Patrick Ruffini

Scores of articles have been written about Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s online prowess during the 2009 election cycle. 

Steve and I certainly tip our hats to Patrick Ruffini, Mindy Finn and Vince Harris, because they demonstrated for many skeptical onlookers how a Republican candidate who commits the right resources to his or her online campaign can be successful.  Unfortunately, not every candidate has the resources Bob McDonnell had, nor do they often commit to their online campaign with similar fervor. 

In working with several GOP House of Delegates candidates in Virginia last year, Steve and I saw both obstacles – resources and commitment to an online operation – manifest themselves repeatedly.  With perhaps only an exception for the benefits that ActBlue provides Democratic candidates, this problem extends to both sides of the aisle in the Commonwealth.

Trust us when we tell you, there will come a time (probably in 2011) when door knocking alone will no longer suffice for candidates seeking to become delegates or state senators.

Earlier this week, the 2010 Politics Online Conference was held in Washington.  The event drew some of the nation’s top political online experts from both sides of the aisle to share their insight on how candidates and advocacy groups can improve their online operations.

Here’s an unfortunate fact about the conference, though.  Out of the 140 members who serve in the Virginia General Assembly, Steve and I saw only two members attending the two-day event.  We understand that not every member could make it due to busy schedules and travel considerations, but it was odd to hear the McDonnell campaign as the backdrop to so many of the panel discussions and yet to see so few Virginians in the audience.   

State Senator Chap Petersen (D-34) not only attended the event, but he served as a panelist.  Joined by Democratic Congressman Mike Honda (CA-15), CNN’s Ed Henry (moderator) and Chicago Alderman Sandi Jackson (D-Ward 7), Petersen discussed how he uses social media to connect with his Fairfax constituents.

As conservatives who’ve worked hard against liberals like Peterson in Virginia, Steve and I were treated to the disheartening lesson that Chap Petersen really does get it.  He utilizes social media and digital technology for three reasons.  First, so constituents of his district are made to understand that he is working on their behalf.  Second, to provide a forum for his constituents to express their opinion.  Finally, to aid his fundraising efforts. 

Peterson was not the only Virginia Democrat to patrol the Politics Online Conference.  On Tuesday, we ran into Delegate Mark Keam (D-35), who attended both days of the event, sitting in on panels and workshops in an effort to gain new insight into how to better execute his online campaign.

Both of these gentlemen do sit on the “other side” from us, but Steve and I have to congratulate them on their efforts to better their online presence.

Yes, Virginia politicos might be making strong progress with adopting digital technology, but members of both parties, as whole, still have a long way to go before we can categorize their use of social media and digital technology as being “cutting edge.”

If we happen to have overlooked any other member or staffers of the Virginia Legislature who attended the conference, we do apologize and hope you were taking notes.

Ford O’Connell and Steve Pearson, Co-Founders, ProjectVirginia – “Where Politics Meets Social Media”

Yes we can or yes we will? It is about time Obama stepped out of the hypothetical and into reality. After all, he was elected because he promised a fundamental change in Washington. It is little wonder then that after an underwhelming first year in office, conservatives and liberals alike are wondering when he will finally take ownership of this presidency. If recent news is any indication, Obama may be forced to do so soon, if for no other reason than blaming Bush, rather than coming up with working policies, is falling flat.

The Bush attacks are coming from all over:

• A campaign advertisement for Jon Corzine closed with “Chris Christie: Bush’s friend. Bush’s policies. Bad for New Jersey.
• A radio ad from Creigh Deeds in the Virginia gubernatorial race featured dialogue like, “George Bush – what a disaster for our economy,” “What I can’t figure out is why this Bob McDonnell wants to do it just like Bush” and “Creigh Deeds: a little more Mark Warner and a LOT less George Bush”
• Or the Massachusetts Democratic Party which ran a mailer for the Coakley campaign that said, “What can Brown do to you? He can reward corporations that ship your job overseas just like George W. Bush.”

So what do all of these have in common (beyond a backhanded shout-out to George Bush)? They all lost; with two of the races representing upsets in key Democratic states.

