WebProNews » McCain

Motherlode of Material On Romney Hits Web

Mike Tuttle — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:05:36 +0000

A 200-page file on Mitt Romney has been released online. The file is comprehensive in its coverage of Romney’s political positions – as of 2008 anyway – on a wide variety of topics. It is rumored to be materials compiled by John McCain’s 2008 Presidential campaign as research on McCain’s opposition. There has been no confirmation of this, and there may not ever be since McCain has endorsed Romney’s current run.

There is a general timeline of Romney’s personal life, business and political careers, including such details as:

* June 1968 – While in France, Romney is injured in a serious car accident (caused by a drunk driver) that kills the wife of his mission’s leader; for a time, Romney’s family is under the impression he has been killed.

* October 1993 – Switches party affiliation from Independent to Republican in anticipation of running for political office in 1994.

* Summer 2000 – Ann Romney’s multiple sclerosis goes into remission.

There is a bulleted list of highlights of Romney’s political positions, and subsequent changes, that the McCain campaign thought were worthy of having in hand. A few highlights:

* Romney health insurance plan expanded access to abortion, required Planned Parenthood representative on state panel.

* In 1994, Romney called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy first step toward having gays and lesbians “able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military” and said he would provide “more effective leadership” on gay rights issues than Ted Kennedy.

* In 2007, Romney praised gay parent who confronted him over gay marriage issue, but in 2005 remarked to South Carolina audience that some gay couples “are actually having children” and called it “wrong.”

* In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with the NRA” and “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

* Romney bragged about being member of the NRA but later revealed he didn’t join until August 2006, just before launching his presidential campaign.

* Romney refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003, telling the state’s all-Democrat congressional delegation he wouldn’t be a cheerleader for the plan.

* In 1994, Romney opposed the Contract with America without even reading it.

* Romney appeared in 2003 TV ad endorsing Democrat Rocky Anderson – who has been outspoken in calling for President Bush’s impeachment over Iraq war.

* Romney was an independent until deciding to run for the Senate in 1994. He voted for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary.

There is then a comprehensive rundown of Romney’s positions on many issues, including how his stances have changed over time, or even abruptly. These topics include:

* Abortion
* Stem Cell Research
* Gay Rights
* Second Amendment Issues
* Judicial Issues
* Taxes
* Bush Tax Cuts
* Jobs and Economy
* Iran
* Iraq
* Terrorism
* Campaign Finance Reform
* Immigration
* Health Care
* Energy and Environment
* Education
* and many others

Each issue is quite detailed and includes footnotes with references where applicable. The original apparently had links to videos and audio of Romney appearances before various audiences where his positions and statements changed, almost from town to town.

At 200 pages, it is quite a read. And, it provides lots of fodder for any opponent – GOP or Democrat – to use against Romney. Peruse through the file below.

McCain 2008 Oppo File

Eight Reasons the Internet has Changed Politics Forever

Rich Ord — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:40:12 +0000

The Internet forever has changed national politics, and this election year has made the point crystal clear. Below are eight game changers that have made the Internet more important since the last election.

Game Changer #1:

Possibly most game changing of all has been Obama’s use of the Internet to raise money. In the 1980′s, it was Republicans who altered fundraising by successfully using computers to fine tune and manage mailing lists of donors, which was utilized to help them take over Congress for the first time in 40 years. That was no small feat. However, the Obama campaign used the Internet to help them raise over $600 million in contributions from over 3 million donors.

Barack Obama’s campaign has singlehandedly destroyed the concept of public financing of major political contests. Ironically, it was the Democrats who championed the public financing of presidential campaigns, and it is they who have killed it. The $600 million spent this election by Obama will likely be a billion dollars per candidate in four years.

Game Changer #2:

News enlightenment sites such as the Drudge Report and The Huffington Post have gained significant influence since the last election. The Drudge Report recently posted this on his front page:

THANKS FOR MAKING OCTOBER 2008 THE BIGGEST MONTH IN DRUDGEREPORT'S 13 YEAR HISTORY! THE PAGE WAS VIEWED 798,524,935 TIMES FROM 153,563,619 VISITS FOR MONTH, NEARLY 6X SITE'S TRAFFIC IN OCTOBER '04... AND SOMEHOW IT FEELS LIKE IT'S ONLY JUST STARTING...

