Conservative Movement

 Today's Washington Times has a story by Ralph Hallow about NY-23. One of the things Ralph discussed was Newt Gingrich's struggles with the race. He quotes Newt:

He said Mr. Hoffman's "rise is a result of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, the Club for Growth, Gov. [Sarah] Palin and [Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and virtually the entire national conservative movement joining with Mike Long, whose Conservative Party, a very established organization, which won its first big race 39 years ago."

It is striking to me that Tim Pawlenty is the only presumptive 2012 candidate in that list, unless Sarah Palin really gets in, but there are no indications that she is. After a Presidential primary in which Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee fought out for the conservative mantle (to a stalemate, I might add), they both were absent from this battle.

You see, NY-23 is the first big fight of the 21st century for the conservative movement. It is important to remember that this movement is about moving the to the right by moving its governing coalition to the right. That means, by definition, the Republican Party because it is the vehicle of the center-right coalition in American politics. There can be no doubt that, whatever the result on Tuesday or afterwards, that the leadership of the GOP has been chastened. Marc Ambinder's analyzes the race and concludes that Scozzafava's social liberalism was necessary to create the conditions on the ground for the Conservative Party to reach out to national groups. However, ultimately, the Club for Growth, responding to her positions on card-check, the stimulus, etc., funded Hoffman and really made this happen. In other words, the two key components of the conservative movement came together in perfect complimentarity.

So we have the definitional fight for the conservative movement, post-Bush. And only Pawlenty shows up at the fight? But for the movement, the question is as much "are you with us on the fight" as it is "are you with us on issues". Let's consider how this impacts Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, both of whom declined being in the fight over the last several weeks.

Let's take Huckabee first. Mike Huckabee not only didn't endorse Doug Hoffman, Huckabee took $20,000 away from Hoffman's GOTV effort (which tells me that he isn't running, but ...):

Huckabee, who according to Upstate Committee sources is receiving a five-figure fee in excess of $20,000 for his appearance, has refused to personally endorse Hoffman, who is pro-life and signed the "no-tax" pledge in August before his announced candidacy, and has informed Hoffman that HuckPAC will not support him either. Some Conservative Party officials believe Huckabee's fee is intended for his PAC. Ironically, the dinner is held to honor conservatives who exemplify conservative principles.

This offers a(nother) critique of Huckabee from the movement perspective. Huckabee is particularly vulnerable here. In 2008, no electorally significant critique damaged Huckabee within his base of evangelical voters. Why? I think that Ramesh Ponnuru nailed it in a discussion of Romney's campaign:

Romney’s problem was not that he is a Mormon. It was that he is not an evangelical. A strong plurality of evangelicals “would have backed Huckabee against anybody — Mormon, Buddhist, or Catholic,” says another former Romney adviser. “They were voting for one of their own.” To attribute Romney’s loss in Iowa to anti-Mormon prejudice from evangelicals, he says, is like attributing Romney’s victories in Utah and Nevada to Mormons’ hostility to people from all other faiths. But this adviser reaches the same conclusion as his colleagues who blamed anti-Mormonism: Romney should not spend as much time and resources on Iowa next time. 

In other words, the options for Huckabee voters were to go to Romney. Not going to happen. But guess what? Tim Pawlenty is an evangelical. Indeed, during the VP speculation in 2008, the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody argued, "Pawlenty may be the one guy to help McCain with working class moderates AND socially conservative Evangelicals." So he can genuinely compete with Huckabee or someone similar to his right.

Ramesh notes that Romney ran as the candidate of the conservative movement (and I would point out that Fred Thompson's candidacy was about the fundamental mismatch of Romney the man and Romney the candidate of the movement):

All these advisers may, however, be looking at Romney’s options too narrowly. Romney’s strategy in the last campaign was not to run as the social conservatives’ candidate. It was to run as the movement-conservative candidate. Throughout the primary he claimed that he best represented what he called “the three legs of the stool” holding up conservatism, with the legs representing conservative positions on social issues, economics, and foreign policy. The attempt to rally his party’s right made a certain strategic sense. Giuliani and John McCain started the primary season with higher profiles than Romney and, in different ways, represented the party’s left wing. Running to the right thus presented Romney with an opportunity.

Romney, in not playing in NY-23 has, in some important sense, laid the groundwork for a(nother) criticism of him as the candidate of the conservative movement. How can he be the candidate of the movement but duck out on the first major fight of the movement. (2nd, if you count healthcare, which doesn't cut nicely for Mitt...) Can he really run from the same location that he had earlier? No. This suggests that he is taking the route that Ramesh almost recommends by moving to the left end of the party and/or the establishment. (I distinguish between these)

This time Romney could follow a different path. There are no prospective McCains or Giulianis, no heavyweights from the left or even the center of the party. Instead of running as the movement conservative in the race, Romney could run as a party-establishment candidate who is acceptable to the Right. That strategy wouldn’t require him to move left on the issues. But it would entail, among other things, taking fewer jabs at the other candidates for not being conservative enough (jabbing them for having bad ideas would still be in season). It would entail advertising Romney’s conservatism less. The policies could still be conservative — but he would promote them as good ideas more than as conservative ones. 