But not all liberal pundits have learned from the mistakes. In his recent article “Democrats Need to Learn the Blame Game” James Carville argues that,

“Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we’re in: George W. Bush.”

If this is the best strategy Democrats can come up with to try and regain the momentum they have lost over the past year, consider me ecstatic. After all, as Steve Hidebrand, a top aide on Obama’s presidential campaign told Politico,

“Voters are pretty tired of the blame game. . . What a stupid strategy that was.”

But more importantly, it sends a signal that the Democrats are out of ideas. The public, fearful of a the words “trillion” and “debt” being used so often in the same sentence had long abandoned many of the Democrat’s plans. The stimulus was a waste. The bailouts were a bust. The only arrow left in the Democrat’s quiver was supposed to be the one that would win the war – health care. But with Scott Brown’s upset bid signaling that the public didn’t want the Democratic health care plan, the party has been left searching for answers. Thus far the only thing they have been able to come up with is a freeze on discretionary spending that Obama previously called “a hatchet” when we really need, and “a scalpel.”

With their fragile house of cards, constructed in back room deals and glued together with the mortar of Barack Obama’s personality, now in ruins, Democrats are resurrecting their favorite villain…George Bush. But going negative won’t work. Not for the party whose slogan in 2006 was “A New Direction for America.” And it especially won’t work with the young adults who carried him into office.

Young adults engaged in campaigns and showed up at the polls in record numbers based on the promise of “change.” They wanted change from the passing the buck blame game that had become politics as usual in Washington. A grassroots campaign which mobilized and organized enormous numbers of young adults convinced people that Barack Obama was that change. As Patrick Ruffini explained on the NextRight,

[W]hat happens when the campaign goes away? What happens when the enthusiasm inevitably ebbs and the hard work of governing begins? The immediate benefits of a bottom-up strategy become less clear. You revert to traditional instincts, where powerful obstacles stand in the way of getting things done — even amongst your base, and the wielding of massive political machinery cannot be left to amateurs.

More than simply reverting to top-down governing, it appears that the Democratic leadership has relapsed ever further – to playing the blame game.

As 2008 made clear, we are tired of leaders passing the buck, we want results. It is time for the President to take ownership of the mistakes he has made on the economy, on health care, and on the stimulus. Young adults are smarter than to have their attention diverted from the recent causes of our lack of progress. It’s time to put the Bush-blaming to bed. But do Democrats have any ideas left to take its place?

- Brandon Greife, Political Director, College Republican National Committee (www.crnc.org)

Patrick Ruffini wonders if we can have Buckley back. The short answer? No. That yacht has sailed off into the sunset, and William F. Buckley won't be coming back. If we want a new Buckley, it's up to us to build one. Frankly, we're failing... not only to build the next Buckley, but to build a conservative movement of our own.

You know, William F. Buckley was 30 years old when he started National Review. He was 35 when Young Americans for Freedom was founded at his home in Sharon, Connecticut. He was 41 when he started Firing Line. People my age (I turned 35 not too long ago) remember Buckley as an older man, and we forget that the leaders we grew up with were our age when they started the modern conservative movement in the 1950's.

It’s been a while since I’ve heard chatter on the blogosphere about building a Rightroots movement (I last commented on it at the end of October). However, over the past few weeks, I’ve seen a number of major developments that suggest we might be on the verge of establishing a true and effective Rightroots movement.

When John Hawkins wrote about this topic, he noted that (emphasis added):

One of the biggest problems online — and this extends outside of the blogosphere — is that there are far more liberals online than conservatives and they’re much more enthusiastic.

Because of that, huge websites that can drive a lot of traffic like Digg, Fark, and YouTube have come to be dominated by liberals, even though they aren’t liberal per se.

Over the past few months, some great minds on the Right – people like Patrick Ruffini, Mindy Finn, Eric Odom, and Michael P. Leahy – have taken the lead in organizing conservatives online. As a result, I believe we’re witnessing a substantial increase in both online participation and enthusiasm among the Rightosphere. Although we haven’t fully established ourselves on Digg or YouTube (yet), we have taken Twitter by storm – and establishing a significant conservative presence on other websites may be coming very soon.

