Introducing “FlipperTV”
Wasn’t there anyone at the DNC who thought, “Hey, maybe this might come back to bite us in the rear?” Apparently not:
As the Republican presidential candidates prepare to finally answer questions tonight directly from the American people at the CNN/YouTube debate, the Democratic National Committee launched FlipperTV, a unique, new online video tool that is part of the DNC’s ongoing efforts to hold Republican frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain accountable for their positions and flip flops along the campaign trail.
For months now, Democrats have been tracking the Republican presidential frontrunners in the field, compiling a video library of candid moments as they campaign across the country. Found at FlipperTV, www.democrats.org/flippertv, Americans can now watch and download this video and use the footage as they wish, putting raw material into the hands of the American people to hold these candidates accountable for their comments and actions.
By crowdsourcing, the DNC is seeking to engage people by making data available for their own personal use, enabling users to sort through the video and expose the Republican frontrunners’ flip-flops, contradictions, and policy positions that show how out of touch Republicans are with the American people. FlipperTV will allow activists and voters to download video to their computers, edit it to create new user-generated video, and judge the candidates’ flip-flips and exaggerations for themselves.
“The idea behind FlipperTV is simple: let the American people hear directly from the Republican candidates unscripted and in their own words, and let them decide if they want four more years of Bush’s failed policies or a Democrat who will bring change to the White House,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. “This video will come directly from the campaign trail, letting voters see who they truly are, not who their campaigns want them to be.”
FlipperTV already has more than 70 separate events on video and will quickly upload new footage as it happens, starting with clips from tonight’s Republican CNN/YouTube debate. Online video has played a critical role in the political process and in 2006 was essential to Democrats defeating Republicans like George Allen, Conrad Burns, and Lincoln Chafee. Already, candid videos have captured John McCain singing the words “bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann” as well as Mitt Romney saying that instead of serving in the military, his sons are helping the country by campaigning for him.
They need to create a special channel just for Bill “for the Iraq war before he was against it” Clinton.
Vid:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Party of Waffles Introduces FlipperTV : The American Pundit
- Suitably Flip
- Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha | BitsBlog
- FlipperTV » The American Mind
- Democrats Launch Large Republican Video Archive
- 2008 Presidential Election » Introducing “FlipperTV”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Power Line
» Two Stories, Possibly Related
Power Line
» Clerical CracksAmSpecBlog
» Crack in the Iranian Clerical WallThe Other McCain
» Don't feed the sharks
A video of Hillary’s flip-flops would crash the Internet.
Liberals have convinced themselves that they are untouchable. This will come back to bite them in the arse.
Besides, don’t they already know that the American people are tuned in and are watching what is happening in Washington??
They try to trot out one diversion after another - if the American people are focused on the Republicans we don’t have to change the way we operate, we’ll just waltz into the WH. Dems make me sick.
I’ve seen their idea of “change” and quite frankly I’ll pass. Thank you.!
When will the Dems finally realize that they are not running against George Bush? Sheesh!!
I wonder if they will show the clip of Billy Clinton, who now states he never supported the war, together with the clip from 2003 when he wholeheartedly supported the war?
Four more years of failed Bush policies???
Only if we change the constitution and he can run again…
Amazing that they keep playing this anti-Bush message during the campaign and people buy into it!
I agree with Gemini…. let’s say it loudly so Mr. Dean and the rest hear it:
GEORGE BUSH ISN’T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
#2
The democrats will realize they’re not running George Bush when Bush concedes defeat in the 2000 election.
No, but Dems hope that the American people are so fed up with Bush’s failed policies so much that they will link a continuation of those failed policies with a Republican incumbent. They realize they aren’t running against Bush; however, they hope that his legacy of “failed policies” will be enough to deter anyone looking for “change” from looking at a Republican.
It’s weak but it’s all they got.
Make that running against George Bush. I’m sure they’ve already realized they can’t run him.
I wonder what would happen if we all (on the republican side of the isle) wrote in GWB and he won.
That would be interesting and fun to watch all of the celeb’s who swore if GWB won a second term they would leave the country, what they would do then.
Soap imagines: .oO(heads exploding)
This could be a good thing!
His candidacy would be disqualified since he already served two terms. Same if the voters on my side of the aisle all voted in Bill Clinton.
But we have the next best thing, don’t we?
OK, who will be the first to register http://www.flipfloppers.com for the amusing Dem videos?
Ooops!!! My bad, not available!
You seem to think you do…
Rusty, you must be voting for Obama, the second Black American President…
Nope, sorry, Ron Paul has no chance.
NEW!!!!! B.S., the RNCC had the same thing back in 2004. Can’t they come up with their own ideas?
Please - no nauseating statements just before lunch….
Imagine that, a Clinton trying to rewrite history. Who’d a thunk?
On November 28th, 2007 at 12:33 pm, AlohaGuy said:
Rusty, you must be voting for Obama, the second Black American President…
Obama is black?
