>> If I were to try to control the internets, I’d do it on many levels. &etc
Fair enough.
Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the *practicality* of carrying out some of the tactics you suggest, and just assume they are all feasible.
My counter-argument: such actions would be OPPOSED at many levels by a huge number of capable opponents.
For many that we would consider left-wing and who almost certainly supported the Obama/Dem takeover, these tactics you mention would be anathema: showstoppers to re-election of those attempting them.
Should a government — particularly a “sinister Bushitler/Cheney Fascist Pig government” but indeed ANY government — attempt this sort of thing, they would be opposed not only from the right, but also from the left like you would not believe.
Kos and DU and FreeRepublic and Reason and Townhall and Truthout and so on and so forth would find themselves (temporarily) occupying the same bed.
Mind you, a lot of these leftist “kids” are exactly the sort that you would want on your side opposing this kind of repression. They know the tricks and the tools of the trade.
So, again I’ll say, I see the danger and it’s great to be aware of it and spread awareness of it, but I think there are significant forces arrayed against it as well.
Tick I appreciate your skepticism but how about this. They aren’t going to use the Fairness Doctrine per se but a policy that advocates localism and diversity. IE, STOP THESE NASTY NATIONAL PROGRAMS and insist that all stations do something like 75% local programming from 6an to 9pm in the name of local civic responsibility and “all people who live near the station” diversity. That of course will achieve the same ends as the fairness doctrine by putting Rush et al out of business. How are we going to win a debate against this so called concern for diversity and local civic responsibility? How WONT that sell to the middle and left of the spectrum?
“showstoppers to re-election of those attempting them.”
I don’t think voting is all that important now, especially with ACORN getting more than Four Billion Dollars.
What’s important is who gets to register, and when and with what ID; what absentee ballots are allowed in; who gets access to the polls; who counts the votes the first time, what rules are used for the second, and new rules for the third recount; what do you do with “bad ballots”, and how do you determine voter intent when no choice for a particular office is marked.
Algor in 2000 was a trial, the Washington State Governor’s race was a refinement, and the ongoing Franken farce is a further refinement.
The people who brought us these events and more are now in charge of making the rules.
Remember 0bama’s first election, he didn’t run, he eliminated every opponent using eligibility rules, filing deadline rules, and irregularities in signature gathering. His second election was similar. And while Congress acted to assure mcCain could run even though he was not born on or in a US territory, there are a dozen ignored court cases regarding The Chosen One’s actual bert cert (not the Hawaii COLB).
As for opposition, many capable people are opposed to the War On Some Drugs, of all political persuasions, yet it rages on. Mostly because Drug Warriors keep getting elected, but opposition seems ineffective.
The start would be the seemingly innocuous Net Anonymity issue. Why, that poor teen who suicided because an adult used a fake sign-in to lead the child on could have been prevented if only we had Net Accountability, a reasonable common-sense safe approach to using the internet. How many more must die?