It seems Danny Glover over at the Beltway Blogroll (who, unlike David, at least didn’t refer to me as a friend since we’ve never met) took up David’s battle flag and charged up the hill today.

Turk, a competitor of All’s in the e-politics world, took the attack up several notches with a post headlined “I’ve Lost What Little Respect For David All I Had Left.”
“David is, by all accounts, a master of self-promotion,” Turk wrote. “It’s entirely possible that he made a conscious choice to take the contrarian position solely to further his agenda of making David everything that David can be. … I think David is calculating and has come to the conclusion that taking these positions gets him noticed. I think that’s why he took his post against RedState and circulated it to the media (as Erick alleges).”

When All responded, Turk pounced again. Among other things, he criticized All for not having embraced efforts to improve the RightRoots online fundraising site that failed miserably last year and for instead building a competing site, Slatecard.

I honestly don’t know where to begin on this one. Let’s start with the softballs and bat some out of the park, then we can work on those wild pitches.

First, David is anything but “a competitor … in the e-politics world.” The fact is, I have a day job with a major trade association. I do some consulting work on the side, but I do it for people who call me. I’m not out chasing business like the eQuivalent of an ambulance chaser. David’s managed Internet operations for a couple of Congressmen with name ID in the teens. That’s hardly what I would consider a wealth of experience. When he does something… anything… that makes a difference in an actual election, come talk to me…

Second, let’s tackle the accusation that RightRoots was a “failure”. I’m not sure what Danny’s resume includes, but here’s a basic fact that may have escaped him in his climb to the middle. Challenger and open seat races are often losers. Rightroots picked 21 seats running against entrenched Democrats or for open seats. The slate went 2 for 19. That’s almost 10% for those of you keeping score.

If you’re judging anyone’s “success” as a function of winning in 2006, you’re going to be declaring a lot of people losers. How many seats did we lose last year? How many challengers got elected? How many sitting Democrats lost? Putting that at the feet of RightRoots is just stupid. Saying RightRoots was a failure because the GOP got its ass kicked up and down the ballot plays into the hands of all those who claim the Internet’s not important because it’s never made the difference. Ignoring clear success that occurs within an environment of failure misses the forest and the trees.

Now looking at RightRoots as a function of how much was raised is a whole different story. Through the help of a group of top bloggers, the site (which was a pilot project anyway) raised $300,000 in 90 days. That exceeds what ActBlue raised in its first 90 days and places RightRoots ahead of well established and well connected PACs in this town that raised and spent far less.

My point about David was he, knowing that an effort was underway and knowing we had established a name in the field, chose not to help with that, and instead chose to launch a competitor because he could put his name on it, and take credit for it. Don’t believe that? Look at his Facebook page and see who he lists as his employer.

Work Info

Employer:	Slatecard.com PAC
Position:	Executive Director
Time Period:	October 2007 – Present
Location:	Alexandria, VA
Description:	Slatecard (http://slatecard.com) is a utility to support and enhance Republican activism.

As I said in both of my posts, I believe David is self-serving, and puts himself above the cause. But, as I also said, if that’s what he feels he needs to do to get ahead, that’s his prerogative. I don’t respect it. I’ve worked for too many people in politics who got ahead (and got their candidates elected) by playing the game with integrity and a commitment to the cause.

I also feel it’s unfortunate that Danny felt the need to selectively represent my posts and completely ignored the lengthy discussion of why I feel, on the merits of his argument about Ron Paul, David All is way of the mark. I sent Danny the following note after I saw his post. I’ll let you know if I hear anything back.

I’m surprised at your post. I’m not sure if you didn’t read my posts completely, or if you just chose to selectively represent them. In my first post, I specifically stated that I had no problem with David being a rabid self-promoter. I don’t respect it, but if that’s more important to him than the cause, so be it.

I repeated that sentiment in the second post, and specifically stated that if that’s his business model, that’s fine. I then spent considerable time exploring exactly why he’s dead wrong about Paul or his supporters falling into the fold should he lose. You failed to mention that as well.