Limbaugh just finished disemboweling Clinton with no less than seven direct quotes stating his support for the Iraq War…even if WMDs aren’t found!
“Flipper TV” would be funnier if Democrats weren’t so vulnerable to being hoisted by their own petard.
Umm… have they been given permision to give out this video?
Whats the source of the video… if it belongs to a Network, then unless they have permission thay CANNOT distribute it.
Under fair use, you can use short clips from another source, but giving out the whole clip? or a series of clips which comprise the whole?
Any legal eagles out there want to give an opinion?
Damn, does Hillary get a cameo?
#9 Rusty
…you mean Jeb?!
“Yeaaaargh!”
#20 Romeo
maybe a copyright infringement, eh?
The difference is that Dems know anything that they did or said 30 seconds ago doesn’t matter because the media has them covered. (Move On ring a bell?) All anybody has to do is listen to Hitlary’s numerous different statements about Iraq as a perfect example of how the left gets away with everything. The comeback is “this is now” and all is forgiven.
For just a few examples of libs in high places:
Robert Byrd and the KKK
Barney Frank’s prostitution ring
William Jefferson’s cold cash
Joe Biden’s racist comments
Slick Willy’s conviction of pergury
And on and on…….
Republicans are held to a totally different standard for LIFE and have to justify sneezing.
Afternoon everybody.
You know the really scary part of this story is that both Bill and Hillary truly believe everything they say. They don’t see themselves as lying crapweasels. They believe that pandering to every special interest shows caring, and “feeling their pain”. In their world of moral relativism, there are no absolutes, only what makes you feel good right here, right now.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I only wish you were.
I, on the other hand, am unencumbered by the need to make everybody happy all the time, and can state absolutely that I think they are lying crapweasels.
Ah, the politics of contradiction… Why have your own platform and actually stand for something when you can spend all your time, money, and effort on bringing the other side down. (That goes for both sides of the fence.)
This approach is surprising from the left, though. Don’t they typically complain about the right being too stubborn rather than flip flopping? Didn’t ’stay the course’ irritate them to no end? So which is it? The right is indecisive or too stubborn? The answer is likely more along the lines of “do whatever you can to get more votes through character assassination”.
If these candidates flip flopped as often as they suggest, that would mean that part of the time they were agreeing with them. That seems to be a paradox since the left would not wish to actually agree with someone on the right unless it appeared that the right was capitulating to them.
#25 JS
I actually think you are partially right. Their huge egos allow them to equate some moral relativism to much of what they say. But there are things the just plain lie about because they are horrible rotten human beings.
Examples are Hillary’s “name”, Bill and the burning of black churches (of which there were none) when he was growing up (pandering to blacks I grant you) but they have no human decency within them period, just ego and the lust for power and money by any means.
I agree…very Star Warish…Obi-Bill, “These aren’t the droids you want…!
#13 Romeo, Figure the odds that if the Republican National Committee were doing this that they would be sued by someone in the lame stream media.
I disagree. I believe that they are very well aware of when they are yanking the public’s chain and simply expect to get away with it. When they don’t, they launch PR spin control.
No offense to any lawyers on the board, but I believe that both Clintons still see themselves as lawyers and parse their language cautiously in order to give themselves an out if later proven wrong. Like most lawyers, you don’t have to believe in your case, you just have to argue it effectively in order to convince a jury that you’re right. Swap ‘jury’ for ‘polls’ and I think you have the Clintonian approach. This is why it’s amusing to see what happens when Hillary loses her cool and the truth of her beliefs start to come out. The fact that she was never much good at litigation is something I think can be exploited. Bill, on the other hand, was much more cool under pressure. How many people could debate the meaning of the word “is” so smugly?
Anything we didn’t know already? Is there anyone with character running for president?
Democracy seems to be failing as candidates feel they must pander to all the special interest groups so as not to lose any votes. This requires multi-faced candidates of low character, like the charm boy Bill Clinton who seemed to relish conning people with his glib tongue.
Electioneering has become a three-step process: 1. Run to the base in the primaries, 2. Run to the middle in the election, and 3. Forget the people after the election and pander to the moneyed interests.
This is hysterical the party of candidates known for their ability to flip-flop more than a reeled in fish fresh out of water are going to show us how the GOP candidates are beginning to act like them. You just can’t make this stuff up.
#32 Salt:
“Like most lawyers, you don’t have to believe in your case, you just have to argue it effectively in order to convince a jury that you’re right.”
I think you are correct.
I remember “switch-side” debates in high school (yes, there was such a thing as the high-school debate team in the late 60s):
For rounds 1 & 3, say, you were the “affirmative” team; then, for rounds 2 & 4, you switched, and were the “negative” team.
As you stated, you did not have to believe a thing…just argue it convincingly.
And, no - I am not a lawyer…but, we do have a son in law school.
(Trust me; he’ll be one of the good guys.)
It all depends on what the definition of “opposed” is, and that depends on the definition of what “is” is.