The Drudge report in particular can make mainstream media pay attention to a story by simply linking to it. Major news outlets don’t want to look foolish not covering a story that they know was seen on Drudge by 30 million people.

Game Changer #3:

The use of the Internet to attract and organize volunteers by the Obama campaign was arguably the number one reason Obama won the election. He came in with the experience that organizing a community around political action is very important, and in his campaign for President he used the power of the Internet to effectively rally and organize. It was a brilliant strategy that was not matched by McCain in this election.

According to Wired.com, myBarackObama.com chalked up some 1.5 million volunteer accounts. Combining this organizational ability with Internet fundraising has dramatically altered how campaigns will be waged in the future.

Game Changer #4:

Mainstream news websites such as CNN.com, MSNBC.com and FOXNews.com have overtaken their television counterparts as the place people get their news. For example, CNN.com reportedly received a huge Election Day audience of 27 million unique visitors to their site. These visitors generated over 276 million page views in one day. Simply amazing.

Game Changer #5:

Internet video clips have become mainstream, both as a way to illustrate political points and to view clips of the candidates from news and entertainment television shows. For instance, a clip of Sarah Palin’s appearance on Saturday Night Live was viewed 7,264,478 times on YouTube. A recent politically inspired clip of Barack Obamba discussing on a radio show his desire to "spread the wealth" around was viewed on YouTube 2,393,392 times. This in particular has changed political marketing forever.

Political news watched via Internet video clips clearly has become mainstream, as illustrated by the huge viewing numbers for election day on CNN.com:

CNN.com Live: 4.9 million live streams
additional 6.7 million on-demand video streams

News often isn’t TiVo’d, but it apparently is watched in large numbers on the news websites and YouTube.

Game Changer #6:

Partisan political blogs like PowerLineBlog.com and DailyKos.com have become even more important. Yes, political blogs made CBS and Dan Rather look silly in the last election, but with this election they have become legit voices of political opinion. The 2008 election has solidified the political blogger as an authority voice in politics. Some of them, such as John H. Hinderaker of Power Line and Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, regularily appear on network and cable news shows.

Game Changer #7:

Niche non-partisan political sites like RealClearPolitics.com and Politico.com have become mainstream. The RealClearPolitics.com poll average map in particular has been routinely source-referenced by the major television networks and news websites. This has changed how news organization report on poll data and has made people more understanding of variations in polls. Outlying poll results are not given as much credence as in the past.

Game Changer #8:

Social media hardly existed four years ago, but during this election the candidates and their supporters used sites such as Twitter, Facebook and MySpace aggressively. I think this is a strategy that will continue to evolve over the next four years to possibly become one of the most powerful weapons a candidate has in their quest to organize, rally, raise funds, and ultimately win the presidency.

The Internet Helps To Shape the Election

Chris Crum — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:42:21 +0000

Well, here we are. Today is the day. Voters all over the country are making their way to the booths, each to put their own little nail in the coffin of this presidential race that has seemingly been going on for an eternity. This has been the most captivating race I have seen in my lifetime, and many say that this is one of the most important elections the U.S. has ever seen.

Who will emerge victorious? Will it be Bob Barr? Will it be John McCain? Will it be Barack Obama? Will it be Ralph Nader? How about Chuck Baldwin or Cynthia McKinney? With all due respect to the other candidates, I think it’s pretty safe to say that two of the names mentioned above will be the ones on most minds across America.

The Internet has played a very large role in this election, from campaigning and coverage, to conversation and tools for information. And let’s not leave out the comic relief. So let’s take a look at how the Internet has shaped this presidential race.

MARKETING POLITICS

There’s no question that the Internet has provided an unparalleled medium for marketing the McCain and Obama campaigns. For one, anyone who is interested can easily go to JohnMcCain.com or BarackObama.com and see what the candidates want them to see. For those who don’t know the URLs, a simple Google search for either candidate’s name will bring you their official website at the top of the results.

