mindyfinn's blog

Right there with expectations to redirect the nation’s slumping economy and achieve miraculous Middle East peace, are the expectations for a new generation of openness and transparency from the Barack Obama White House.

Recently, I joined a panel called “Wiki White House” hosted by the New America Foundation and Wired magazine as the token conservative.  More a pragmatist than a dreamer, I reveled in the opportunity to highlight where the Obama team’s efforts at openness should be lauded and where they should be met with a skeptical eye. 

Applause-worthy

1. Updating the antiquated weekly radio address format by offering it on YouTube.  The Bush White House broke ground by offering the weekly radio address as a downloadable podcast, but the times call video.  I’d place my bets on the Bush White House offering a YouTube version of the address had he taken office in 2008, but unfortunately many Republican (and Democratic) Senators and Governors are still afraid to go there).

2. Accepting submissions for ideas to improve health care (presumably followed by other key issues).  Even after the FISA debacle – where Obama’s supporters used his own campaign website to protest his position – the Obama team recognizes that the American people want a stake in the process of shaping their man’s positions and policies.   

3. Opening up comments on the White House YouTube channel (itself a new addition, although as of this post, Minority Leader John Boehner’s YouTube response to the weekly address had not been approved).
 
 4. Prioritizing continued communication to and engagement of the 13 million people signed up for email and the 3 million my.BarackObama.com participants. (much to conservatives’ dismay…more on that later)

5. Easy-access specific agenda items on nearly two-dozen issues on WhiteHouse.gov.

6. Forming a Technology Innovation and Government Reform (TIGR, pronounced like the Winnie the Pooh character) team for the transition.  

Skepticism-worthy

1. Deleted Blagojevich comments on Change.gov.  What standard will the White House apply to user-submitted comments?  A pre- or post-censorship model forces the White House (and any agencies who follow suit) into assuming responsibility for every comment up there.  Once you delete one comment, you effectively say the remaining comments are acceptable.  Removing a comment from a campaign site is the campaign’s prerogative; campaigns are public.  Removing a comment from a government site, namely the White House, opens one up to potential First Amendment infringements.

2. Executive orders signed before opening to public comment (or merely giving a heads up). Being transparent about sweeping executive orders before singing them is more important than providing an inside look at the whistlestop tour taking Obama to DC for the inauguration.

3. Whether we will see more meetings opened up via YouTube video.  (These types of videos hint that we will, but as tough decisions are made, will the White House be as willing to pull back the curtain to the public?)

4.  Whether true transparency will come along with prompts for mass participation.  The briefing book effort through Change.gov asked for input on policy to be catalogued in a briefing book for the new President.  Yet, input is the first step, collaboration is the next.  Will the public’s ideas be considered in policy meetings, or was the briefing book effort a gimmick? A true collaborative effort would call for the White House to post the outline of a policy proposal, and invite input Wiki-style, then posting the final product for collaborators to see the fruits of their labor.

5. If you do allow mass participation, how do you ensure the conversation is not dominated by a loud, angry minority without censorship? On one hand, the loud and the angry can discourage participation by the engaged, yet tempered. On the other hand, if the administration demonstrates that active participation matters, that ideas from the rank-and-file are considered and folded in, the often inactive have an incentive to collaborate.  And what about the bi-partisan approach President Obama has promised?  If the Obama for America group will be depended on to act as grassroots lobbyists for the administration’s agenda, doesn’t that give grossly unbalanced influence to political, partisan activists?

6. Despite the demands of open government advocates on the Left who worked stumped their heart out for Obama, the administration has yet to announce a senior White House level CIO or CTO.  Who is leading the technology innovation charge? This video demonstrates that the administration is taking tech innovation and government reform seriously, but they’ve yet to give a reason as to why no CIO, and given the power Obama is amassing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a White House-level official would be preferable to a Cabinet position by the open government crowd.

7. Finally, while the Obama administration’s overtures to focus on tech innovation and government reform win them mad props by the media and Obamamaniacs, will they overlook the basics?  When a blog that strikes a partisan, propagandistic tone serves as the only source for White House happenings, it’s beginning to look like they will.  Where are the press releases and the speeches? 

The question the Wiki White House event sought to answer: what happens when “change” meets the obstacle of bureaucracy in governance? This is a question certainly that the Obama administration grapples with – with power brings the pressure to control ones environment.

Opportunity

Despite the challenges, we should expect for a White House that focuses more on transparency, open, collaborative governance and technology innovation than any other.   

Yet, if and when they falter, it’s the minority party’s job to hold the vehicles of power accountable.  Yet, we must do so by setting an example, not as hypocrites.  We can't let bureaucracy be an excuse; we must challenge the status quo like John Culberson did when he started tweeting from the House floor and House Republicans did by refusing to let the majority ban linking out to YouTube and other social media from House web properties.  We can’t ask of the Obama administration what our own fail to offer.

One man’s challenges are another man’s – or party’s -- opportunity. 

Are we clear on the role of the RNC Chairman or does it need to be better defined? 

As a co-founder of Rebuild the Party, I’m staying neutral in the RNC Chairman race (at least for now); yet, I’m heavily invested in the process and ensuring we elect the best man for the job. 

I’m encouraged that the race for Chairman, hopefully in small part due to our efforts at Rebuild, has morphed into a more open process.  For a job as important as RNC Chairman, candidates should endure at least as stringent a job interview process as candidates for office.  In years when our Party holds the White House, we don’t have such a luxury.  In years when we get crushed, like we have the last two cycles, we do have that luxury.

Our Party is in crisis.  Let’s resort back to our Crisis Management 101 books.  Crisis is defined as a “turning point” and “danger and opportunity.”  At this turning point, we have a tremendous opportunity to leverage our best talent to revive the Party. 

RNC voting members have power, this time around, to choose who our fearless leader will be.  We all have an opportunity to use our voices, and any communication tool at our disposal, to influence the choice of the voting members.

The process for picking an RNC Chairman is crucial.  If we can agree that the RNC Chairman’s race is a job interview, then we should have a specific job description, at least as it fits each cycle, understanding that the job of Chairman with a Republican president differs from the job when there is not.  From what I can see, the only official job description of the RNC Chairman is “CEO” of the Republican National Committee.

Similar to the Vice Presidency, the RNC Chairman’s role is amorphous, so I seek to define it for the upcoming term:

1. Director of Operations at the Republican National Committee, providing guidance and leadership on message, fundraising and political strategy for the Republican Party.

2. Chief messenger of the Party, communicating the Party’s positions, ideas and opinions on current events through all media.

3. Chief fundraiser of the Party, making themselves available to headline Republican events across the country to raise money for the RNC and local Party organizations.

4. Director of Party Relationships, building and maintaining strong relationships with State Party leaders, allied 3rd party groups, issue groups, demographic groups and niche “wing of the party” groups.

What is not included in the job description as Kathryn Jean Lopez touches on (and I’ve been musing about):

1. Chief Policy Advisor for the Republican Party

2. Chief Agenda Setter for the Republican Party

This is not to say that showing leadership on issues, and robust knowledge on tax, energy, health care, and [name that issue] policy, is not a plus.  It is.  But I think we need to take care to frame the RNC Chairman’s job for what it should be, unless I’m totally off base and we expect a Chairman to be what we want in a 2012 presidential candidate.

I’m interested in your thoughts.  

 When I read that RNC member Gary Emineth, the North Dakota GOP Chairman, organized a coalition to demand an unprecedented "special" RNC meeting before the RNC Chairman's election, I had my usual reaction: "Another meeting?...ugh...what a waste." 

On campaign after campaign, I've bemoaned the fact that too much time, out of a typical 14-hour workday, goes to useless time-wasters.  No, I'm not referring to staffers who surf the Web, look at their friend's pics on Facebook, or play practical jokes on the guy or gal in the next cube over.  Those serve an important purpose compared to the biggest, most useless, waste of time on most campaigns: the never-ending, often unfocused meetings where little, if anything gets accomplished, except teeth grinding, nail chewing and overeating.

Thus, I've come to hate the word "meeting."  "Let's get together on," or "rendezvous about" or "discuss over coffee," are preferable.  Meeting sounds so official, institutional, excessive.

But then I read on, and opened my mind...and sipped some coffee.

This special RNC meeting, which RNC Chairman Mike Duncan has now called, has made an impact even before being held.  It has traveled a road that most other meetings never dare travel.  RNC members have successfully coalesced around an idea, a plan, and quickly put it into action.  They have been pro-active.  They have shown leadership.  They have provided much hope for the future of the Party.  They have already taken a step towards accomplishing their goal -- a more open forum for major party decisions.

Just as important, the RNC members have built on the ideas of others, even more low-down in the totem pole of official Party power: grassoots organizations outside the official Party heirarchy.  Since Election Day, several organizations, old and new, have pushed and prodded open the RNC Chairman's race. 

Americans for Tax Reform has held meetings and is planning a debate of their own.  Rebuild the Party, an organization I'm particularly proud of, has secured the endorsement of 5 out of 6 candidates for RNC Chairman and built an organization of over 10,000 people who want a stake in the future of the RNC.  ChooseYourChairman.com allows regular people to contact the RNC members in their state expressing support for one of the candidates for Chairman.

These and similar organizations share a common goal, the best interest of the Party as it seeks to revive itself.  They might differ in their approach, but that's what debates are for; debating the specific tactics and approaches our next RNC Chairman should take should drive the agenda at the (cough, cough) meeting on January 7th at a currently undiclosed location.

Emineth was beaten up at first by the blogosphere for this apparently heinous quote in The Hill, 'At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the public thinks; it matters what 168 of us think.' Yet, when put in context (which he provided for us via blog post and in a follow-up Hill article) one understands that this quote resulted from the same frustration shared by many Republican activists.  Emineth, a sitting RNC Chairman, has felt powerless to make a different within the RNC power structure.  This powerless feeling has permeated Republican activists and organizations as they've felt obliged to cater to the will of a Republican White House, and at times, a Republican majority in Congress.  

Emineth, and the coalition that called for the (cough, cough) meeting see the opportunity at hand: an open field, the lack of a mandate.  In such a situation, the RNC members play an important role, electing the next Chairman.  In the past, most of these same RNC members have merely had the chance to approve the RNC Chairman for cosmetic purposes.  

If our elected RNC members don't even have real power in the Party, should we expect the grassroots to be empowered? 

Emineth and the coalition behind his effort have taken a baby step that shows real promise for a more open, productive and innovative Republican Party. Even if they had to call a meeting to do it.    

To echo and build on Patrick's post.

When a few of us channeled our efforts to RebuildtheParty.com, we intended to jumpstart the conversation about what the Party must do from a tactical standpoint to rebuild.  We did not intend to provide an all-encompassing manifesto that will guarantee a renewed Republican majority.

Our philosophy: rather than sit around and meet behind closed doors or wait for the perfect plan, let’s get started right away making changes within the party infrastructure. 

Let’s impact the conversations about what the Party must do to rebuild.  Let’s ensure, as a start, that the next Republican National Committee Chairman sets the right tone from a tactical perspective.  Most importantly, let’s open up the process so that we, the Republican people, have a say in electing our next Party Chairman.

If we, or anyone, had a precise, complete roadmap for what the Party must do from an ideological or policy perspective, what would we have left to talk about on sites like this one? 

The direction the Party heads is up to you, it’s up to me, it’s up to anyone who cares to participate in the process.  It’s certainly also up to Obama and the Left as their actions will often drive our reactions. 

The political roadmap for the Right is a perpetual work in progress, but one that must be based on the core principles of limited government and individual liberty.  As Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty have suggested recently, we must harmonize conservative principles and fresh solutions when confronting today's challenges.

That’s easier said than done.  In fact, it’s a gargantuan challenge, and one that should not be left in the hands of the entrenched consultant class of the last decade, the conservative movement dead wood (as Erick Erickson calls them) and purely self-promotional politicians. 

If the RNC -- and up and down-ballot campaigns and the grassroots activists they depend on -- adopts the principles as outlined on RebuildtheParty.com, we can build a more active coalition of right-leaning Americans who want to make a difference.  We will have the opportunity to reclaim the “party of ideas” and “party of the people” mantles, and create a culture of competition.

This is what the Republican Party is based on.  RebuildtheParty.com is not the answer.  It’s a step, one could argue a baby one at that.

Yet, when a baby takes their first step, we celebrate.  Why?  Not because they are an Olympic-level walker, but because they’re making progress.

Pre-Election I posted about the disease the Republican Party has suffered from: arrogance, complacency, failure to adapt.

The disease has led to the President’s low approval rating, the loss of both houses in 2006, a less-than-inspiring 2008 presidential primary and now the sweeping in of President-elect Barack Obama.

The Republican Party’s disadvantage in organization, fundraising, and even favorable media coverage are all symptoms of that same failure to change.

Yet, now is not the time to hang our heads and feel sorry for ourselves for being diagnosed with this disease, it’s the time to pursue the cure.  It’s a time to focus only on the causes of the disease for the purpose of remaining focused on the specific steps we can take to “get well.”

The election of Barack Obama is the turning point, the rock bottom.  Not only the numerical election results, but also the sheer exuberance that accompanied them should be the wake-up call Republicans, and our country, needs.  In the same way Type-2 diabetes, or a heart attack, is often the wake-up call one needs to diet and exercise, or a chronic cold is what one needs to slow down and reevaluate their lifestyle, we must act now. 

Again, I repeat this seemingly obvious quote, what I suggest as the mantra for the Republican Party in the next few months: if you don’t change, you won’t change.  I also point to a few guidelines for recovery from my last post on this topic.

If we don’t start now with a new, optimistic, yet aggressive approach towards reviving the conservative movement and the Republican Party, we will most definitely only have ourselves to blame.  If we want to survive, we can’t be like those chronic emphysema patients who bemoan their decrepit health, yet continue smoking through their bronchial tube. 

The vote count is in (mostly).  It’s time to finally admit that the status quo is not working; it’s time to democratize the Republican Party, to rewrite the playbook; it’s time to rebuild.
 

As I write, we don't know the victor of most elections across the country, but there is one thing we know for sure about Election 2008: traditional ________ is dead.

Here are 10 items that could be filled in the blank:

1. Polling
2. Fundraising
3. Media
4. Announcing for Office
5. Advertising
6. Debates
7. Voter ID
8. Get-Out-the-Vote
9. Campaign Structures
10. Candidates

Enough said.

We complain about the superficial, biased coverage of the MSM. We are justified in doing so. Thus, we must not succumb to the same trite discussion of why McCain is losing and where the GOP went wrong.

The answer, my friends, is not found in one person, wing of the Party, policy approach or tactic.  The reasons the "circular firing squad" now points to – inconsistent message, poor fundraising, inferior integration of new technology, even the President's low approval rating -- are symptoms of the disease, not the cause of it. 

The disease is complacency with the status quo and arrogance.  The same disease that caused Republicans to lose the majority in both houses in 2006.   Americans demand change. Duh.   

David Frum summarizes this well in The Week as reported by Politico:

In The Week, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote of McCain's travails in a way that seemed to take defeat for granted and warned the GOP faces a long road back. "That's not a failure of campaign tactics. It's not even a failure of strategy. It's a failure of the Republican Party and conservative movement to adapt to the times."

The Republican Party must heed this quote in the coming months: If you don't change, you won't change.  

If the Republican Party doesn't re-establish a core set of principles that address the issues the majority of Americans care about, we will continue to lose support.  If we don't understand that raising money is not the most important function of a campaign or political organization, we will continue to raise less than our leftist counterparts.  If we don't stop holding ourselves hostage to an entrenched consultant class, we only have ourselves to blame.  If we don't set specific goals and make investments in new media and political technology training, we will continue to cede grassroots dominance to our political opponents.  And if we don't start listening to the American people, and addressing their concerns, rather than pursuing our own agenda, we will continue to be unpopular.

Election Day is one week away.  No matter the specific Republican vote count for President or seat count in the House and Senate, it will be time to finally admit that the status quo is not working; it will be time to democratize the Republican Party, to rewrite the playbook; it will be time rebuild.

It will be time to stop throwing blame around, and for every Republican official, candidate, staffer and consultant to open their eyes and ears to a new approach.

As someone who has advocated a new approach to the Republican Party for the last four years, I look forward to a more open, inclusive discussion about the way forward.  Meanwhile, I look forward to your input here.

A few weeks ago I joined the Open Debate Coalition, an effort to make the presidential debates more accountable to voters and in touch with the Internet Age.

The effort kicked off with a letter from Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig, who also founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and asks two things: 

1) Debate footage be authorized for public use.  Currently, it’s owned by the media and prohibited for reuse or repackaging by the public.

2) Townhall debate Internet questions be chosen by the public, and not solely the media.

Signers include political and new media enthusiasts from both sides of the aisle, mostly the Left (Arianna Huffington, Craig Newmark, MoveOn, Roger Hickey), but also right-leaning friends (me, Ruffini, Henke) including latest signer Grover Norquist.

While both candidates (McCain and Obama) blessed the letter with their endorsement of its principles, the debates did not change.  The media and the commission took minimal steps to support the release of debate footage and no steps to reform the debate format.

It’s too late to address the latter problem in this election, but the Commission does have a chance to make right the debate footage issue.  As Norquist said today:

If the Commission wants to show any bit of responsiveness this year, they'll make sure that debate footage is put in the public domain so people can put clips on YouTube and otherwise share key moments without being deemed copyright lawbreakers.

Nonetheless, both presidential candidates’ public endorsement of the open debate coalition principles set the standard for future presidential debates – and hopefully down-ballot debates in the interim. 