And so without further ado, I wanted to take a highlight a few fantastic websites/projects that have come to fruition since the election that are helping to organize a Rightroots movement. If you’re not already active with them, you should definitely check them out and consider getting involved.

1. Rebuild the Party – When Patrick Ruffini and Mindy Finn initially started Rebuild the Party, it was simply a forward-looking plan for the Republican Party (albeit a phenomenal plan that I have enthusiastically endorsed). However, it has since blossomed into a substantial movement. Over 7,000 people, mostly ordinary citizens, have endorsed the plan. All but one of the candidates for RNC Chair has publicly announced their support for it. And over 2,100 folks have jointed the Rebuild the Party Action Network. This is a very strong showing of the Rightroots who are clearly looking to rebuild after the devastating results of the 2008 election.
2. News Platoon and DiggCons – A number of folks, led by Eric Odom, launched the #dontgo Movement in response to the Congress’ unwillingness to pass offshore drilling legislation in August. And although #dontgo remains the umbrella organization, Eric has recently released a number of notable new spin-off projects. One of them, News Platoon, is building a state-by-state grassroots network that offers “REAL news stories across” a given state. New Platoon’s first state, Tennessee, is in beta. The other project that Eric just today released, Diggcons, is aiming to even the conservative hand on Digg, where for the most part the Right is held to a whisper.
3. Top Conservatives on Twitter – Michael P. Leahy started Top Conservatives on Twitter as “a rallying point for conservatives on Twitter.” The #tcot hash tag has been one of the top 10 trending topics on Twitter for weeks now. The list started out with no more than a few hundred names; it has since ballooned to nearly 2,000 users, and 15 RNC members have signed up on Twitter.

With websites and projects like these springing up across the nation, I truly believe that we are witnessing a new conservative online movement. We may not yet have established a true Rightroots movement, but I am starting to think that we are getting very close. A critical next step will be using peer production and mass collaboration to our advantage.

                                                                       POLITICS 24/7

As the GOP recovers from a drubbing at that ballot box that served them with an eviction notice at the White House and a foreclosure on many seats in the house and senate, a reorganization is in order.

Crucial to a successful reorganization is the selection of it’s next national chairman.

Florida Senator Mel Martinez

After the losses which cost them their majorities in the house and senate during the 2006 midterm elections, the powers that be, hastily installed Florida Senator Mel Martinez as the new chairman. At the same time they also elected Mike Duncan, a veteran political strategist and former Treasurer General Counselor to the RNC, to run the “day to day operations” of the national committee. In other words Duncan was actually the Chairman and Senator Martinez was to be the face of the party.

It was an arrangement that did not last long.

A few months into this arrangement, Senator Martinez stepped down and Mr. Duncan had the title all to himself. Not that it mattered. Whether it was his fault or not Republicans were outspent, out argued , outmaneuvered and voted out.

Outgoing RNC Chairman Mike Duncan

I will not blame Mike Duncan for the hemorrhaging of Republicans in this election cycle. That began before he took office, less than a year ago, and it simply continued for the time period that he was in office as chairman. It is more than likely that no individual chairman of the RNC could have prevented the losses Republicans suffered but we do know that the chairman did not help prevent them from happening.

So I do not blame Mike Duncan but I do harbor ill will to the party officials who gave up after 2006 and installed quick replacements to head up the Republican party. It was quite apparent that the party was simply trying to just get through the last two years of President Bush’s term in office. The RNC leadership were more like caretakers than leaders. They did not seek to adopt a leadership that was cutting edge and enthusiastic about revolutionizing the capabilities of the party organization and preparing us for the mother of all elections, the presidency.

It is the same complacency that helped cost Republicans their majorities in congress. Elected officials lost the anti establishment thinking that won them favor back in 1994. After becoming “the establishment” they slowly began to forget that government was there to work for the people not for the people running government.