SEO

Even Search Engine Optimization has played a role in this race. Way back in January, Michael Jensen took a look at how the candidates were doing in terms of SEO. He looked at backlinks, Technorati links, Alexa rank, page strength, indexed pages, PPC branding, and IndexRank.

Abby Johnson touches upon SEO and Internet Marketing tactics with a woman who marketed for the Mitt Romney campaign in this video.

Press Releases

I don’t know what percentage of releases come directly from the McCain and Obama campaigns, but a search for either candidate’s name on press release distribution sites like PR Newswire or BusinessWire, will turn up a plethora of results of people telling us why each candidate is good for the job as well as why each is bad.

Online Advertising

Then of course there’s good old fashioned advertising. Display ads for both Barack Obama and John McCain are plastered all around the web. Some straight from the campaigns, some from third-parties looking to cash in on clicks from the candidates’ celebrity just as they would use Eminem or Paris Hilton.

When you’re advertising on the Internet though, you can’t leave out search engine advertising, and the McCain and Obama campaigns are well aware of this. Valleywag has an interesting look at the keywords each have purchased on Google.

Testimonials

Nothing beats some good word-of-mouth, especially if it’s coming from CEOs and other high profile executives. You’ve got Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Vint Cert ("Father of the Internet") endorsing Obama while eBay’s former President and CEO Meg Whitman as well as former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina have been known McCain supporters (depite recent stories of issues there) . Schmidt even appeared in a recent Obama infomercial that aired on national television, and Fiorina has been said to be an economic advisor to McCain.

GETTING THE NEWS

The Internet hasn’t just provided the candidates and their campaigns a huge medium to market themselves. It has also opened up a whole world of information and discussion for voters. It has changed the way many people get their information, and perhaps most importantly, gives them a much broader range of choices to obtain that information from, than was available during presidential races of the past.

Clearly, not all of that information is reliable, accurate, or helpful, and the debate over new media as a legitimate source of information continues to go on, but there is no denying that there are more options than there have ever been, and people can use their own minds to decide where to get their info from.

News Sites

Of course there are still the good old fashioned news sources – CNN, the Times, NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, NewsWeek, etc. People have turned to the Internet versions of these entities more and more often. Some print publications are even abandoning their print businesses in favor of the web. News search and aggregation sites are also there to provide readers with results from these publications based on the topics they want to read about.

Blogs

Blogs (and their RSS feeds) have provided the ability to give anyone a voice who wants one. Many readers are turning to these to get news and commentary on issues involving the candidates. Another draw to this medium is the commentary that the readers themselves can contribute via blog comments. This provides plenty of room for open debate, and this is a strategy that even many of the more traditional news sources have adopted. This also brings me to the next item.

Community

Community has never played a bigger role in a presidential election, and that is because of the open forum for debate at every turn (we’ve certainly had our fair share in comments on WebProNews articles). The Internet has made the whole process more of an open discussion thanks to the community mentality provided by blogs and social media.

Special Election Pages

Nearly all of the most popular content and social sites on the Internet have pages dedicated to the continuing coverage of the election.

– Google
– Yahoo
– MSN
– YouTube
– MySpace
– Facebook
– Twitter
– Digg
– AOL
– Topix

I’m sure there are many others.

Online Video

Not only do people have more content to read than ever before courtesy of the above media, but they also have more to watch. This becomes truer everyday, because online video has really only recently started coming into its own. Many are watching less television and more online video.

They’re going to YouTube where they can find videos pieced together to smear Obama, or others to do the same to McCain. They’re going to Hulu to watch debates and rallies, and of course parodies from SNL, and political-based comedy shows like The Daily Show. They’re going to news sites to watch more traditional coverage. They’re going to combinations of these places for combinations of content and lots of other places too, and more often than not, these videos can be embedded into any site or social media profile and linked to and shared, making them available so many places.

A number of "A-List" celebrities have even gotten together to release a couple of public service announcement videos encouraging people to go out and vote. Controversial political filmmaker Michael Moore even released his latest offering on the Internet for free.

TOOLS

Some companies have released election-based tools to help keep people informed about a variety of aspects related to the election. For example, AOL offers a toolbar for IE and Firefox that provides recent news headlines and allows for customization and the addition of widgets, feeds, and buttons.

