Archive for the 'In The Beltway' category

The Comment That Just Won’t Die

Feb 15 2006 Published by under In The Beltway, Politics, Republicans, The Internet

PoliticsI’ve spent my day taking calls about the RedState comment that just won’t die. So let me try to set this straight.

First, keep in mind the post was titled Practical Restrictions. I was talking about two things – larger issues of why the RNC has trouble doing things and a suggestion that people not pillory Patrick Ruffini because he has to do the best he can in the environment of those practical restrictions.

The post was ineloquent. I’ll be the first to admit that. I didn’t expect it to get the attention it has. Had I seen that coming, I would have been more careful with my words.

However, stifling dissent is absolutely not the issue. I can argue that point, and did yesterday.

This has nothing to do with those who comment and everything to do with those who cover the comments. The very fact that I am writing this speaks to the eagerness with which some will attempt to portray dissension in the GOP. I, by commenting on RedState, unwittingly became a part of that.

My point (and the title of the post for that matter) was there are practical realities that impede the GOP’s ability to deliver tools like the ones for which Krempasky was asking. One of those realities is the media views the GOP through a different lens than they do the democrats. This is where I dove into the incident in question.

A story was written based solely on a supporter on the GOP website using the words “private accounts” rather than “personal accounts”. To prevent that story from blossoming, the decision was made to remove the testimonials. I disagreed with that decision, but the practical reality was the tool and the semantics threatened to distract from the message.

If we are worried that someone will mull over thousands of comments to find one where a supporter uses semantics that differ from our talking points, tools that foster open discussion will be problematic. Some in the media will troll the GOP site looking for any sign of dissension, while ignoring the gaping chasm between the centrists and the left in today’s Democrat Party. The GOP will face challenges with tools that generate volumes of information that biased reporters can sift through.

While it may have been less than clear from my post, that’s the reality. Are we silencing discussion, Yes. Are we doing it from a fear of what people will say or an intolerance of discussion? No. Should I have used different words in my comment? Absolutely. Should I have assumed this would get picked up and made my case with greater clarity? Apparently. Am I backtracking from my original comment? Absolutely not.

My comment about changing minds and people in opposition to open systems was meant as a reflection on the personal belief mentioned above – I disagreed with the decision to remove functionality because of a media report. Our “internal tolerance” wasn’t based on dissension, it was based on media coverage.

That was my point about ‚ÄúArguments that restrictions of that nature are ridiculous…” I disagree that we must have semantic cohesion to fend off the bias in the media. I disagree that we must have semantic cohesion at the expense of a vehicle for our supporters comments.

Sure, it takes away the ability of some to use the website as an avenue of attack. But I disagree that limiting functionality is the answer. I think we should open the flood gates. I think we should allow users to use whatever words they choose without concern for the media. The Democrats have gone that route. If you look at some of the comments on the DNC blog or Daily Kos, it’s clear that nobody is looking at their comments as the basis of a story.

When a reporter calls, we need to say, “Guess what, it’s a big world. When Social Security is in crisis, people will use different words to call attention to the problem. The party has its talking points, and we’re using this site to educate people that we’re talking about personal accounts, not social security privatization. Some people may not see the distinction, yet, but we’re working on that. That’s what this site is about ‚Äì fostering the discussion.”

That is the hard sell I referenced Рchanging our tactics when those with an agenda rear their head. Until we do, the practical restrictions remain. Limited functionality prevents those with an agenda from using our site against us. As long as the site functions like a brochure, we’re safe.

There are those who disagree with that concept. Patrick Ruffini, I believe, is one. So I asked that people give him an opportunity to convert some people, to make some believers. I think he can.

No responses yet

Fixing FEMA

Feb 14 2006 Published by under Government, In The Beltway, Politics, Waste

GovernmentPoliticsMichael Chertoff has all the answers… Now… About six months too late…

Unfortunately, his answers seem to rely on more government, larger budgets, and bigger agencies.

Adding details to past pledges, Chertoff proposed to create a full-time FEMA response force of 1,500 employees, instead of relying largely on volunteers, push “wrenching change” to integrate FEMA within Homeland Security, increase capacity of its disaster registration systems to handle 200,000 people a day, and push claims personnel into the field to serve victims instead of requiring them to use the Internet or telephones.

So despite the fact that FEMA, throughout its history, has been a full-time response agency tasked only with responding to emergencies, the problem is apparently that it needs more people. Why is it government bureaucrat solutions to everything boil down to ‘more people, more money’? Have they never considered, ‘fewer people, leaner management, better communications’?