 I don't know how this plays out. Romney running from establishment/left of the party, and Pawlenty running to the right? Perhaps. There's another angle that Ramesh notes:

To be a strong candidate, finally, Romney has to address one weakness that has not gotten much attention: his lack of appeal to middle-income and low-income voters. The exit polls from the primaries tell a consistent story. In Iowa and Florida, he won pluralities only among those voters who made more than $100,000 a year. In New Hampshire, voters had to make more than $150,000 before they started favoring him. Michigan, where Romney’s father was governor, was the great exception: Romney won among every income group above $30,000 a year. If Romney can’t find an economic message and a way of making it that appeals to middle-class voters, he may as well save his money and not bother running.

Again, we have Pawlenty's strong suit: reaching out to the middle class and working class.

The field is set. A working-to-middle class Midwestern candidate with strong evangelical roots running against a white-shoe Northeast wealthy candidate with strong western roots. This will be an interesting battle.

Today in Pittsburgh, some of the most committed members of conservatism are getting together to discuss the importance of, and also strategize increasing a conservative presence via the internet....

The decline in newspaper sales, and decrease of legitimacy in the mainstream media are no doubt an example of the average American taking to turning on their computer for their news...

Thus, let's see what happens and stay informed on this year's, RightOnline National Conference...

As it's the end of the week, perhaps we ought to take a minute to look in the mirror and assess how and what we're doing.

Every day, I read the political blogs and every day, I'm getting more dissolusioned by the disconnect between the triumphalism that accompmanies each town hall news report and the video that accompanies it.  Blame the MSM until the cows come home, but I know what I see, and it doesn't bode well for the country or the conservative movement.

Perhaps my perspective is different because I live in a blue state, but we are forgetting that we are trying to convince people, not belittle or scream at them.  As every Code Pink loonie who has ever snuck into a congressional hearing has shown, chanting is not an effective method of political persuasion, only a way to prove to the chanters themselves that they have Done Something.

We need to keep our eyes on the goal: persuasion.  Not showing our numbers, not thinking up the most clever signs, but persuasion.  The people who support Obamacare are our neighbors, however wrong they may be on this issue.  They jump our cars when our batteries die.  They go to happy hour with us after work.  They are members of our families.  They are not  "sheeple" or "Obamabots."  Throwing around names like those are direct insults to people you know and love, whether you know it or not.

Obamacare supporters are just like you and me, except they have different opinions on issues of public policy.  If you want to make a difference, persuade them.  Here are some keys to persuasion and having a debate with people who are just like you and me and not some formless menacing mass:

- Engagement: Ask them if they have healthcare and if they like the coverage they have (they probably do).  Ask them if their employer would drop coverage if a public plan were to be created.  Ask them about major elective surgeries they've had and find out how long you have to wait for them in Canada.

- "Democrats did it" is not an excuse for any behavior.  Didn't your mom teach you that something isn't right just because someone else did it?

- Tyranny, Communist and Nazi are words that need to be banished from your vocabulary on this issue.  Your friends and neighbors have a picture in their heads about what a tyranny or a communist dictatorship looks like, and it isn't America, with or without socialized medicine.  Trying to convince people that the USA will be a socialist tyranny if the bill passes in its current form will only make you look like a nutjob to the kind of people who aren't immersed in the debate on a daily basis because they aren't tuned into the hyperbole the politically active always toss around.

- Facts and Figures:  Bone up, make a cheat sheet.  Keep it in your wallet. The odds are that whomever you're debating/persuading won't have one.  Advantage, you.

- Know the opposing arguments. Check out Krugman and Ezra Klein.  Try to picture them in a room with you making those arguments and think about how you might respond.  It's hard to be a persuader when the only material you read reinforces what you already believe.  Consider yourself an advocate.

- Keep townhalling.  Be a good example.  Think of someone in your past who changed your mind on a big issue and act like them.

Most of all, realize that our opponents are Americans who want the best for themselves, their families and the country.  To behave otherwise is unfair, self-aggrandizing and accomplishes nothing but raising your blood pressure.

For Republicans, the words "Ronald Reagan" have become code for "policies and election results I like" (whether or not Reagan-era policies and election results match those of the speaker).  Republicans remember Reagan so fondly because his ideals were powerful, poignant, and his rhetoric was red meat for limited government/national defense Republicans.  Indeed, I suspect we often remember him more for his soaring rhetoric than for the specific details of his governance.