Google offers a site based on Google Maps that allows users to search for their home address at which point they are provided with information about how they can vote, including (perhaps most importantly) where they are supposed to vote. There’s no telling how many people this tool alone has inspired to go out and cast their ballots. Google also has a gadget based on this tool, and another similar mobile tool meant for volunteers to help recruit voters and show them where to vote.

Google in fact has been all over this presidential race. Apart from the above tools and Obama endorsements. They have been involved in a project to help kids ask the candidates questions, provided other election-related gadgets, and created a Google News feature (in Google Labs) that allows users to search for subjects and retrieve quotes from the candidates regarding them.

I would imagine there are many other tools out there that people have been using to obtain voting/election-related information. These are just a few that come immediately to mind.

THE DAY IS HERE!

Now here we are. Getting ready to step into the voting booths. Let’s reflect on this past year of presidential campaigning. How much have we used the Internet to shape our opinions and our decisions? When you’re in the booth, will you reflect upon all of the commentary you have read? All of the discussion you’ve participated in? All of the video footage you’ve seen? All of the ads?

Probably not. I’m guessing you already know who you’re voting for. But if you’re reading this, I bet the Internet played some kind of a role in how you reached that decision. We’ll see where the chips fall tonight.

How Smart Are The Candidates?

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:37:41 +0000

If you had to rely on the Internet to tell you how smart 2008’s presidential and vice presidential candidates are, your journey would end either without an answer (if you have a sufficient IQ of your own) or some wildly skewed perceptions (if you are, kindly, a trusting soul).

Likely, you’re astute enough to watch the candidates and make your own judgments about their intellectual capacities. It would be inordinately hopeful, though, to expect natural skepticism in all instances of reported IQ scores. Indeed, cognitive dissonance is more often the enforcer of bias rather than alarm of truth: If you already think Sarah Palin’s dumb, then discovering “proof” of an 83 IQ—just eight points higher than Forest Gump—is enough to solidify the belief. Worse, if you’re convinced she’s brilliant, seeing said “proof” would nary make a dent into that perception, even if the proof was rock solid—which it is isn’t.

Two camps have arisen recently arguing the veracity of the Internet. Inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, has taken the pessimist side—the side acknowledging that on the Internet no one knows you’re a dog—and has called for some kind of verification or trust system to identify reliable sources. Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington praises the Internet as a repository for truth so powerful it has taken down the Rovian smear machine.

But at least in this one aspect—the respective IQs of the candidates—the truth was incredibly hard to come by, if really, truly out there somewhere on the vast Web. Google Web search results and Google News search results brought back bupkis from so-called reputable sources. Blogs with clear political leanings, forum posts, and a gossip site or two were the best one could get.

Our journey began with sightings of various Google text ads declaring the IQs of the candidates, and sometimes celebrities. John McCain, it stated, has an IQ of 138. Paris Hilton’s is 120. Sarah Palin’s reported IQ in the ads changed from 118 to 126. (Can’t have her being dumber than Paris Hilton, right?). The ads invite the reader to discover if they are smarter than the person mentioned.

The first question a good skeptic asks is where information is obtained. There’s more than one company appearing to run these ads. Sometimes the link leads to an IP address otherwise known as IQQuiz.com, registered to Name Administration Inc., which is based in the Cayman Islands. I had to go to WHOIS to find that out because it’s not mentioned in the weird legal notice at the bottom of the quiz discussing $9.99 per month text-trivia-to-the-cell-phone charges. Sure enough, the ten questions are more trivia than reasoning, and to get the results you have to give them your cell phone number.

Obviously, I never found out my score. Another company running the ads is not Joe The Plumber or Joe Six Pack, but JoeTec Networks, Inc., whose About Us page is coming soon and owns FastFreeIQTest.com. JoeTec’s test is a bit lengthier, a little more on the reasoning side (but trivia questions are there too), and there are lots of opportunities to sign up for stuff along the way. You’ll have to give them your email address to get the results.

That makes me 0 for 2 today to discover how smart I am. I wasn’t about to give them my email address, at least through their quiz sites. Neither company got back with me to let me know where they sourced their candidate IQ information.