So here we are saluting a new President-Elect, a new Democrat President-Elect. One who will be partnering with a majority of legislators who are also Democrats.

It might sound depressing to fellow Republicans but the truth is it is that for a number of reasons it is not depressing:

• Can’t Get Much Worse -We have just about bottomed out. It truly can’t get much worse so the prospects for improving our numbers in the next election are good.

 

• Liberals Gone Wild -With Democrats in total control of government, there is little to hold them back and prevent them from showing their true colors. When those true colors come out, Americans will realize that the direction they offer is too sharp a turn to the left for their tastes. The last time they had total control was in 1993 when Bill Clinton was President. After two years of liberals gone wild, Americans gave control, of both the house and senate, to Republicans for the first time in forty years. It was something that Republicans could not achieve on their own. It took the combined left leaning radicalization of today’s Democrat party to bring that about and it is about to happen again. In fact the greatest challenge that the new President will face comes from his own party. He will be struggling against them and fighting them in an effort to lead from the center rather than the left.

 

• The War - Although the economy helped push the war off the front burner, the changing tide of the surge in Iraq also made the war less of an issue because violence and combat was down and it was being won. The war in Iraq did not help Republicans in this election cycle but not because it was unnecessary, as democrats claim,  but, as I explain in the link referenced here*, Americans became weary and leery of the war. While the surge was delayed and the administration wavered, violence spiked as a result of a resurgence of radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq. That is when Democrats successfully exploited a declining resolve to continue an effort that people were beginning to think was becoming a quagmire. Since the increased deployment of troops into Iraq, the situation improved and there is light at the end of the tunnel. As a result, despite the cries of candidate Obama to end the war, President Obama will not be withdrawing all of our forces from Iraq anytime soon.  Now that he has seen the national security data that demonstrates the dangers of his misguided promises as a candidate, as a President he will not be so quick to screw things up. Ultimately Republicans will be proven right on the issue.

 

• The Economy - Typically our economy goes through cycles of growth and contraction every ten to fifteen years. More accurately, just about every 11 years, we encounter economic turmoil brought on by the cumulative effects of industrial shifts, world events and other related circumstances. That being said, it is how we maneuver through these cycles that determines their severity and the length of time that we endure them. The liberal propensity to raise taxes and redistribute wealth during these times does not help. Those policies simply deepen the crisis and draw out the cycle. If the knee jerk, liberal tendency towards more taxes and an expansion of government does occur, Republicans will be able to stem their losses and start increasing their numbers. The current crisis that we are experiencing is not a result of Republican economic policy. It is a result of their complacency and unwillingness to differentiate themselves from liberals when it came to spending. Our own President had no problem with cutting taxes, a good thing, but he also never cut spending and neither did fellow Republicans in congress.

All of this allows for those Republicans, who are in office, to offer alternatives to the counterproductive liberal agenda that will undoubtedly dominate national policy. To effectively achieve that, Republican members of congress need to reestablish their fiscally conservative roots and inherent sense of an offensive strategy when it comes to national security. The fact that, as Republicans, we choose to eliminate threats rather than tolerate them will be made much clearer with liberals in control and it must not be ignored.

Now that Republicans are not in control we now have the luxury that Democrats had. The luxury of not having to defend our leadership. Democrats will now have the chance to be held accountable for everything that happens. They will have to take blame for the results of increasing taxes, increasing unnecessary regulations and increasing the size and cost of government. With their leadership comes responsibility. With responsibility comes credit as well as blame. After eight years of taking blame for all that is not liked, Republicans can now luxuriate in being able to place blame on Democrats as they have done to Republicans.

But while those Republicans elected to congress do their job by providing alternatives to liberal policies and maintaining their role as the loyal opposition, our political leaders must hit the ground running.

The question now is, who is best suited to reorganize and reinvigorate Republicans? The person needed to rally Republicans must be articulate. But a good speaker is not all that we need. The person who is made the new chairman of the party must have a passionate desire to advance the cause, incredible organizational skills, the ability to delegate responsibilities to the right and most qualified people, endless energy and stamina as well as creativity and resourcefulness and a proven record of success.

The new chairman needs the same type of vision and commitment to conservative principles that the freshmen members of congress who were elected in the 1994 Republican revolution had. The new chairman must have a vision which understands that the best government is the government that gets out of the way and allows freedom to flourish by defending it at home and abroad and by insuring that opportunity is available to all.

Currently, there are seven frontrunners. They include:

 

Mike Steele

Michael Steele - GOPAC , former Lt. Governor of Maryland and unsuccessful candidate for US Senate in 2006.

Chuck Yob

Chuck Yob - Successful Michigan businessman, GOP fundraiser and Michigan National Committeeman

Saul Anuzis

Saul Anuzis - Chairmanof the Michigan Republican State Committee

Alec Pointevint

Alec Poitevint - Georgia’s Republican National Committeeman

Katon Dawson

Katon Dawson - Republican Party Chairman of South Carolina , the state that had the best performance for Republicans during this election cycle.

Jim Greer

Jim Greer - Florida’s Republican party Chairman

Chip Saltsman

Chip Saltsman - A former Chair of Tennessee’s GOP and the former campaign manager of Mike Huckabee’s failed candidacy for the republican presidential nomination.

Mike Huckabee

Speculation has not only Huckabee’s former campaign guru on the list, Mike Huckabee himself is rumored to be a potential contender. So is one of Huckabee’s former opponents for the GOP presidential nod, Mitt Romney.

 

Of all these names the one person who I believe could do the most for the Republican National Committee is Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney

Romney has been successful at every job that he has undertaken. He is passionate. He is articulate, savvy and has an eye for recruiting those who are the best at their jobs. Mitt Romney could do wonders for the party. He would be able to provide the GOP’s, get out the vote, 72 hour program with great improvements and he would create a top notch center for Republican organization, communications, fundraising and creative strategy.

Problem is that I want Mitt Romney to be able to run for President. I am looking forward to either him or Sarah Palin being our 2012 nominee. Becoming the political leader of the party does not help him establish the bipartisan image that a Presidential nominee needs. If he did as a good a job for the party as I think he would, having been the chairman of the party he rebuilds, could help him get the party’s nomination though.

However, I feel that a truly smart RNCchairman would involve Mitt Romney and utilize his expertise. Doing so would keep Romney free to expand his nonpolitical credentials while still allowing for his Midas touch to assist behinf the scenes.

As for the other names mentioned, Mike Steele, Katon Dawson and Jim Greer are the only names that really interest me. Each of them have demonstrated ideological superiority to one extent or the other and have achieved outstanding results for Republicans.

Former Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich

One name not mentioned but is at the top of my list, is former Maryland Governor Robert Erhlich. After losing reelection in the 2006 GOP sea of change, Bob Ehrlich has not been discussed much. That is a shame because he happens to be one of the best in the newer generation of conservative politics. He was the first Republican to be elected governor of Maryland in almost 60 years. Through it all Ehrlich maintained his principles and conservative ideology. Not once did he try to win favor by acting like a democrat. Instead, he successfully implemented conservative ideology into government application. He also happens to be articulate and effective in his ability to explain and deliver the conservative message.

 

Sometimes referred to as a Kempite Republican, Bob Erhlich could be just what we need to rekindle our spirit and rally the cause.

Whoever the grand poobahs of the GOP hierarchy install as chairman, it is my greatest hope that they recruit the right people to carry out the mission that is ahead.

Patrick Ruffini

People like political Internet champion Patrick Ruffini who could incorporate the most cyber savvy organization politics has ever seen and Ralph Reed who is a master at reaching out and organizing the grassroots.

Ralph Reed

Being the minority party is not a problem to be feared. Becoming the minority is what we needed to fear and now, we are there.  So the worst is over. Now we have the chance to take advantage of what Democrats took advantage of for a long time, minority status and the ability to place blame on the powers that be that comes with it.

From here we can only come back, and if we take the right steps, we can come back quickly. To do so will require that our first steps be the right steps . In this case that would be done by picking the right person to map out our future and recruit the brightest lights to help illuminate the fast track to the reinvigoration that the party is capable of.

 

 

Q: What’s the problem with Barack Obama jokes?

A: His followers don’t think they’re funny and other people don’t think they’re jokes.

Patrick Ruffini says Sarah Palin is "situated similarly" to Howard Dean, and could be the flashpoint for a grassroots revival of the Republican Party.   Andrew Sullivan disagrees.  Underneath the unbecoming hyperbole, he makes a good point. 

The concept of Palin as a marketing tool, as an emblem of pure content-free identity politics, is very powerful. You can see why on paper, Kristol loved her, the way he loved the concept of Iraqi liberation. The only trouble is the actual reality: the fact that she has no record to speak of, that what she has is dreadful, that she has no education, that she is a pathological liar, that she is a vicious hater of those unlike her, that she is a McCarthyite sans communism.

If Ruffini thinks Palin will be the leader of a grassroots revival, then I think he is probably over-optimistic.  As an abstraction, Sarah Palin is a fantastic leader.  She's a genuine outsider, she's stood up to her own party, she's pursued and won major reform fights, she's made difficult cuts in spending, and she's generally in line with the Republican grassroots on policy issues.  And she's a fresh, interesting face for the Republican Party.

But to be the substantive leader of a political movement, she needs three things:

1. A clear, but sophisticated, political philosophy
2. A serious governing strategy to move the ball forward on her political philosophy
3. A support base, including grassroots and elite infrastructure, that can mobilize to defend her and advance her agenda

Howard Dean walked away from the 2004 campaign with a huge mailing list of devoted activists who were very connected (online and offline), and a base of support that was still pissed.  Howard Dean had an army to deploy to fight for his political philosophy and governing agenda, and that army was willing to go to war against their own Party.   Dean's resources fit the fight in which he needed them.

Does Sarah Palin have any of those things?  I haven't seen any evidence that she has the sophisticated political philosophy, or a good governing strategy.   Would Palin walk out of hte '08 campaign with the McCain campaign's mailing list?   Doubtful.  And the McCain campaign's mailing list is not obviously well-aligned with the coalition that would be needed to take back the Republican Party, or that they are sufficiently engaged to be mobilized for such an effort.

I understand why Palin is a compelling idea.  I just haven't seen much evidence that she's got the serious substance behind the marketing abstraction.  At least, not right now.  Remember, Ronald Reagan spent decades writing, speaking and working on difficult political issues, thinking deeply about what he believed and why, before he was taken seriously as a major movement leader.  And even then, he stood upon the shoulders of giants.  The next leaders of the Right will not be riding an emerging Movement into power; they will be building a Movement anew.

Sarah Palin can be a part of that, but the leader of the next Right will have to bring a great deal more to the table than Sarah Palin does right now.

Side Note: The rest of Sullivan's post goes beyond hyperbole and into vulgar, but not particularly insightful, ridicule.  That's unfortunate.  I've admired Andrew Sullivan as a writer and thinker, regardless of his political alignment.  But Andrew Sullivan, Intellectual, seems to be increasingly subsumed to Andrew Sullivan, Head Cheerleader of 2 Minutes Hate.  20 years hence, I suspect Andrew Sullivan will not be proud of this period of his career.

Patrick Ruffini says the Democrats have learned the wrong lessons about offense and defense; instead of controlling the news cycle, Democrats find themselves responding to it.   That's bad in political campaigns for the same reason it's bad in sports.  If your offense doesn't get on the field, it doesn't matter how good your defense is.  You can't win.

Patrick suggests Democrats need to "[maintain] a 2-to-1 ratio of salable attacks to responses", and "changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain".   Generally speaking, that's correct.  If you don't like the current story, tell a better story. 

I'm not sure Barack Obama can win by attacking, though.  Consider why people like Obama in the first place.