John Harwood's New York Times story, Republicans Rethinking the Reagan Mystique, contains some interesting points.

That’s not to say Republicans disavow Mr. Reagan’s achievements, which include cutting tax rates, presiding over the successful conclusion of the cold war and, as Mr. Obama noted, boosting morale after a period of national self-doubt. [...]

What’s needed instead, said Reihan Salam, co-author of “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,” is “something new — the anti-Obama, anti-Reagan.” [...] Mr. Salam said he favored a new prototype of Republican leadership that projected humility rather than grandeur, understated competence rather than soaring rhetoric and vision. [...]  

There is also the arrival of a new slate of pressing issues. It has been 20 years since Mr. Reagan’s plea to “tear down that wall” was answered by the fall of Communism. The 70 percent top income tax rate Mr. Reagan called confiscatory now stands at half that level. And the cultural appeals he made to blue-collar voters and evangelicals have lost their immediacy, displaced by economic concerns. Many remember that Mr. Reagan identified government as “the problem.” But today an increasing number of voters look to the government for security and stability.

The problem with the Republican fixation on Ronald Reagan - and Republicans say "Reagan" like Smurfs say smurf - isn't with the ideals of limited government that Reagan espoused in 1980.  The problem is that Republicans never evolved past the 1980's.  The conservative movement that arose in the 60's and 70's reached maturity in the 1980's.  That period became the conservative movement's frame of reference; the experiences, lessons and skills learned up to that point became the Republican Party's hammer, and when all you have is a hammer...

The result is two problems...

• Republicans are still trying to fight the same fights, even though the situation has changed.  It's one thing to mobilize people around tax cuts when you're cutting the top rates from 70% to 28%.  It's a lot harder to persuade people to vote on the difference between 39.6% and 35%.  Republicans are still trying to run against the vulgar great society liberalism of 1979, but (for a variety of reasons) that's just not as relevant to voters.

 

• Republicans are still offering the same solutions.  But over the last few decades, the viable Republican solutions have generally been passed.  Republicans are left advocating "limited government", but they either (a) have no idea how to actually accomplish it (thus, all the kvetching about "spending cuts", yet Republicans can only manage to find a few billion dollars per year), or (b) they're too beholden to interest groups (business money, elderly voters, etc) to stake out a position that would accomplish their goals (lest it endanger campaign funding, a seat in Florida or the mid-terms).

Republicans don't have to abandon Reagan.  Republicans just have to evolve beyond the 1980's.  Unfortunately, the culture, infrastructure and people that reached maturity in the 1980's may now be a barrier to evolution - not because their intentions are malign, but because they are adapted to a strategic and tactical era that has passed.

As expected, and widely predicted even before the choice of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court was announced, portions of the right wing have been engaging in their usual politics of personal destruction to distort Sotomayor’s record and engage in character assassination. In this case the right is actually divided. Some conservatives see attacks on Sotomayor as part of their grand strategy for 2012 of painting Obama as a leftist, and many other conservatives  just fall into character assassination as a Pavlovian response to any action from a Democrat.

In contrast, some conservatives realize that it is counter to their goal of receiving greater Hispanic support to someone who is probably the first Hispanic nominee. I wonder if any on the right are also beginning to realize the degree to which their reliance on the politics of personal destruction has backfired, with even many who might not vote against them based upon their beliefs now wishing to disassociate themselves with the Republican Party and conservative movement due to their unsavory tactics.

There is far too much material and too little time to quote everything of relevance here so I will try to choose some of the best links. A case such as this is an example of both the blogosphere at its worst and best. At worst the blogs permit the right wing echo chamber to repeat the same lies and distortions, allowing good conservative sheep to quickly learn which lies to repeat. At best the blogoshpere has quickly presented far more actual analysis than has been present in the news media.

To begin, The Scotus Blog has presented a summary of her decisions in posts here, here, and here. Her decisions have often been on narrow, technical grounds and only provide limited insight into her views on the types of issues considered by the Supreme Court (despite attempts by the right to mischaracterize her as having a far left record ). There are some favorable signs with respect to her views on First Amendment rights.

There are many blog posts responding to the character assassination from the right, such as from Adam Server here and here,  John Cole, Matthew Yglesias, Digby, Steve Benen, Chris Bowers (here and here), Nate Silver, Greg Sargent,  Media Matters,  Joan Walsh, Mahablog, and Ta Nehisi Coates. They include responses to some of the more prominent attacks from the right including distorted claims about her decisions being overturned, claims about her competence,  their rants against empathy, and statements taken out of context to claim she is racist or sexist.