“The Internet,” the representation of which we grant to Google’s top 10 results, isn’t any help in settling the matter. Guesstimates abound. The aforementioned 83 score is present everywhere a person could do a drive-by post, a CBS sports forum, for example, and comes from a posting of a supposed official graph. In addition to that “evidence,” are Palin’s grades and SAT scores. A mediocre 2.2 GPA was quite good in comparison to a composite 841 SAT score, which at one time would have correlated to an 89 IQ.

Good thing, then, we have sites like Snopes.com and FactCheck.org, which unfortunately didn’t pop up in the Google results. Snopes, which also verifies Obama’s birth certificate, declared Palin’s posted scholastic records as hoaxes, mentioning also it would be difficult to get into the Honors Society with a 2.2 GPA.

What’s her real IQ? The campaign hasn’t been super forthcoming about that, but some dude from Alaska guarantees it’s “at least 120” based on her survival in Alaskan politics and that she was a bookworm in junior high. Other accounts concur, citing also her bachelor’s degree, which still others say would give her an automatic 115 (the average IQ for a college graduate). Yahoo Answers proves its worth once again, suggesting Palin’s IQ is 34D.

Likely a score reflecting male intelligence once laying eyes on her.

Is John McCain’s IQ really 138? Not unless it’s changed from Time’s 1999 report, citing military tests that put his IQ at 133, placing him in the gifted category rather than the near-genius one, so not a bad showing.

Obama and Biden? Well, if you ask Biden, he’s lots smarter than you and somebody somewhere out there says 146. Obama? Current estimations peg him between 130 and 148, based on the average LSAT score of Harvard Law attendees. One source says Affirmative Action special treatment of minorities bumps him down to 116, but he cites average SAT scores for admission to Harvard’s undergraduate program, which are a different test and different (lesser) program, making that number as or meaningless as numbers that have come before.

Conclusion: It’s still really, really hard to find accurate political information online unless you already know the reputable sites to begin with. Google failed this particular test when it comes to bringing back reliable, relevant sources. Not that print or TV or radio media are any better.

EFF Echoes McCain

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:26 +0000

Though initially critical of the McCain campaign’s request for special treatment, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has echoed parts of a letter to YouTube by calling for immediate fair use review of videos uploaded to the site upon the receipt of a counter-notice to a DMCA takedown notice.

Last week, general counsel for the McCain campaign sent a letter to YouTube requesting the video-sharing site be quicker about honoring counter-notices sent from major networks—the networks were forcing down campaign ads featuring short clips from news broadcasts. The campaign also asked that political campaign videos be moved to the front of the alleged copyright infringement line because it is election season, and not to wait the 10-14 days allotted to them to respond.

YouTube fired a lawyer-crafted response telling the campaign basically to shove it. No special treatment, and no way were they risking liability by sailing the murky waters of the fair use doctrine when even judges can’t seem to agree upon what constitutes fair use and what doesn’t.

Shortly after word got out that the McCain campaign petitioned YouTube for expedited legal consideration, the EFF’s Fred Von Lohmann characterized the campaign’s wishes as “precisely backwards” and thought they should direct their attention to TV networks.

“Let’s start by identifying the real villains here: the major news media outlets,” wrote Von Lohmann. “They are the ones censoring these political ads, based on the use of a few seconds of their footage. The networks need to back off and give fair use a wide berth. So let’s start by shaming the bad guys here. In addition, lawsuits might help. Under the DMCA, both the campaigns themselves and YouTube have standing to sue those who send clearly bogus takedown notices.”

Today, Von Lohmann’s name appears on a press release not reversing any criticism, but calling for YouTube to take a firmer stance against TV networks abusing the DMCA, a similar petition to the campaign’s. Blaming networks CBS, the Christian Broadcast Network, Fox and NBC as the main aggressors, Von Lohmann called on YouTube to do quick fair use reviews of all videos targeted by these networks.

“In clear cases of fair use, YouTube should stand firmly behind the interests of its user community," said von Lohmann. "YouTube has nothing to fear by hosting videos that do not infringe anyone’s copyright."