Finally, RightRoots, with no budget, and set up as a pilot project to test whether we could actually raise funds effectively on an ActBlue model, raised 300,000 in 90 days. That number greatly exceeds what ActBlue was able to do in their first 90 days (which also fell directly before the election). I’m not sure how that qualifies as “failing miserably”, but if generating more contributions than established PACs that have been raising money for years is failing, i’m not sure I understand your barometer for success.

I had heard through the rumor mill today that David was fairly upset at Erick Erickson and I (and later Lance Dutson) for chastising him about his recent rant against RedState for banning Ron Paul’s venom spewing minions. I had heard he was worked up and would be writing a reply, so I’ve been keeping an eye out for it.

I assumed David would argue that he’s not bent on self-promotion. I had expected him to challenge the notion that he continually puts himself above the cause. I had a number of things floating through my head that perfectly illustrated David’s tendency to do this. The best example was the e-mail I received asking about the status of RightRoots while we were rebuilding. I told him we were expanding what we had done in 2006 and would soon be rolling out the new version. He then rushed to build Slatecard to compete with it.

Now I’m not against competition and welcome it, but it seemed odd that given his desire to advance the cause he would choose to muddy the water with multiple competing interests rather than jumping on board an existing initiative. His actions, in retrospect, all make sense. He would have been assisting with RightRoots, but his name would be synonymous with Slatecard.

So I had all this stuff running through my head, and the strangest thing happened. He explained away his tendency to put himself above his cause as the practical reality of trying to run a business in the PR world. So be it. It seems he agrees with our assessment that he’s out for himself, and offers a reason, so I’ll simply accept it and move on.

His motivations notwithstanding, let me dig into his reasoning for opposing the ban (he completely ignores the Google/MoveOn controversy by the way, and that is most of what Dutson dinged him on, so we’ll get back to that). David argues that the support for Paul is very real, and as evidence offers a NH poll out today showing him with 7 percent support.

And in New Hampshire, a state which Paul hasn’t actively campaigned in, he places fourth in a poll which was just released today by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College…

Ron Paul is turning on people that have likely never been turned on to politics including young people. And regardless of what party they thought they belonged to, they are now supporting a Republican candidate.

Well, actually, no, they aren’t. They’re supporting a fringe Libertarian candidate. Now don’t get me wrong. I consider myself to be of the libertarian wing of the GOP. I am not, by any stretch, in the religious faction and nobody who knows me would accuse me of that. As a libertarian Republican, I cannot now, nor will I ever, get behind Ron Paul. If Paul is our nominee, I would have to push the button for Hillary. I could no more vote for Ron Paul than for Dennis Kucinich.

And what’s interesting is another little study out today that shows I’m not the only one who considers Hillary to be more conservative than Paul. Based on visitors to their website, and those same visitors tendency to read partisan blogs, the kind folks at Compete have analyzed “The Company They Keep” – a look at the reading habits of campaign supporters. What did it show?

Internet darling Ron Paul is attracting significant interest from the left, leapfrogging even Hillary Clinton.

What, you say? Ron Paul’s supporters spend more time reading liberal blogs than conservative blogs? 23% of Paul’s visitors read liberal blogs while only 13% read conservative blogs. They are almost twice as likely to read liberal blogs than conservative. Does that make them “Reagan Democrats”? All draws that comparison (one that any Republican who was actually alive during Reagan’s entire tenure in office would find distasteful).

The fact is Ron Paul personifies a brand of Republicanism that most Republicans find objectionable. If the Republicans spontaneously nominated Howard Dean, there would be an exodus of GOPers regardless of how many crazed liberals he brought along.

All further explains his belief that Ron Paul represents “change” and this is going to be a change election. (Note: I have advocated that this is shaping up to be an anti-incumbent election, but not necessarily a change election in the traditional sense. 2006 was about change. 2008 is about anger at Washington. That’s not about change, that’s about lashing out with little concern for the fallout, and is a very dangerous and unpredictable type of election for either party.)

I disagree with his description of Paul as the change candidate, as well. Paul is a reactionary candidate. He is attractive to a very narrow and angry minority who feel displaced by society at any given point. If he loses the GOP nomination (which I will go out on a limb and guarantee) he will seek the Libertarian nomination (mark my words). His supporters will follow him, and he will get the same .5% that Harry Browne garnered in 1996 and 2000.