Hopefully these links contain the facts with regards to all the falsehoods already being spread by the right wing noise machine–at least so far. The fiction writing ability of the right far exceeds their competence or principles, and we can expect many more comparable lies to be spread.

While conservatives quickly launched a smear campiagn full of misinformation on Sonia Sotomayor, it looks like it might already be fizzling out. There is no doubt that some right wing bloggers and talk radio propagandists will continue to repeat the same lies indefinitely. Those indocrinated in far right propaganda have a tough time shaking it off regardless of how much evidence is presented that they are wrong.  There are still some who claim that Obama isn’t a natural born American citizen and that there is some validity to the discredited claims of the Swift Boat Liars against John Kerry. There are also some signs of rationality as some conservatives realize that, barring some unexpected revelations, none of their false claims will be enough to prevent Sotomayor’s nomination from being approved.

The right wing attacks have been based on limited and distorted evidence and are so weak that even some conservatives are not able to go along. Some such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are making claims that she is a racist–a claim which certainely takes a lot of chutzpah considering the record of the GOP. These claims were based upon taking a few lines out of context from a lecture given in 2001. The simple fact that claims of racism are based upon a single lecture from almost eight years ago should already raise some red flags as to the validity of the argument. Rod Dreher reviewed the statements which earlier had him thinking she was racist in context and conceded,  I was wrong about Sotomayor speech.

They have made an even weaker argument in dishonest claims that sixty percent of her cases were overturned by the Supreme Court. This argument is so deceitful that it might help open a few more eyes as to the dishonest tactics regularly employed by the right wing noise machine. They leave out the important facts that she only had five cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court typically reverses 75% of circuit court decisions that rules on. Having three cases reversed is hardly meaningful. This actually represents 2% of her total cases, far less than the 60% number misleadingly cited by the right.

The attackers also claimed that Sotomayor has a far more liberal record than she actually has. Her decisions have offen been based upon narrow technical grounds specific to the individual case  as opposed to ideology. The conservatives who have actually looked at her record are finding that she is far more centrist and far less ideological than they first heard. She has a very limited record with regards to abortion, and opponents of abortion rights found that her record was not what they expected. Steven Waldman wrote:

One has to assume Obama wouldn’t have appointed Sonia Sotomayor without some indication that she’s pro-choice but — based on very, very little information — I wonder if she might not end up being an abortion centrist.

First, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she actually ruled against the pro-choice group on Constitutional grounds.

Second, in Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, she ruled in favor of the rights of anti-abortion protestors.

Neither of these cases dealt with the merits of abortion. Nonetheless, it’s interesting that in the two cases we know of that related partly to abortion, she took the position that pro-life groups would have wanted (albeit for reasons unrelated to Roe v. Wade). At a minimum, these cases would seem to indicate that, if she is pro-choice, she didn’t let those views affect her view of the relevant law.

While some bloggers and right wing pundits will repeat any attack, the arguments are appearing to be too weak even for the Senate Republicans. Mike Allen reports that any Republican opposition to her is fizzling out quickly:

More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation.

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

So far there is certainly no ‘there’ there in the accusations being fabricated by the right. The attacks upon Sotomayor are so weak, and so transparently false, that if they have any impact it should be to increase the backlash against the Republicans. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah for the Republicans to raise charges of racism against others and only their most hardcore supporters can even listen to such claims without chuckling at them. Maybe Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice is on to something and their attacks are being orchestrated by a mole out to further destroy the Republican Party:

In instance after instance since Obama’s 2008 election and the Democratic sweep of Congress, the GOP is proving itself to be not so much “stuck on stupid” as much as “stuck on preaching to its (already convinced) choir.” It seems oblivious to the fact that OTHER voters — from critically important ethnic and age demographics — need to be courted which means being at least partially on the same cultural wavelength. Today’s Republican party is seemingly Super-glued to the slash-and-burn, characterize and demonize conservative talk radio political culture.

It’s hard to imagine that a party that has problems with independent voters and Latino voters so going out of its way to repel voters it needs, unless there is a Democratic mole inside the GOP instigating these comments.

Calling her a racist will get lots of publicity but it’s going to drive many Hispanic voters away in droves. And so will the faces delivering this message: the well-fed, sizeable face of multi-millionaire private- jet-owner Limbaugh, sitting in front of his mike, and the very familiar face of Gingrich. Many Americans (who are not millionaires or who aren’t conservative Republicans) will look at and compare the two GOPers’ life narratives with that of Sotomayor. Even worse: many independent voters, Democrats who may not be enamored with Obama, and moderate Republicans have already distanced themselves from the GOP. This latest barrage at Sotomayor now clearly is part of a pattern: no matter what the issue, the GOP is responding now with demonization in attempts to stir up hot button resentments and/or political rage.