• An ABC/Washington Post poll last week showed very similar results.  On the question of "personality and temperment to be President", voters supported Obama 57 to 35.
• In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, Obama's best characteristics/qualities showing was in "can unite the country", where he won 53 to 37.
• According to an August Pew Poll, while voters overwhelmingly think John McCain wins on various "key leadership traits", Barack Obama's advantage is "being seen as the candidate who has new ideas and who connects well with ordinary people."

In particular, notice the "typical politician" numbers.  In a "change" election, "typical politician" is poison.  Keeping that number low is vital to Obama's campaign. 

If Obama goes negative, he tears down his carefully cultivated "new kind of politics" facade and reveals the typical politician behind it.  And if Obama is perceived as a typical politician, the central story of his campaign is decimated.  Voters, particularly independents, would be disillusioned and alienated.

Ruffini is right that the Obama campaign is struggling because they're so worried about playing good defense.  However, I'm not sure that Obama can pivot to offense without seriously damaging his own brand.

That would help explain why "Obama's campaign will no longer object to independent efforts that hammer John McCain".  If 527's are taking care of the attacks, Barack Obama can remain in character and his storyline holds.

This is a different take on my Web video vs. TV post. This is a great conversation to have, particularly from Brian Donahue, one of the real leading lights of GOP advertising and author  of the must-read 30or60 blog. I'll be traveling over the next few days, but I'll have a response to this and to Josh's piece. -Patrick

Recently, my friend and colleague Patrick Ruffini, whom I respect dearly, posted on the subject of ‘new media’ versus ‘traditional media.’ The subject is a new lightning rod for political marketers and advertisers – especially the ones that fall into the ‘new media’ camp.

Here is a third approach – one that addresses the values and weaknesses of both forms of media and how they intersect, compliment and supplement one another. 

<!--StartFragment-->

The bottom line is – comparing ‘traditional media’ vs. ‘new media’ is like comparing apples and oranges, they are not mutually exclusive mediums for advertising and carrying messages – but different vehicles, that target different audiences, with different creative formats – each working best within their own confines of delivery.

Allow me to examine and respond to several of Patrick’s points: 

What does it take for random people associating with like minded others around an idea they jointly support to coalesce into a group that moves beyond approving of the idea to actively promoting the idea? In short, how does one go from harmless to honed? How does one progress from a mob to a movement? Right of Center activists are getting a crash course in answering that question via the object lesson of a new website, #Don't Go Movement. The brainchild of Eric Odom at Fresh Vision Media, #Don't Go Movement has traveled really far, really fast!

Just 5 days ago, House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, left Washington, DC for a 5 week break. They left mountains of unfinished, important and urgent People's business behind. High on the list was a failure to address, in any way, the energy crisis gripping our nation from decades of flawed Democratic policy. Despite poll numbers showing 74% of Americans favor expanding supply via drilling, Democrats went home after doing nothing. Despite increasing numbers of House Democrats supporting expanded drilling, Pelosi didn't even bother to go home. She left on a book tour promoting herself and her pocketbook; content to support only drilling in the People's pocketbooks.

Democrats voted to adjourn and left. The GOP did not. They stayed in the People's House and began to call for Pelosi and Democrats to return to complete important business before leaving. The Left is branding this as mere political posturing but a look at the adjournment vote says otherwise. It was 213-212 in favor of leaving.

House GOP members who stayed behind began giving impromptu speeches, spectators in the gallery were invited down onto the floor and the few MSM reporters on hand interviewed members. Pelosi responded by having the C-Span cameras turned off, the lights turned off and the microphones turned off leaving the GOP in the dark. The GOP finally left the House chambers late Friday night but promised to return this week to renew their call to the Democrats to come back to DC and do what the People expect of them.

So what does this have to do with a movement? It's just a bunch of middle aged Republicans speechifying in the dark! It only started that way. Less than an hour after the Dems departed and the GOP got going, Eric Odom and Allen Fuller from Flat Creek put up a Twitter site, 'Don't Go!', so GOP members could get their message out along with any citizen or Social Media savvy activist. That site hit the blogs and it was off to the races. They had multiple Tweets per minute beginning mid session Friday evening and it has continued unabated to this very moment!

