Katherine Miller's blog

With a few sketchy reports about a very possible breach between McCain and Palin over how and how hard to attack Obama, Palin unleashed a flawlessly executed attack of a speech on abortion yesterday in Johnstown, PA. Over at Hot Air, Allah Pundit referred to it as "one of the most red-meat social con speeches you’ll ever read." While the campaign flails about (although the ACORN ad is an improvement), Palin has taken a sturdy, fundamental approach with four steps: Relate, Attack, Contextualize, Inspire (seasoned with blue-collar Dem political hat tips). Here's the speech:

Well. That was awesome. I'm awash in a hardy glow of Sarah Palin's rockstar glory.

We could not have asked for a stronger statement from her than this. I'll get my one criticism out of the way first: I would not have concluded with Vietnam. No one can do more justice to the service than Fred and Huck did in their speeches, and I thought the obliqueness she began with towards his service really underscored his service and her son's, but didn't hit you over the head with the details we all know. But this is a tiny, tiny complaint. (Patrick Ruffini has kindly provided the text of the speech here, so that's where these are all coming from.)

Critically, she came out poised from the beginning. Of course, Rudy and Huck pulled everything out of their bag of tricks to get people loosened up and fired up in the Excel Center -- Rudy totally rocking the scrappy pep rally vibe of the audience, and Huck (who I preferred) telling that really wonderful story about the desks.

This speech was huge, though, and she didn't flinch. At all. Sarah Palin came out with guns blazing, re-introducing the family, and ensuring that the image people have of her tomorrow is a woman who can knock the hell out of a speech. The enumeration of what she has done as governorwas so choice. It feels like we haven't heard anything about factual things anyone has done all week, until she started in on the pipeline, the tax cuts, the surplus, the removal of excess perks.

The highlight, from a policy standpoint, was the little overture on foreign oil dependence and drilling here:

The most recent Gallup tracking poll grants Obama a 55-38 advantage with voters in the 18-29 bracket, but that numerical disparity ignores the cultural, cultish following and outpouring of enthusiasm -- we all know Obama has triggered something in this younger generation, particularly for far left liberals. Palin might change the statistics, she might not -- but what she's already done is fired young conservatives the hell up about this election. Here's a sample of Facebook today:

That's majorly different than usual. Two liberal friends this afternoon volunteered that they would probably be giving McCain another look for this choice. Over at Right-Wing Vitriol, we've been proponents of Palin since March, but we were all legitimately excited about this pick. Only Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin could have created a swelling of young support like this, and only McCain would ever pull the trigger on this one.

Not just the youth either. This afternoon, my grandmother, an avid NPR listener who remains a registered Democrat in Florida (because in the early 1950s in still Old South Florida, nobody was a Republican) wrote a check for the max to the McCain campaign. Per descriptions by my mother, grandpa, and herself, she has never been this excited about politics. Her younger sister, a Bush Pioneer in 2004, had reneged on her vow not to bundle this election cycle. McCain raised $3 million today. This is what can happen.

This can't be only framed as a play for independent voters -- it's a call to the faithful to energize and turn out.

Katherine Miller blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol.

During this election cycle, we've talked a lot about the collective advantage the Left, and by virtue of that, the Democrats have online -- both media-wise and in terms of basic design aesthetic (check out Patrick Ruffini's gallery of campaign website screenshots). But, yesterday, when I was checking the dates of the Democratic convention, I was half-shocked by the DNC's website for the event:

A ton of white space, uneven columns, a somewhat generic looking banner, and no central, unifying feature on the page. It's not memorably bad, of course, it just looks unfinished. Meanwhile the Republicans have produced this:

Patrick Ruffini's online strategy for how McCain should announce his vice presidential candidate, in response to Obama's Text Message of Great Tidings of Joy, has got me thinking about another potential strategy for the McCain campaign to play out more conventionally.

While Patrick's strategy contrasts wonderfully with the "first to know" along with everybody and their grandmother approach, I think there are some timing issues to be considered. Despite conventional wisdom, Obama almost has to announce sometime during the Olympics (they end Aug. 24, the Convention starts Aug. 25) to get a decent bounce heading into the stadium speech. Given the paltry three day window the DNC carved for themselves between Denver and St. Paul, McCain will almost certainly announce his selection during that time.

The danger for McCain in going online, as always, remains looking somehow inferior, or like an old man trying to use the new fangled technology to achieve the same end. Given the delay already since the Obama announcement, a McCain strategy with an online announcement might come off slightly copied or reactionary. Ideally, Patrick's strategy would become a sort of Wonka Golden Ticket on a very rapid time scale, but assuming that three day window, McCain needs some kind of sharp photo op that contrasts heavily with the stadium speech. Going online might also play a little too closely to the DNC strategy of "The Next Cheney."

Perhaps it's my Olympics-addled brain, but the McCain campaign should be trying to get in contact with the families of Shawn Johnson, Cullen Jones, or Jason Lezak -- Olympians with great stories, who have either won gold medals or will, who don't have quite the Michael Phelps or basketball team celebrity cache.