And even worse for the GOP: its unlikely to resonate among the younger voters the GOP will need to regain footing in the 21st century.

So, except for getting nods of approval and cries of “That’s the way, go get ‘em!” from Republicans, what gains will Republicans (via talk shows, Gingrich and weblogs) make in accusing Sotomayor of being a racist — except, rightfully or wrongfully, causing some on the fence to conclude that those Republicans raising the racism issue could perhaps be mistakenly talking about what they are seeing when they look in the mirror?

A mole might be the most rational explanation for the manner in which the Republicans persist in utilizing tactics which drive away rational voters, but unfortunately what we are seeing is the actual mindset of the conservative movement.

Barring any unexpected findings she will be easily confirmed. The manner of the right wing attacks are now one of the most  significant aspects of this story, considering that any pick would have been subjected to similar lies from the right wing. Their distortion of her judicial record is very similar to how the right typically distorts voting records, such as taking an up or down vote on an overall budget and then launching attacks based upon saying a Senator voted for or against a specific item in the budget.

In a democracy  it is an extremely serious issue when votes are being influenced not by the actual facts or serious discussion over different viewpoints but based upon repeated campaigns of distortion such as this. It is important for a democracy to work for the voters to be working from accurate information, not the misinformation regularly spread by the right. It would be both legitimate and healthy for the democratic process if conservatives responded to a nominee with an honest discussion of the areas where they disagreed. Instead they ignore her actual record, as they also do with political candidates, and launch attacks based upon fabrications created by distortions of the record and taking statements out of context.

Meghan is a force to be reckoned with. She is not the bimbo/valley girl that many on our side portray her and neither should they ignore this - Progressive Powerhouse.    So what am I saying? That conservatives should sit down with her and seek to find common ground?    NO!! Meghan McCain represents a new progressive wing of the Republican Party that has gone on the offensive against Conservatism. Extreme/Radical Moderates, they are. In that sense Meghan and her sort are just as much a foe as are liberal democrats.   And they should be considered as such. She and her ilk have chosen this confrontational path.   These intemperate and immoderate moderates started this fight and it is up to Movement Conservatives to get up out of their whimpering fetal position, stop sucking their thumbs, turn and confront. Start pushing back!    If they fail to stand and fight, this Conservative Movement that Ronald Reagan and others so lovingly constructed, brick by brick, could certainly (and soon) become nothing more than a footnote in some future history book. What was once a “shining city on a hill” will appear only as distant ruins to wayfarers passing by. 