So our government bureaucracy will become more bloated, fatter, and less responsive. When the next disaster strikes, our response is even worse, and more people are left dead, will we finally realize that adding bodies to the payroll doesn’t prevent bodies in the street? Will they finally figure out no amount of money can topple the bureaucratic hurdles left in place?

No responses yet

Democrat Strategy

Feb 08 2006 Published by under Candidates, Democrats, Elections, In The Beltway, News Media, Politics, Republicans

PoliticsDemocrats should be making huge strides with the American electorate, but just aren’t. The NY Times has a good look at the confusion this is causing in the Democrat party’s inner circle. Needless to say, it’s not pretty. Some D’s are saying they need an agenda on which to run:

“What the American people are hungry to hear from us is, what is the difference?” Mr. Edwards said in an interview. “What will we do? How will we deal with the corruption issue in Washington? How will we deal with the huge moral issues that we have at home? This is a huge opportunity for our party to show what we are made of.”

Others are claiming there’s no rush.

“When you bring it out early, you are going to leave it open for the spinmeisters in Rove’s machine, the Republican side, to tear it to pieces,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.

…

[P]ointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush’s Social Security proposal last year, [Pelosi] said there was no rush. “People said, ‘You can’t beat something with nothing,’ ” she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year. “I feel very confident about where we are.”

Durbin dragged out that same tired line the Kerry people used last year. The claim that you can’t put forward an agenda because the other side will attack it is ridiculous. Why not get a sack, Dick? Ante up. Get in the game. Washington is a town that’s supposed to do two things – identify problems and find solutions.

If you’re not going to offer an idea because someone may say it’s not good one, you should get the hell out of government.

No responses yet

Broadband, Net Neutrality, And The HOV Lane

Feb 07 2006 Published by under In The Beltway, Net Neutrality, Politics, Technology, The Internet

TechnologyCNet has an interesting article on Net Neutrality today. Erick over at Broadband Blog covers it. The CNet article does a pretty good job of covering the debate, but unfortunately, some of the arguments from both sides go unaddressed.

For example, I have an issue with the depiction of Net Neutrality as an HOV lane.

“We are building a fifth lane on a four-lane highway,” said Dave Pacholczyk, a spokesman for AT&T. “If you offer a high-occupancy lane for certain traffic, it ought to be better for those who remain in the other four lanes.”

The trouble with making that analogy is it’s just not true. Anyone who has traveled in the other four lanes of a highway with an HOV lane knows that their traffic situation isn’t improved at all. (Note: I’m only talking about HOV lanes for motor vehicle traffic at this point.)

As a matter of fact, I have always argued that HOV lanes cause more congestion. When all those cars that have sped past in the HOV lane approach their exit, they now have to careen across 4 lanes of traffic to get to the ramp. Human traffic tendency is to wait until the last possible moment to make that lane change, so they jam on their brakes and attempt to cross four lanes in very short order and cause everyone in those lanes to slow down for them. In doing so, they slow all five lanes.

So that’s a pretty poor analogy for how tiered service would work. Anyone who has sat in traffic watching HOVs go by would argue that’s not a good solution.

A better example would be the special treatment often accorded to buses. When you have a lot of traffic that needs to get to the same place (as in the case of video content) you can bundle it together and give it certain rights (the ability to turn left when other traffic can’t for instance, or the ability to use a certain lane). It’s not a mater of an HOV lane, it’s a matter of giving privileges for a fee.

Further into the article, Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge argues, that carriers “shouldn’t favor those providers [with whom they have other relationships] more than others, because ultimately, the consumer suffers.”

If that’s your concern, then regulate that, not the entire net. To impose a law that prevents managed networks, or even charging for tiered service, because you fear some exclusivity arrangement is foolish. If you fear exclusivity, then pass a law that says carriers are allowed to manage and charge, but they must do so on a non-exclusive basis. That solves your actual problem without creating new ones.

In all, the article isn’t bad. I’ll be curious to see the public discussion after today’s hearing.

(Disclaimer: While I work for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, this post should in no way be construed as an official position of the Association. Thoughts in this space are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the views of my employer.)

No responses yet

John McCain Clubs Barack Obama

Feb 07 2006 Published by under Democrats, In The Beltway, Politics, Republicans

PoliticsI’ve never seen a US Senator pummel another Senator the way McCain bitch-slapped Obama yesterday.

I still maintain that McCain will be our best bet in 2008. This is why.

I’ve disagreed with some of his past positions, and questioned the impact of his decisions on our party, but calling out Obama as a typical two-faced, disingenuous democrat flack is awesome. The media has given that guy a free ride… Hell, to read their coverage of him, you’d think he walks on water.

It’s nice to see a colleague shed some light on the real senator from Illinois.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »