nw leahy's blog

At the Tuesday Morning Group meeting this week, the Heritage Foundation's Becky Norton Dunlop mentioned that the left not only put a lot of raw dollars into the 2008 campaign, but it also ran several other efforts that are beginning to pay dividends, and may continue to do so for some years to come.

One of those efforts was the Secretary of State Project, a seemingly innocuous organization devoted, as it's site says, "...to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to key Secretary of State races." Its more accurate objective comes from the headline on its blog: "Support Secretaries of state who will protect the election."

Protect it from whom or what is unclear, until you read the Wall Street Journal editorial on the ever-changing numbers in the Minnesota Senate race:

This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn't exactly a nonpartisan observer. One of Mr. Ritchie's financial supporters during his 2006 run for office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can "protect elections."

Mr. Ritchie is also an ally of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, of fraudulent voter-registration fame. That relationship might explain why prior to the election Mr. Ritchie waved off evidence of thousands of irregularities on Minnesota voter rolls, claiming that accusations of fraud were nothing more than "desperateness" from Republicans.

 A blog entry on Mr. Ritchie from the "SOS" site makes note of his community organizer roots, and something else:

In 2006, the SoS Project helped elect one of the most progressive Secretaries of State in the nation, Mark Ritchie. How he got his start in politics? As a community organizer. 

Community organizers make amazing Secretaries of State. Any organizers out there looking at a 2010 SoS campaign? Let us know at secstate (at) gmail (dot) com. 

So by cultivating and applying resources to down-ballot contests that generally receive little notice, the left is making advances that, in the Minnesota case in particular, could provide them with substantial, national benefits.

The right once had a vaguely similar effort -- GOPAC -- that is now a shadow of its former self.  But beyond this, where is the effort to target to target races, cultivate candidates and fund them on the right?

If one exists, I'd like to hear about it. But I suspect they don't, and that is a strategic error.

Instead of putting resources into actual candidates, however, the energy seems to be heading toward things -- shiny new internet sites with the latest and coolest widgets in order to tap the grassroots pockets for...something to be determined later.

The left already has the sites and the widgets. They also have the desire, the energy and the focus to put those resources to work on behalf of real candidates running for  office. And, at least in the Secretary of State Project's case, winning...now and in the future.

Here's one other bit from the post about Mr. Ritchie that's very instructive:

Joining Facebook groups is cathartic. But there's a better way to support community organizers. Put them in office.

 

That's the real difference, isn't it?

But all is not lost. Yet.

Groups like mine have been working for some time, under the DC radar, to build coalitions to put our beliefs into action.  Only this year did we start an online effort. But before that, our members we already taking on (and sometimes beating) incumbents who decided principles weren't important. We've fought and won legislative battles to increase property rights protections, kill the estate tax and more.

Funny thing, though -- we were always outspent, always out-manned and the press? Well, the less said the better. And as for technology...email carried the load.

 So in spite of the left's huge infusions of money, manpower and electrons, there are still ways the under-funded, under-manned right can fight and win.

Just imagine what we could do if we had the same resources...

Jon Henke joins the chorus that the left is way ahead of the right when it comes to creating an active, alternative messaging infrastructure.

Jon's right in a broader sense, but this is a fight that is taking place largely outside the beltway. And while the left is ahead in many areas, the right is making advances in the states -- away from the eyes and notice of beltway conservatives.

I got a taste of these developments at the State Policy Network conference last week in Scottsdale. Rather than sitting on the sidelines, waiting for direction from above, a number of state-based conservative/libertarian think tanks and advocacy groups are already creating their own, independent messaging channels. From blogs and social networking to investigative reporting, litigation and, of course, research, a cadre of state think tanks are busily working to meet the "seven capacities" described by Sam Adams Alliance chairman Eric O'Keefe (who joined TQ radio  to discuss the seven capacities as well as the left's tactics).

This does not mean that parity has been reached. Far from it. The problem with much of the right is that it believes the force of ideas and reason alone will win the day. That may have been true at some point, but it is no longer so. As one speaker at the conference noted, the there's a time for writing and a time for fighting. This is the time for fighting...and thankfully, some on the right are determined to fight hard and are acquiring the resources to do so effectively. The challenge is to get even more of them to put up their dukes.  That may occur sooner than some think, as both donors begin demanding action, rather than words.

(Cross-posted at Tertium Quids)

New RPV chairman Jeff Frederick is wasting no time in implementing his vision for the party. In a wide-ranging memo, Frederick outlines what essentially amounts to a youth push, plus more technology, and a whole lot of data mining.  This small section was  particularly interesting:

RPV will create a secure, proprietary “Majority Blog” accessible only by Republican legislators to keep them apprised of RPV’s 2009 statewide recruitment and opposition research efforts.

A blog is only as secure and proprietary as its users. This will either be an invaluable resource, or a sieve...which will still make it an invaluable resource, but for reporters. Plus, as some in the state GOP have as much understanding of blogs as they do of string theory, getting them to use the site ought to be an interesting cultural exercise, though certainly one that is long overdue.

On the whole, the document shows that Frederick is determined to make a difference almost immediately. In many ways, he already has, with the house cleaning already underway at party headquarters. 

Frederick's elevation to the chairmanship has been read is some quarters as the definition of a party in decline -- one that's more interested in purity than comity.  I'm not so sure. If Frederick can pull off even half of what is on his 100 day agenda, he will have set the party on the path it must take to be successful in the future.

[This is a heads up about the Virginia Republican Convention happening this weekend in Richmond, VA; we also expect to have some original reporting after the conference from people on the scene - Jon Henke]

So the wrangling and nastiness (should) end this weekend for Virginia Republicans as they hold their convention this weekend in Richmond.

They will choose a Senate nominee, who will begin his race as the most under of underdogs. Gilmore seems likely to get the nod. A cold comfort, really, considering the cast-in-stone narrative is that even George Washington would lose to Mark Warner.

But stranger things have happened...just ask George Allen.
 

Had dinner earier this week with some local Young Republican toughs and a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Lots of topics were on the table, but the big one was what's eating the GOP?

The Delegate's answer was interesting: It's the case of a party that wants to be loved for something it isn't, and afraid of being loved for who they are.

Which brings the obvious question, posed so long ago by Pete Townshend:

Who Are You?

I really want to know.

Are Republicans the folks who believe in their creed -- the one they print on their membership cards --  or in the parentheses?

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice (except when it comes to smart growth...we kinda like that)

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society (but school choice still gives us the willies)

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government (except when there's a surplus, then it's Katie bar the door!)

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations (but REAL ID isn't all that bad, is it?)

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense (and maybe a sales tax holiday, because without duct tape, the terrorists win!)

That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation (except for that hippie Jefferson with his Deism and science and weird ideas about freedom of conscience).

Which is it? I dunno...but they had better decide soon.