 Meghan McCain is, no doubt, emerging as the unabashed leader of this Movement of Radical Moderates and she doesn’t try to hide or mask her objectives: 1) separate the Republican Party from the Conservative Movement, 2) push the conservatives out and/or diminish their influence.    And she is succeeding to date. For that she deserves credit and respect. Respect for her intellect that is. Not her views.  For instance, in her recent address to the Log Cabin Republicans, she does correctly point out that the GOP and Conservatives are sitting around, “waiting for the other side to be perceived as worse than us”.   And that is absolutely true. The Movement Conservatives have become completely distracted.   Refusing to consider getting their own dysfunctional house in order but instead continuously harping and pointing their finger at the flawed, Constitution-hating democrats. They keep telling us what we already know rather than making an effort to fix our own problems. Of which they are in deep denial about. And many problems they do have, but honestly they are not insurmountable. However, their stubborn arrogance won’t allow them to even recognize that they have a problem. So they’ve become as a dog chasing its tail.  And Meghan, like most everyone else, can see this joke of a “GOP three ring circus”. It doesn’t take some political genius.   She sees it! Many of us see it. And to her credit she at least has the courage to try to offer up, with an element of passion, some Progressive solutions. She’s a progressive what else do you expect her to do?? Just so happens that her solutions (and those of others in her camp)  would finish the GOP for good. These “youthful” moderates may dominate the right Blogeshpere. They may be able to set up a Facebook page. They certainly know how to Twitter deep into the wee hours of the night. But, if left unchecked, they’ll finish the demolition job that John McCain started in 2008.   If Conservatives don’t “gently & lovingly” smack them down, these misguided progressives will drive away millions more of the 59.9 million that voted GOP on 11/4/08 and ruin any chance we might have of taking back one of the legislative houses on 11/2/10. Of which, for the sake of our Nation, we desperately need to do.   So, who are these “Old School Republicans” that Meghan proclaimed as “Scared S**tless”? They used to be called Reagan Democrats.   Now they are the 59.9 million Civic Conservatives   who held their nose and pulled the GOP lever on 11/4/08. Surely not voting “for” her progressive Dad but rather voting “against” the socialist Barrack Obama. And lets not forget about the 10-20 million who opted to “Stay at Home” rather than compromise their principles.   Meghan is correct about one thing, however. They are scared. But not for themselves because, you see, they’ve made their pot of gold!   They are scared for the future of Meghan and her fellow Gen Y’ers because of the destructive course these youngsters have set our Nation upon. Installing at the highest level of our government one who will punish achievers/producers, take the wealth they’ve earned and give it to the non-producers of not only our society but throughout the world.   And one who will incrementally push our Constitution aside and replace it with the charter of some world governing body.  Meghan says we Old School’ers want to, “cling to past successes”. Here’s where she show’s her serious lack of maturity. Certainly it makes perfect sense to “cling” to traditions and values that have worked for millennia. Truth transcends the generations but these Gen Y’ers, in their arrogance, believe that they have evolved to some higher plane of consciousness and have gained some unique higher knowledge.   Hence, they’ve concluded, that these traditions/values that have served mankind well over the centuries, no longer apply to them. They, of course, are tragically wrong and will pay a heavy and painful high price. If this mentality begins to control the Republican Party, to put it simply, Old School Republicans will flee the party by the millions.   And they will not be replaced by some hyped-up, puffed-up, overrated youth vote.   These radical moderates are loose cannons on a rolling deck, encouraged and coached by an exultant MSM. Certainly they have moderate views but what makes them extreme is this; they are absolutely enthralled with what comes out of their own mouth.   “Hooked” and enticed by the attention they receive from the media. They’re in awe of their opinions and see themselves as messianic. Viewing themselves as some great leader holding the torch and pointing the way for the huddled masses. And they’re dangerous because, in essence, they are so very wrong-headed.   Next to the road they’re telling us we should travel upon there’s a tattered sign that reads “Bridge Out Ahead”. Yet they continue pointing the way and, as a result, many mindless followers within the lazy GOP Hierarchy convince themselves that this is the correct path-of-least-resistance to take. Hence the momentum builds for this Movement, in its infancy, of Radical Moderates. I have feared for a long time that the vacuum caused by the total void of leadership within the GOP would eventually suck in something impure. Meghan’s Moderates seem to be that void filling contamination. Those on the right, such as Laura Ingraham, who believe the best way to deal with a force like Meghan McCain is to make fun of her dress size….well they have blundered seriously.   Meghan has brilliantly turned it around on them resulting in Ingraham and other conservative talkers drawing back a bloody stump, in shock. They’ve been made to look small as Meghan swings her substantial mallet and drives the divisive wedge still deeper between Conservatives and the Republican Party.   Those who oppose Meghan McCain had best learn do so strictly on an intellectual level and cease with the childish name calling.    Darvin Dowdy                                       

Practicing Politics in the Twitter Era: If we are to speak of the age of online politics -- and I am not certain that we should -- let's say we've lived through the Blog Era (2001-04), the YouTube Era (2005-08) and now we are in the Twitter Era (2008-?). This screen shot of a blog post at Media Matters (of all places) juxtaposing tweets from Newt Gingrich and Matt Cooper -- proof alone that everyone in Washington is using Twitter -- provides a useful snapshot of the how Twitter works alongside the blogosphere (rumors of its death still exaggerated) in moving political messages online:

Zing.

So the Right had a vibrant 'sphere in the post-9/11 Warblogging Period, which drifted after the 2004 election, as frustrated soon-to-be-ex-Pajamas Media bloggers can tell you. The Left owned the YouTube era, which happened to coincide, not coincidentally, with President Bush's second term. Their political blog infrastructure was developed largely on the participation of bloggers and blog readers, not anyone using Twitter yet, most of the time because Twitter did not exist or see any significant usage until SXSW 2007. (You know who I can't find on Twitter? MoveOn.)

For at least a year now, the Right again has been leading the way on an Internet-based communication platform. So far it's to organize for Conservatism somewhat broadly as a unifying cause. Top Conservatives on Twitter is not quite a MoveOn for the Right -- a whispered-of but ultimately mythical animal not unlike the "Party-in-a-laptop" idea popular with some Neoliberals -- but it could have more value as a list than Gingrich's own Drill Here, Drill now efforts and even the (also short-time) #dontgo message it spawned last August. These new conservative projects are often built around Twitter itself. Sometimes this results in really annoying tweets, but at this point the right is doing more interesting things in this space. Twitter is smaller than Facebook, but makes up for it in volume of press hits (hopefully someone with Nexis can back this up for me) and news reports that its traffic is about to go all hockey-stick. Maybe it will go Galt as well.