Democratizing the debate process -- something the Internet makes more possible -- goes beyond party or ideology.  It's about making the debates more accountable to those it's intended to serve -- the voters.

The candidates updating their approaches in response to the changing force of interactive media isn’t enough.  Debates matter.  And unless the presidential debate commission embraces reform, 2008 could well be their last year sitting on the debate throne.

Has the McCain campaign considered that the time to change their ad strategy is NOW, and only because two weeks ago is no longer an option?

In the last month, McCain's favorability rating has dropped 6 points, from 56.4 to 50.1, and Obama's favorability has increased, from 55.3 to 57.4, according to the RCP polling average.  The Obama-focused campaign is not working.

Now Election Politics 101 dictates that when you're down and your opponent is hovering at 50% in electoral polls, it's time to enlighten voters to the negative aspects of your opponent, commonly known as "negative" ads.  The McCain camp followed this rule to a tee.  And in this case, it did not work. 

They can blame the media and say it's because the media has a double standard for the two campaigns, and they do.  They can probably blame the failed negative ad strategy on other factors as well.  But the bottom line is it has not worked, and it's time to change course.

Rather than set their sights on Obama's unfavorables, how about playing to their strengths? Remember the McCain bio videos -- those that recount his experience as a war hero, a man who suffered for the sake of his country and his country men and women?  What happened to the Country First theme dominating the Convention?

And we never saw ads that tout McCain's independent, pragmatic record in the Senate.

No scramble necessary to concoct concepts, use McCain himself, at his best.  There's a reason this guy was popular -- at times.

Perhaps there is concern about shirking the playbook and going back up with McCain-centered ads with 20 days left to play.  Yet, the reasons for going positive at this point grossly outweigh any conceivable risk:

1) McCain may not win, but I'm sure he would prefer for it to be close rather than get trounced by a Senate newbie like Obama.

2) McCain may not win, but he doesn't want to be responsible for a Democratic filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a Democratic deluge in the House.

3) McCain may not win, but he can go out on a positive note and preserve his pride and his image.

4) McCain may not win, but he's not winning anyway, and he has nothing to lose.

While McCain's chances of winning are slim and getting slimmer every day, his campaign owes it to themselves, their supporters, and the Republican Party ... and John McCain ... to go back to basics.

With less than one month to go,  John McCain has few winning moves, and Barack Obama is headed to "Check Mate" on the chess board of Election 2008.  

What is McCain to do? 

Two McCain advantages remain.  And they are true advantages, not bloated attacks on Obama or overused GOP talking points.

1. Senate Record
One reason the voting public distrusts  and dislikes politicians is that politicians fail to follow through on election promises.  For fence-sitting voters, especially those bombarded by campaign ads and phone calls, it's hard to believe either candidate will do what they say. 

With two Senators at the top of each party's ticket, the candidate's disadvantage is the public's advantage -- a record by which to evaluate each candidate, to predict how they will perform in office.  

Obama claims he will give 95% of taxpayers a tax cut.  He claims that he will reach across the aisle and find compromise solutions to our nation's challenges.  He claims he will move us closer to energy independence.  He claims he cares about Main Street and will hold Wall Street accountable.  But what has he done while in the Senate to achieve these goals? One look at Obama's past votes and legislative behavior, and it's clear his campaign promises are inconsistent with his record reality.  

And what about the "Present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate.  What kind of commitment did that show?

McCain's must be accountable to a much longer record, but it's one that is consistent with the domestic and foreign policy agendas outlined on the campaign trail. When it comes to reaching across the aisle, as Mike Murphy said on Meet the Press today, "You look at any piece of bipartisan legislation in the Senate that got done the last five years, John McCain's been the quarterback ... McCain is a guy who can get things done in Washington with two parties." 

2. Runaway Liberal Agenda
Also on MTP today, Murphy referred to the "runaway Democratic train" that comes with an Obama presidency.  

How many moderates and independents would prefer a Congress to have limits, the checks and balances so cleverly built into our political system?  With Congress' abysmal approval rating, scary is the thought of a liberal Democratic president putting forth an agenda that Congress will ratify quickly and easily. 

With a liberal and a moderate as our choices, even left-leaners may consider a moderate out of fear of the reckless decisions made possible by a Congress who says "Yes, We Can" to every proposal the liberal president desires. 

(McCain should take care in presenting this as a problem with an Obama presidency.  Voters don't like hand-wringing and demagoguing either.  Nonetheless, McCain can stand on his record as someone who forces compromise, which is better than forcing unchecked bad policy.)

McCain must try these two moves now ... or never.