Will a single one of his supporters (attracted to an anti-war libertarian who has accused the current GOP administration of engaging in an illegal war) support a nominee that is likely to be in favor of finishing the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubt it. If his anti-war hysteria is what draws them to Paul, I don’t really think they’ll hang in there to vote for Rudy, Fred, Romney or McCain regardless of how welcome RedState makes them feel.

All’s attitude reminds me of the county parties in New Mexico. When I was first hired to analyze the races in the state and make recommendations regarding which legislative districts would get resources (and where we should deny them), we were met with howls. The “fair” thing to do would be to divide the money evenly amongst our counties and candidates. We stuck to our guns, and ignored districts where we would not win, and put it into districts where we could. As long as we did, we added seats every year (regardless of what happened in DC or the statewide races. It was only when we were savaged by infighting that we lost.

David’s model is much the same. We should expend resources trying to make inroads in places we have no hope of making them. It’s a losing philosophy. It’s throwing a hail Mary on first and ten instead of steadily moving the goal posts.

Google/MoveOn

David, as I mentioned, left the Google question untouched. Lance Dutson (who, like me, All describes as a ‘friend’ despite not knowing either of us very well) was not kind to David when he weighed in:

I don’t know David All very well, but I do know him. Based on my experience, I think I would take this beyond the criticism of self-promotion that Turk and Erickson levy against him, and say that he is actually hurting the very movement he has anointed himself the leader of. David All is providing a crass misrepresentation of the work that the rest of us are doing, he’s proffering poorly-deduced theories about how the Right should use the internet, and he’s allowing the traditional media to paint Republicans as inept and childish when it comes to technology. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with some extremely talented people in this world over the last few years, and it really bothers me that David All has become the public face of what is in reality a remarkable group of people. His two-dimensional YouTube mania, his incessant and misplaced references to Anderson’s Long Tail theory, and his predilection for cliche in lieu of explanation works to widen the gap between an older generation of Republican leaders and the rest of us who are attempting to convince them of the need to evolve.

He also sums up David’s approach to the Google/Collins flap pretty succinctly.

All wrote a post about the issue at TechRepublican.com, in which he described me as his ‘friend’. His post indicated that he had contacted Google, and that after listening to what they had to say, he agreed with Google’s decision to ban the ads. Strangely, All didn’t bother to contact his ‘friend’ to get reaction or further explanation, a move that would have helped him avoid making a completely incorrect assessment of the situation.

I don’t think I can top that, so I’ll stop trying.

Back at the beginning of the year, David All joined the chorus of voices pointing out that the GOP was not exactly embracing the Internet as a political tool. Prior to his career as a professional agitator, David worked for a couple of campaigns and received notoriety for his role as Jack Kingston’s blogger. He is, by all accounts, a master of self-promotion.

I have run into David in several circles, but never really have sat down to discuss politics or technology at length with him. I don’t know what kind of guy he is. I had always, however, read what he had to say – agreeing with him occasionally, and disagreeing completely almost as often.

In the last few weeks, however, he has gone from someone I can agree with to someone for whom I have absolutely no respect. His post on RedState banning Ron Paul’s angry, vocal minority was ridiculous.

I agree with Captain Ed. Generally, Republicans need to welcome Ron Paul (and all others willing to wear a Republican banner) to the debate and the discussion. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, we need him to actively endorse and support the winner so that his supporters will use their energy to defeat Hillary.

Personally, I recognize that Paul’s support is very, very real, especially in the politics + tech sphere. He is the people-powered Howard Dean candidate of 2008 which I’ve been saying we need to “prove” the importance of an effective Internet strategy. He is that Revolution.

First, Paul is not a people powered movement. People powered movements have people. Dean in 2008 had people. He was surging in the polls and imploded. Paul has never garnered more than a single digit in any polling not conducted on a website. His “popularity” is a creation of, by, and for the Internet. I play video games online, that doesn’t mean dragons and aliens exist in the real world. Ron Paul may be able to organize his minions to stuff the ballot box on MSNBC, but can he deliver a single person to the polls?

