of the federal government at about the same level, keep the Patriot Act largely intact, and so on.

Yes, it's possible to identify a few differences (abortion comes to mind), but they're magnified by the media and the candidates, both of which share an interest in exaggerating them. It's also possible to identify differences between, say, Tom Delay and Dick Armey if you look hard enough -- but in reality their worldviews are similar.

The differences between B&K are more in their personality and outlook on life, not policy. Inject the Libertarian or Green parties into the mix and you'll see that. But of course no Democratic party partisan would admit it.

Good Job Fred

Thanks for pointing out the obvious spin in the story. Anybody who reads a paper and is aware of the issues knows the differences between the candidates. Wonder why I see so many "political" views in CNET these days, esp the PRO Bush views. (I am an independent)

Does Declan actually have an editor?

First, I want to say that Fred and Mike make good points, and in particular wanted to highlight Mike's point, "Anybody who reads a paper and is aware of the issues knows the differences between the candidates."

Indeed, the premise of Declan's article is patently ridiculous if you spend 5 minutes looking into their positions.

As Fred points out, Declan is basically spinning away trying to establish his premise that there is no difference between the two. His main strategy is to mischaracterize everything he links to, but also to take extreme positions and claim that if the candidates don't support one extreme, they must be the same.

Declan's first comment, "Both supported the invasion of Iraq" implies that Kerry supported the invasion prior to the date that it actually occurred. This is Bush's position. However, in support of this "common ground," Declan links to an official statement made by Kerry _after_ they commenced the attack wherein he does nothing more than "hope for the best." Perhaps one could spin facts to make Declan's argument, but he doesn't bother to try and support it.

Declan then goes on to say that "both applauded the Patriot Act." His support? The fact that Kerry voted for it, which is a far cry from "applaud." But Declan doesn't want anyone to know that. He wants you to think that between Kerry and say John Ashcroft, there's no difference of opinion, all despite the fact that there is a well-documented and wide gulf.

Again, with nothing more than a link documenting Kerry's vote for No Child Left Behind, papers over the differences between the candidates on education by saying "both agreed with sweeping expansions of federal spending on education." All despite the fact that it is also well documented that Bush did not fund NCLB. Forget for a moment that either candidate has any other education positions (for example, that the Bush administration was opposed to U. Michigan's admissions program). The fact that Kerry voted for NCLB is meant to show how the two candidates _are_exactly_the_same when it comes to education. Insane.

And lastly, he makes the ludicrous comment "Neither politician has the moxie to say in public that he agrees with gay marriage, neither will end the war on drugs, and neither would countenance full privatization of Social Security." Essentially claiming that if they don't make extreme statements on particular topics, then they have _exactly_the_same_position. If they don't support FULL privatization of Social Security, then they must be the same? (Indeed, if you follow the link, you'll see that one wants to partially privatize while the other does not; many analysists, contrary to Declan's implication, have found the economic impact between these two plans is enormous)

Kerry and Bush also never said that they would pocket Social Security and fly to the Cayman Islands with the money. There must be no difference between their Social Security policies.

Kerry and Bush never said that they like to smoke crack. Their drug policies are identical.

Tax policy? Neither wants to do away with taxes completely. They must have the same policy.

Again, there are numerous and substantial differences between the candidates, and Declan's argument that "few differences exist between the two White House hopefuls on nearly any topic imaginable" is wholly without merit.

[declan00]

Two-party harmony

AB: The problem is you only spent five minutes looking into their positions rather than spending long enough to think broadly about the topics. Both politicos are big-spenders who want to raise taxes and expand the power of the federal government over Americans' lives. Kerry at least has the dubious honesty of being explicit about it.

Bush's tax hike is more pernicious and will come in the form of rising inflation -- a regressive "tax" that will reduce the value of the U.S. dollar and permit the Treasury to repay the debt with devalued currency. What, you think inflation is really at 1-2 percent a year? Check out the recent debunking of that myth by Bill Gross of PIMCO, whose estimate is probably conservative anyway. (Example: measured properly, oil prices aren't rising; it's the dollar that's falling.)

Look carefully at the two Republicrat candidates and you'll see that differences are not as vast as your "five minutes" of careful analysis would have you believe.

Pointless article

Trying to turn readers toward socialism at the last minute Declan? I know your butt-buddies over at Wired are fervently working towards those ends.

But seriously, lets suppose John Kerry is elected and he decides he wants to repeal the DMCA. It wouldn't matter because he wouldn't have the authority to do so. Its up to congress, *******.

[swwg69]

Bon Jovi and Springsteen would be suprised

If Kerry really wants to de-fang DMCA,
it should be publicised. I am sure that he could
go on stage with Dave Mathews to make that annoucement and Dave would be so happy.
Alec Baldwin would be elated to hear this.
Lots of his left coast supporters would be thrilled to know he wants to allow copies to be made.