Von Lohmann characterized remixing the news to make a point “is what political speech looks like in the 21st century."

EFF Echoes McCain

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:26 +0000

Von Lohmann characterized remixing the news to make a point “is what political speech looks like in the 21st century."

EFF Echoes McCain

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:26 +0000

Von Lohmann characterized remixing the news to make a point “is what political speech looks like in the 21st century."

EFF Echoes McCain

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:26 +0000

Von Lohmann characterized remixing the news to make a point “is what political speech looks like in the 21st century."

Father of the Internet Backs Obama

WebProNews Staff — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:33:05 +0000

Often called the Father of the Internet (though he calls himself a “cofounder”), Vint Cerf these days works for Google being, as Valleywag’s Own Thomas puts it, “vice president in charge of being the guy who created the Internet.”

So that’s what “Internet Evangelist” means!

Whatever his title, he’s using throwing some of the clout onto YouTube to endorse Senator Barack Obama as President. The wedge issue for Cerf? The one that protects his baby of course: Net Neutrality.

In his video address to whoever’s listening, he says, “In the upcoming presidential elections, the two candidates have rather different views of this particular matter. Senator Obama in particular sees things the way I do which is that the net should remain open and fully accessible and providing access on a nondiscriminatory basis to people who want to offer new services on the network. My name is Vint Cerf, a scientist, and I’m voting for Barack Obama.”

Though Net Neutrality isn’t that simple, he explains it in very simple terms, a less mind-twisting definition perhaps many have been waiting for. Cerf’s endorsement doesn’t come as a big surprise. Other bigwigs at Google, like Eric Schmidt, are known Democrat party members, and Net Neutrality is one of those issues you can usually guess by party line who’s for or against it.

It probably wouldn’t be that way if many Republicans took a careful look at the topic and see that an absence of neutrality only really benefits telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon—and the packet-shaping equipment providers needed for what has been proposed by them—the DOJ, and just about any other intelligence or law enforcement agency with its own acronym, and huge corporate content providers looking to squeeze others out of the game. Those entities and traditional small-government Republicans have labeled enforced Net Neutrality as needless government intervention.

However, if all those small and medium sized business owners out there want their level online playing fields to stay level, even for future, innovative ventures, then Net Neutrality would ensure that’s possible. What’s good for business and good for entry into business, is good for everyone.

YouTube Rejects McCain Campaign Request

WebProNews Staff — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:42:48 +0000

Earlier this week, general counsel for the McCain campaign petitioned YouTube to give special treatment to political ads scrubbed from the site because of DMCA take down notices. General counsel for YouTube roundly rejected that request.

Previously on the Internet, the campaign’s general counsel, Trevor Potter, sent a letter to YouTube asking the video site to speed up the reinstatement process kicked off by counter-notices to the take down notices by carefully scrutinizing campaign ads via legal review and determining whether the videos were protected under fair use.

Simpler, Potter indicated: When we file a counter-notice, find the videos among the hordes that were ours, bump them to the front and mark them as fair use, and repost them faster than 10-14 days, immediately would be great, because elections are important and ours is getting pretty close. (Don’t worry, most of the time counter-notices aren’t counter-counter-noticed.)

YouTube general counsel Zahavah Levine responded rather quickly—in Lawyer-time—and came just short of reminding Potter that McCain was partially responsible for the DMCA, and recently voted to give “abusive” copyright holders even more power. Instead, Levine wrote:

No number of lawyers could possibly determine with a reasonable level of certainty whether all the videos for which we receive disputed takedown notices qualify as fair use. More importantly, YouTube does not possess the requisite information about the content in user-uploaded videos to make a determination as to whether a particular takedown notice includes a valid claim of infringement. . . .Moreover, while we agree with you that the U.S. Presidential election-related content is invaluable and worthy of the highest level of protection, there is a lot of other content on our global site that our users around the world find to be equally important, including, by way of example only, political campaigns from around the globe at all levels of government, human rights movements, and other important voices. We try to be careful not to favor one category of content on our site over others…

Levine then suggested Senator (or President) McCain had the power to strengthen fair use and combat DMCA abuse.