Second, and much more important, a revolution of anti-Semitic, racist, white supremacist, black helicopter Republicans is absolutely not what we need to “prove” anything. Sending a crystal clear message to these people that we a) will not tolerate them and b) absolutely do not want them in the party is what we “need” to do. Erick Erickson is right.

If David All wants to bring in these people to beat Hillary, he can have at it. Thanks, but I’ll pass. The media already paints the GOP as angry white guys enough without David bringing these guys in to help.

I’m guessing David was about 8 or 10 during the 1992 convention, but the angry right was embodied by Pat Buchanan’s speech to the delegates in Houston. It was that speech, as much as anything else, that cemented our brand as reactionaries and zealots. It has taken us 15 years to recover from putting the radical ideologies of an extremist on display.

Arguing that we need people in our coalition who preach the “Zionist conspiracy” as a political philosophy (which is what Erick was railing against, and the reason for the ban) misses the point completely. If David actually believes that the lunatic wing of the right will fall into line to support the eventual nomination of Romney, Giuliani, Thompson or McCain, he needs an adjustment to his political instincts. As Erickson pointed out, Paul himself said during the CNBC debate that he would not support the GOP nominee.

Not right now I don‚Äôt. Not unless they‚Äôre willing to end the war and bring our troops home… No, I‚Äôm not going to support them if they continue down the path which has taken our party down the tubes.

I find it odd that Paul calls it “our party” having run on the Libertarian ticket for President the last time he ran. It seems he only wants to affiliate with the GOP when he thinks there is electoral advantage. His minions probably don’t share that tendency and would likely vote for the Libertarians’ quadrennial sacrifice.

What would cause David to believe that Paul’s supporters would ever get behind the GOP? That argument is almost as laughable as the one he used to defend Google and MoveOn.

Arguing that Google was simply protecting MoveOn’s trademark was laughable. That may be the justification that Google used, but it forgets one thing – our constitution and judicial system have always protected political speech above all else. Political e-mail is exempt from CAN-SPAM for exactly that reason. Commercial speech and political speech are treated completely different under the law.

David’s argument that Google was right to act as it did undermines that. He could have, just as easily, called on Google to recognize the value of political speech as the government does. He could have called on them to recognize that nobody has the right to hide behind a trademark to throw grenades at a candidate. Instead, he knelt at the alter of Google and jumped in bed with Joan Blades.

Erick Erickson theorizes that David’s problem is two-fold. First, David is more committed to the technology than the cause, and second, he is simply trying to grab onto the story to get attention.

Erick presents these in the opposite order, but I’ll tackle them this way, and one at a time. The more troubling of Erick’s charges is that David may be more devoted to technology than to the GOP. That, I would argue, is a harder charge to make stick. David has, to his credit, served a fair number of GOPers and spent some time in the trenches. Do I think he’s still a little wet behind the ears, and needs a bit more experience? Yes. Do I think he’s likely to look back on some of these positions some day and think, “What the hell was I thinking”? Absolutely. But do I believe that he has put a love of Google and a desire to see some marginal Republican achieve success online (even at the expense of the greater party)? I really don’t.

I’d like to suggest that Erick’s first instinct may have been the correct one. As I have said, David is, by all accounts, a master of self-promotion. It’s entirely possible that he made a conscious choice to take the contrarian position solely to further his agenda of making David everything that David can be. If that’s the case, he certainly wouldn’t be the first. Ann Coulter has made an entire career of being annoying just to get press.

That said, I have no respect for that. I dislike Ann Coulter and now refuse to give her a dime or a minute of my attention. She has advocated some ridiculous positions, and made the GOP look terrible for no reason beyond her own advancement. I think David has done the same. He has advocated against basic political speech rights of a candidate under attack, and argued (allegedly in pursuit of an “Internet victory”) for the rights of racists and anti-Semites to use anyone else’s platform as they please.

Does he do it out of some misguided technologist passion? I just don’t buy it. I think David is calculating, and has come to the conclusion that taking these positions gets him noticed. I think that’s why he took his post against RedState and circulated it to the media (as Erick alleges).