That may be true, too, but I think more often than not, they just say whatever they were briefed to say on the spot, and then check the polls to see how it was received before having to go to damage control mode. Hillary and the illegal alien drivers license question comes to mind. Bill is much better at not stepping in manure than Hillary, but they both have so many stories stacked up on top of each other that it’s hard to keep them straight.
Hahahaha! And these guys and gals think they’re the best and brightest.
according to some he didn’t win the 2000 election…so he should be able to run again then.
We might be saying the same thing. My point is that they do not necessarily always believe what they are saying, but rather they are more concerned about the strategic outcome of what they say.
Yep. If they were speaking from a position of what they really thought, this wouldn’t be so difficult. You really only get into the game of flip flopping when you care what the polls show. That’s not to say you can’t ever change your mind, but in those circumstances, I would expect that you would be able to clearly articulate why you changed your position.
We fondly remember many of our Presidents of the past, I believe, because they didn’t have the nearly instant gratification of polling. They actually had to believe and stand for something. Imagine what Lincoln would have endured if approval ratings were so quickly determined and published.
I would have more respect for a President who took a stance but with whom I might not agree than one that shifts according to the direction of the wind. The latter would make me more fearful of tyranny of the masses.
A number of you folks are jibing the Democratic presidential contenders with statements like “don’t they know they are running against bush?”
And then a number of you folks start complaining about Bill Clinton.
Draw your own conclusions.
Oops, that should have read “don’t they know they are not running against bush?”
Sorry… false analogy.
Hillary is saying that, as a spouse, she had a major impact on Bill’s Presidency…
This puts Bill back in the Whitehouse… where, by Hill’s logic, he will have a huge impact on the sitting President…
Bush will be totaly out of the picture.
Draw your own conclusions.
#41 - Salt
Excellent points. But I harken back to the Clinton presidency where most of the policymakers that I knew (or heard about) wanted to be the last person to see the president because they knew they had the best chance of getting their way. How do you take a stance on any issue when you just go with the last opinion you hear?
#42 Wile E Coyote
Bill Clinton is making himself a very visible part of Hillary’s campaign, and trying to stay relevant. Why wouldn’t he be open to criticism? I don’t see any of the Bush family campaigning for any of the Republican candidates.
I wonder if “Flipper TV” will show the C-Span video tape from John Edwards 1998 Senate campaign when a woman asks Edwards if he favors “right to work” laws. Edwards explains quite reasonably why he thinks “right to work” laws are good for North Carolina. Now that Edwards is running as the champion of organized labor, he doesn’t have much to say about taking a position on labor law that follows the Chamber of Commerce position. I wonder if Flipper TV will show John Edwards casting a vote for the US China trade deal. Now that he runs as the antiNAFTA candidate, how does he explain this vote? I wonder if Flipper will show John Edwards half million dollar salary from the Fortress Group and then show the homes in New Orleans that Fortress and its subsidiaries foreclosed upon. Somehow I doubt we will see any of this.
Along with Romeo13 (#44) and J S Ragman (#45), I would mention that Hillary doesn’t have much qualification to be President outside of the fact that she was once First Lady. In fact, I would argue that Hillary wants people to believe that she was co-president during those years. She’s counting on it. Without that, she’s just a junior senator from NY without any substantial executive experience.
Given that, a review of Bill’s years isn’t so far fetched, particularly since they seem to read from the same playbook. Were Laura Bush running for the office, I would argue the same for the other side.
Personally, I have no qualms about BDS continuing straight into the election… That would certainly make things much easier for the Republican candidate who need only point out that they are not George Bush. I may be wrong, but it doesn’t appear to me as if any of the Republican candidates have a de facto tie to the President or his platform. Seems to me that it’s bad strategy on the Dems side to plot the anti-W course. Whereas with Hillary being the presumed front runner for the Democratic ticket, her association with Bill’s presidency is relevant. If Obama wins the nomination, it would be pointless to be discussing Bill’s years (and I doubt you’d hear much about it).
Alphonse. My man! Great comment at #34…couldn’t agree more.
Salt, didn’t Shakespeare really say it best about lawyers?
This is old hat … the DNC isn’t going to like being Swift Boated, that is telling the truth about Democrats.
Democrats see logic as their mortal enemy and the truth as their terrorism. Liberalism is an ideology designed to replace all others in ones daily life. That’s why it’s not popular, it leads directly to communism. Count the number of times the Democrat candidate talks freedoms, liberty, free markets and compare to the number of times they mention mandate, fair share, give, take and other collective communist buzz words.
Going to be a fun election, and the Rs are far more effective than the Ds, just watch.
Well, if you’re thinking of the quote I think you are, Shakespeare was actually praising lawyers by suggesting they are the keepers of civility.
I’m not anti-lawyer. They are certainly necessary given the complexity of our judicial system. I just think that particular duo can’t turn it off, so to speak.
I was inclined to suggest that lawyers are best placed in the judicial branch of government and not the executive, but Lincoln was a lawyer, so I suppose there are always exceptions.