Conservatives also have other, much older infrastructure whose blogging component counts a few successes but still relies on decidedly Web 1.0 websites, and so hasn't taken as big a hit in the Great Blog Crash of 2008-09. And like companies of the dot com crash (including Google itself), the concepts and websites that clawed their way out of the rubble did not and will not bring back substantial returns in the short run. Twitter, by its sheer simplicity, is kind of a Long Tail product in that we can (and often seem to actually do) use it in spare moments between the day, which means its audience could approach that of e-mail (especially since, you know, you need an e-mail account to join Twitter). Either could build that kind of reach, depending on who experiments more through the rest of the arbitrary era proper.

Using #TCOT vs. No Hashtags Whatsoever:

According to Internet marketing blog Hubspot, the right's #TCOT momentum means it vastly outnumbers the hashtags left-leaning Twitter users and bloggers... er, aren't listed as using, not here at least. Hmm. So which hashtags do the left use?

Pause for dramatic effect.

Turns out the left-verse doesn't do hashtags at all, that I could see from checking these accounts over the weekend:

• markosmoulitsas
• jedlewison
• matthewstoller
• ttagaris
• janehamsher
• Atrios
• ezraklein
• glenngreenwald
• KagroX
• openleft
• mmfa
• owillis
• mattyglesias

My question for the Left is whether the port side of the Twitterverse will adopt the same habit of hashtags that moves stories -- and if it does, whether it will even be led by the Kos-Greenwald-Marshall-Hamsher-Klein-Stoller-Yglesias Netroots movement. (Note: In the comments at Blog P.I. a fellow Twittizen points out there is a website collecting progressive hashtags: Tweetleft. And as she observes, organized hashtag use lies beyond "'the usual' accounts.")

And my question for the Right is whether they know any of the Top 5 Conservatives on Twitter, because I haven't got a clue.

Benchmark note: As of Sunday afteroon, Markos Moulitsas (2,411) has 7,288 fewer followers than John Culberson (9,699).

Adapted from a post at Blog P.I.

I've been meaning to write about this for a week, but work commitments beckoned. Nonetheless, it is still worth noting that something stunning almost happened last week: a huge piece of lefty online infrastructure nearly collapsed, when Soapblox sustained hacker attacks and was nearly shuttered by the developer who ran it part-time. Seeing the danger, the progressive community online has rallied to Soapblox's aid, vowing to raise the money necessary to defend it from further attack.

What is Soapblox? It's a self-service tool to build a community blog with user diaries and a recommendation engine out of the box, and runs most of the influential progressive state blogs in the country, in addition to influential national blogs like Open Left and Swing State Project. It's also another thing that they have and we don't -- though it's a little known fact that Soapblox is actually open to conservatives (see Red Mass Group).

I don't think it's any secret that the conservative blogging scene at the state level is woefully inferior to its lefty counterpart. Technology is only part of it; the bigger issue is a lack of willing bloggers with the political sophistication to drive unique and compelling content (this is an issue I'll have an announcement on in the coming days). This isn't to say that there aren't great conservative state blogs: Minnesota Democrats Exposed (run by Michael Brodkorb, a former communications director at the state party), Sound Politics (raised up in the crucible of the WA-GOV theft of 2004), Right Michigan (run by former campaign staffer Nick De Leeuw), and the aforementioned Red Mass Group (run by Rob Eno, a former research director for GOP campaigns in the Bay State). While I could mainly pinpoint this handful of excellent righty state blogs, virtually every state has a thriving progressive hub that the political class in that state looks to and which drive left-of-center storylines with the statehouse media.

This is really unfortunate, because we know works on state and local blogs: great content, usually driven by former campaign operatives who know exactly where the bodies are buried, combined with a great community, which Soapblox enables by automating the process of standing up user diaries. Counterintuitively, diaries and comments are even more important on a local blog despite its smaller scale because most of the participants actually know each other, leading to vibrant backchannel discussions and a watercooler effect. Occasionally, this incestuous environment leads to things getting super-vicious as when threats of outing shuttered the anonymous Caucus Cooler and Krusty Konservative blogs covering the Iowa caucuses in 2007.

However essential Soapblox may be to fostering the local liberal blogosphere, how they did it shows the danger to conservatives who may be looking to stand up and/or fund similar technology projects in the wake of Obama opening our eyes to this years too late.