Back in May, David and I were quoted in the same WaPo story railing against the GOP and its inability to develop an “A” game online. It appeared front page, above the fold. It made me, with more than 20 years serving my party, a bit uncomfortable. You’ll notice I have since shown more restraint in my criticism. While I still believe we need to do more online, I am spending more effort helping candidates do it right than I am telling people what we’re doing wrong.

I believe that David took from the experience a completely different lesson. I think he discovered that when it comes to the press, the squeaky wheel gets the attention. I have noticed a significant increase in his tendency to not only get his name in print everywhere he can, but to promote any mention of himself via e-mail and blog.

I think Erick missed the target, but hit the tree. I think David is more committed to David than to the cause.

Update: Right after I posted this, I received an e-mail from a friend suggesting I take a look at David’s Facebook profile pic (below).

Pictures are normally worth a thousand words. In this case, 1,416. That image says everything I did, but it’s much more eloquent.

So I’m trying to wrap my hands around something… We, as a people, have some really screwy barometer of what’s important. We are developing systems to track my dog with a GPS locator.

Also, you have no doubt heard in the news about special micro chips that can be embedded directly in an animal’s skin that can help track a missing pet. While some serve as mere computer-based identifiers so that someone who finds your missing pet can be sure it is yours, others get fairly sophisticated.

Some companies are experimenting with global positioning satellite or GPS tracking that can be affixed to a collar or implanted subcutaneously. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated the process, the more you will pay, often both in one-time setup and then in monthly fees. Yet, if you have the money, it may be worth the price for your overall peace of mind as well as the safety of your beloved pet.

At the same time, we write off the possibilities this would afford us in tracking lost children.

A child of a certain age, for example, should know how to get home or at least be able to offer information to others to help them get back. Yet few pets speak; they need us to employ the very best ways to find a lost pet if they have any hope to make it home again.

All this despite the fact that almost one million people go rogue each year, and of those 85% to 90% are juveniles.

That means that 2,100 times per day parents or primary care givers felt the disappearance was serious enough to call law enforcement. 152,265 of the persons reported missing in 2000 were categorized as either endangered or involuntary. The number of missing persons reported to law enforcement has increased from 154, 341 in 1982 to 876,213 in 2000. That is an increase of 468%.

Despite all of this, California is busy making it illegal to protect your kids using the same technology you use to protect your dog.

This bill would prohibit a person from requiring, coercing, or compelling any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device, as defined.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love my dog, and if he disappeared, I’d be pretty broken up. However, if some friggin’ whack job pedophile snatched my kid when I had my back turned, and I had no way of locating him simply because some ACLU lawyer thought it was a violation of his rights, I’d hunt down the guy that took him and the ACLU lawyer and dispatch them both.

We fear technology because we’re incredibly short sighted in our thinking. Just think of all the Amber Alerts that could be resolved within minutes or hours if we could pull up a grid and see the location of the missing child. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of parents crippled by the grief of a lost child who could have had their children returned safely if we hadn’t acted in fear.

Legislation like this ignores the possibilities of science, and places more value on the family pet than the family member. That’s just sick and sad.

Ok, so apparently the video of the lion attacking the hunter prompted a fair number of people to share some of their favorite animal attack clips. Some of these are truly awesome. Since my lion post claimed that you’re unlikely to be attacked by a deer (as opposed to the lion), I found this first clip to be the best, funniest, and most appropriate. This deer bitch slaps this poor hunter around.

Of the humorous clips, this one tied with the deer for my favorite.

Many of the clips I received were funny and some were tragic. Some of these were downright horrendous. I had seen a piece of this next clip with a startled bear attacking a woman in a TV studio, but I had never seen the full length clip. Not only does the bear attack the woman, but it then attacks a guy that tried to help her before turning briefly on its handler.

If I get better clips after this post, I’ll follow up with Animals Attack Part II, but in the meantime, I’ll leave you with one more. This little clip teaches us a valuable lesson – he who puts his hand in alligator’s mouth sometimes gets bit.