Some feared the issue would die across the weekend. After all, the news broke late on Friday, the worst possible time for a story to break. Further, there was practically zero MSM coverage of the story. It tends to be difficult to report when there's no lights and no sound available. But Odom and Fuller kept doing what they knew was working, keeping the issue alive in the blogosphere and via online Social Media such as Facebook as they added to their Twitter efforts. They were joined by other well known Right of Center online activists like Patrick Ruffini.

When Monday rolled around, the GOP was true to their word and returned to a darkened House chamber to continue to ask Democrats "Don't Go!". The Twitter tweets continued unabated. But by now the concept was picking up steam. There were a LOT more people involved and a way had been found to conduct interviews with participants so video and audio clips were emerging. The Twitter site alone was not enough to keep up with the information flow. So Odom added a full website that went live Tuesday afternoon. Named '#Don't Go Movement', the site features videos, blog posts from around the country, links to the original Twitter and Facebook sites and more. There's even a petition to sign where you can add your voice to those of the House members to ask the Dems, please, Don't Go!

Why a movement? The Right has not been as excited or mobilized about an issue since Harriet Meiers and the Amnesty Bill. The arrogance and hubris of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership has chafed the GOP for months. The Energy debate was the place where GOP chafing, activist chafing and the People's chafing came together. How dare they simply go off on a tax payer funded vacation without representing the tax payers? What started as a relative handful of Congressmen on Friday night turned into thousands of online activists by Monday morning. By this afternoon, Wednesday, just 5 days after it began, it had crossed over to the MSM with Radio, Print and TV reporters and personalities clamoring for time with Odom and his colleagues. The next up is an interview with Hugh Hewitt this afternoon at 4PST, 6CST and 7EST. Eric is a friend and so I was able to reach him at his office in Chicago and he confirmed the growth. "#Don't Go Movement had 62,000 hits at the site in the very first 24 hours!", he said. I checked the running total for signatures at the petition site. It was over 22,500 for the first 24 hours and climbing several signatures per minute!

That's why a movenent. The question is, can it continue? Pelosi foolishly shows no sign of returning. It may be too late for her. Her best chance to derail the GOP's efforts was Friday night. She hoped it would die, instead. That miscalculation means she can't come back now without being seen to be bowing to GOP pressure and she can't stay away without being seen as unconcerned with the People's plight. It's a lose-lose. In chess, it's called getting "forked" when you are maneuvered into a position where your only option is to lose one of two pieces after you complete your move and your only choice is which loss is the least severe. Pelosi has done this to herself. She's going to pay the price. The GOP and the Right are not going to stop pounding the drum of "Don't Go!" until the Dems come back on Sept. 8 or until Pelosi calls them back early. Even still, they will be plagued with the question, "What took you so long to do the right thing?"

For the GOP to turn this event into a movement that outlives its original purpose will take some doing. With sharp operators like Odom, Fuller and Ruffini at the helm they have an excellent chance to turn the "Don't Go Home for Vacation Without Doing Your Job!" of August into the "Don't Go Back to the Democrat's Failed Leadership of the Last 2 Years!" of November. From there, there'd be no stopping the call to "Don't Go!"

Blue Collar Muse

These were my prepared remarks on the "Changing Role of the Rightroots" for my keynote with Jane Hamsher at PDF yesterday. I can't say it was exactly the same as delivered as I arrived at the venue 5 minutes before my rescheduled session was to begin, leaving little time for extra preparation, but this expands a bit more on some of the key points.

I'm here to answer that elusive question: Who are these Republicans on the Internet? And what will it take to unify them in 2008 and beyond? 

The answer is a lot more interesting than it would have been a year ago. That's because in the real-life give and take of a Presidential primary, you always discover things you didn't know before.

We find that unfailingly, like water always finding its way into the cracks, people turn to activism when something urgent needs to be done.  

So who are these people?