It feels like the only thing I get to read from a lot of conservative blogs since Obama's election is how the conservative movement is in shambles, how the Republican Party has lost its way, etc. I was in the boat for a few days, and while there is some regrouping that needs to be done, I think those on the right who are in dire straits - and those on the left who are rubbing their hands together - need to take a step back a bit. Things aren't so bad, and this is why:

1) Conservatism Generally Isn't Trendy: I say "generally" because Ronald Reagan largely bucked this trend. Even then, the trendiness of Reagan had as much to do with how ineffectual Carter was as the reality of Reagan as one of the great communicators. But, generally speaking, conservatism isn't trendy. It's an ideas-based, values-based ideology, and one that resonates best when sticking to its principles. I'll come back to that point, but contrast it with the Obama campaign that generated, purposefully or not, a cult of personality complete with art and songs and what have you. No matter how good your ideas are, you're going to have a lot of trouble beating a fad, and that's the type of buzzsaw that the Republican Party and the conservative movement ran into this year. After all, for comparison, Kid A came out in 2000, but N'Sync's No Strings Attached is still the highest selling debut week in history from that same year - sometimes the superior doesn't always resonate.

2) Barack Obama Can't Run Every Year: I have to highlight this following the Georgia run-off and the results of the Minnesota Senate race - with Barack Obama on the ballot, Democrats will do better as a result. In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss couldn't pull a majority. When Obama's not there to boost turnout? A massive swing. On the same token, in Minnesota, Franken never polled as well as Obama in Minnsesota, it's difficult to imagine that he'd come close to Coleman if there wasn't something else to boost Democratic turnout. The true test of this will be in 2010, of course - granted, one can't expect the trend of the White House party in power to be bucked again like it was in 2002 with Bush, but the likelihood of Democrats getting an extra 4-6% of downticket support is unlikely in 2010. 2012 might be a different story altogether, but it's obviously too soon to see how the left will ultimately react to an Obama Presidency.

3) We're Still Center-Right as a Nation: As much as I'd like to say that Obama's waffling on Iraq and taxes is evidence of this, we have more significant evidence than that: even with Obama's apparent mandate, the electorate doesn't agree with his original positions on issues such as drilling or the death penalty, not even touching moral issues. The reality is that the conservative or even center point of view is more like to win out today, and the demographics are trending toward that as well - young people overwhelmingly want to be able to opt out of Social Security, and, to use a Presidential poll, the investor class (defined as folks who have more than $5000 invested in stocks) trend conservative/Republican. A majority of Americans own stock today, and if you invest, you're more likely to vote conservative/Republican. We elected a hardline liberal into the White House this year, and elected some hardline liberals into the House and Senate. This isn't evidence of a shifting electorate as much as what appears to be a unique circumstance.

4) Conservatives Can Win as Conservatives, Not as Centrists: We saw this happen a bit during the special elections between 2006 and 2008 - squishy, centrist (if not left-leaning) Republicans against Blue Dog Democrats, Republicans are going to fail. The plus side to the losses in 2006 by the Republicans was the way many of the Republicans who lost were ones Republicans could afford to lose in the long term. While it's hard to say whether any conservative could have won against Obama in the Fall 2008 political climate, running a guy who's spent most of his Senate career annoying conservatives may not have been the brightest move.

This isn't to say there aren't some marketing issues to be addressed, or that the Democrats haven't possibly made some strides, but I do think things are better than they look.

Financial services, car companies, and media outlets aren't the only people facing layoffs this winter. Conservative groups are too. National Journal reported on NAM:

The National Association of Manufacturers, which employs one of the highest paid DC trade association executives, John Engler, who received total compensation of $1.2 million in 2006, has laid off staff just weeks before Christmas, a spokesman for the organization confirmed. He said someone would call me back to say how many employees were let go. One source said as many as eight or ten people received pink slips.

I know of three other high profile conservative groups that are cutting, one 20% of staff and anothers are cutting quite deep. I am not even counting Freedom's Watch. This is in addition to all the professional Republicans left unemployed by election day, and the resulting shift at lobbying firms.

Some of this is due to the economic cycle, like Sheldon Adelson's bankruptcy. I imagine that the small-dollar direct-mail and telemarketing that sustains so many smaller groups is falling, but those numbers are harder to get. Some, like the lobbying firms, are a direct result of the political cycle. But when you talk to the donors you hear something more. They are tired of being taken for a ride. They understand that a lot of the older institutions are not providing value. You do see a fetishizing of new media and technology right now because it's the only really new thing that people are coming to donors with, but they understand that there is some snake-oil out there and are getting confused.

Ultimately, they want value, and they want leadership. And they are cutting off an establishment that isn't providing either.

This is happening at the same time as many of these groups are considering succession plans. Suddenly, a lack of leadership, a lack of funds, and a dismal political and economic climate are making some of these people think twice about the future of their organizations.

This should be an opportunity. For a while, people in the conservative movement are going to have to live lean and demonstrate value. When people get excited again, whether around new candidates, a new batch of ideas, or responding to Barack Obama and Democratic proposals, they will be opportunities for people that have been putting points on the scoreboard. In the meantime though, it's going to be very scary.

When we get onm the other side of this, the movement is going to look very different.