Ideally, the result would be, for instance, the Johnson family's Des Moines living room playing host to John and Cindy McCain (and, in a perfect world, one of the sons in the armed forces), the vice presidential candidate and his or her family, and perhaps some neighbors of the Johnson family. The message would be brief and to the point: "Americans can achieve a lot on the world stage, whether that be in athletics or dealing with big issues, but family and community are the foundation for that -- true leadership begins at home, not in a stadium. This is something that both myself and [vice presidential candidate] know and believe and will take with us to the White House." Sure, it's a common sentiment and it lacks the cash and email grab of Patrick's strategy, but it plays off the arrogant narrative that will surely be lingering following a speech in front of 75,000 people.

Katherine Miller blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol, from Vanderbilt University.

A report about the activity happening on the floor of the House. - Jon Henke

For an hour and a half this morning, I was on the House floor watching the Guerrilla Congress in action. Unfortunately, I have no photos to show for it, as Blackberries, iPhones, and cellphones were all banned from the chamber. The representatives I heard speak this morning (sadly, ol' Marsha Blackburn was not among them, though I did see her there): Adam Putnam (Fla.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Frank Wolf (Va.), Christopher Shays (Conn.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Judy Biggert (Ill.), and Rob Bishop (Ut.). I think the theme of what everyone spoke on can best be summed up by what Rep. Putnam reiterated twice: "When the next generation looks at the Middle East on the map, they should be able to say, 'What an interesting place,' not, 'We depend on them for our economic security.'" A lot more under the jump.

Lately, it seems certain narratives about the youth vote and digital media have been coming up time and time again, without much analysis of how useful these things actually are, so I thought I would hit on a few issues with the youth vote and new media as a college conservative.
 

Facebook doesn’t work. This kills me. Facebook constantly comes up in discussions about the digital age and it’s still pretty useless. While the importance of social networking cannot be overlooked in terms of keeping in contact with those you might not otherwise and cementing ties from introductions and the like, Facebook still isn’t a platform for political discussion or information retrieval (unless it’s photos from last weekend). The candidates’ pages are largely like comment-enabled static web pages—sort of useless, unless you’re looking for a fight. A candidate who actually made a Facebook page, replete with favorite movies, their former college networks, and a candid photo album or two might be an interesting experiment, though.

Where Facebook does hold a lot of potential is in its corporate and outside applications. Facebook's privacy policy is a nightmare; information never leaves its servers, even if you deactivate, it remains there. In terms of micro-targeting and data collection on voters, Facebook may be extremely useful if it can be utilized properly, but I don't get the sense that it's being used to its fullest on either the data side or the interactive approach to actually contact and motivate people.

Despite the Obama campaign insisting that the Nov., 2007 Chicago Tribune article was "inartful" description of Obama's position, Obama has a nice long history of supporting the D.C. gun ban, including this video from February, 2008 on ABC 7 in the Washington area:

So, will Heller hurt Obama? Certainly, support for gun control isn't against party platform for him, but after all it's been argued here that drilling is the next gun control -- an issue that tilts largely toward the GOP stance, which Dems would be wise to lay off. Under Obama's banner of progressivism, though, he seems trapped in the 1970s and would be unlikely to move right on gun control, particularly if he's catering to an urban vote.

More importantly, however, the Heller waffling introduces yet another instance of Obama taking a key issue and attempting to change positions dramatically by means of vagueness. Look at the video, Obama tries to overcome a prior gaffe by giving a run at having it both ways and ultimately failing. It's rather difficult to "respect the second amendment and people's traditions" while taking away the guns. Can this be exploited as another instance of his dramatically changing stances, or at the very least, attempting to equivocate on something? In some ways, the "present" votes have not played enough of a role in the narrative yet; on the other hand, the right to bear arms could be the issue that helps mobilize veterans for McCain, if it's played well.

Katherine Miller blogs at Right-Wing Vitriol, the blog of the Vanderbilt Torch.

Katherine Miller: Apologies for the delay in debate post; I am fighting off a cold/allergies like a circus person with a chair against a lion. Full disclosure: I will begin by admitting my Washingtonian existence, politically moderate disposition, and subsequent exclusion from the so-called "party base." This entire debate derived out of a disagreement more about what the base should be, so my assertions will be tempered by champagne dreams of mine, I suppose. As Mario says, here we go.

Despite erosion from social conservatives, the actual base remains as traditionally Republican as ever, and against Mike's family-centric model, I will dub mine the Wall Street & Washingtonian base. That's a relatively small group of people -- a small group of people that keeps the economy and politics running. The WS&W is comprised, first, of individuals who identify as Americans, and the guiding principle behind them involves: maximizing individual freedom, while minimizing physical danger. This manifests itself in several ways:

Cross-posted at Right-Wing Vitriol