Skip to comments.Big Scoop Coming Down Tonight
Posted on 09/21/2008 5:56:53 PM PDT by tsmith130
From Ace's site:
Probably at about midnight or just before.
It's Rusty's story. It'll be posted later. Midnight ET or maybe a bit after.
The basics? Axelrod's astroturfing. An attempt to get a blatantly dishonest anti-Palin ad to go "viral" on YouTube. Gross deception in pumping out fake "amateur grassroots" ads which are really cooked up by a big PR firm strongly connected to David Axelrod and Obama's officially-acknowledged ads. And likely bright-line violations of electioneering laws, which require those putting out "electioneering communications" to disclose the true creator and sponsor of such ads.
Oh, Yeah: I forgot to say:
The other site referenced (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/)
Hope it bites them, in the a$$.
As for videos we hope to go (more)viral:
I am not really sure what this means.
Probably not big enough to trump the economic mess but interesting to say the least. Not surprising, but interesting. DemocRATS don’t get punished for breaking the law.
I watched about five seconds of Obama tonight. He said......
I have a track record........
click.........his only tract record is lying lying lying and lying some more.
Me too. Sounds like Axelrod is releasing a Palin attack ad through one of his surrogates. If so that’s illegal.
Big scoop -> ice cream -> think I'll go make me a sundae.
Obama has a track record of voting Present.
What did it say? I refuse to give that site hits.
Details are still sketchy right now.
Read the post and see for yourself.
They’ve already added this at Ace of Spades:
Correction: The latest is that the law does not seem to require disclaimers naming the producers/sponsors of an internet ad if it was placed for free and not for fee. As it seems to have just been placed on YouTube in the normal course of things (that is, people from the firm just uploading it without paying YouTube), it doesn’t look like this is outright illegal.
As far as that part goes, at least.
Posted by Ace at 06:47 PM New Comments Thingy
That's what I thought. And I don't think that very often. The person who wrote it has real obfuscation talent, should be working for the gubmint.
We will have to wait and see.
At least this post didn’t have that silly “ELECTION OVER” tag in the title. How many times have we seen that the past two weeks and for nothing.
I know they’ve been working on this for a while. You’d think they would have check that out FIRST!
I hope the site you linked is planning to insure that a MAJOR media outlet gets it going and not just a fax from a Kinko's in Texas if you know what I mean.
The MSM will gloss over it as much as they can as they do everything.
I can't wait to see what it is when I wake up tomorrow though.
Correction: The latest is that the law does not seem to require disclaimers naming the producers/sponsors of an internet ad if it was placed for free and not for fee. As it seems to have just been placed on YouTube in the normal course of things (that is, people from the firm just uploading it without paying YouTube), it doesn't look like this is outright illegal. As far as that part goes, at least.
Rusty? Who the hell is Rusty? Is that part of the story?
I thank God for the TRUE Free Press, the blogosphere. Where would we be without these fearless fighters? Go get ‘em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.