I have read the excerpts of Latimer’s book and frankly don’t find all that much wrong with it. I’ll likely buy the book and consume it all simply because I liked the way the excerpts were written. His publisher is right. He has an engaging style. Was he in the room or across the street at the EEOB? Who cares. He was clearly closer to the President than 99.9% of Americans will ever get in their life, so let him have his say. We might find it interesting.

The treatment Latimer has received in the last 36 hours, however, has left me perplexed. It reminded me a lot of McClellan’s welcoming reception and that reminded me of something Peggy Noonan wrote.

William Safire, himself a memoirist of the Nixon years, said to me, a future memoirist of the Reagan years: “The one thing history needs more of is first-person testimony.” History needs data, detail, portraits, information; it needs eyewitness. “I was there, this is what I saw.” History will sift through, consider and try in its own way to produce something approximating truth.In that sense one should always say of memoirs of those who hold or have held power: More, please.

Noonan, and by extension Safire, were spot on. I think that every White House staffer should not be discouraged, but rather should be required to write a book, and tell the story of their time there. Our history demands that those making it (whether the President or his secretary) should provide us with as much detail as possible. When these books are written we should not denounce the writer, we should simply ask for the next installment from the guy who sat next to Latimer so we could see how he remembered the events.

One of the most interesting conversations I have ever had was with the woman who sat next to Monica Lewinsky in the White House. She once gave me her take on the woman behind the blue dress and it meant more to me than any ABC News special report.

Do I buy the caricature of Latimer as an opportunist trying to parlay his brush with fame into a financial windfall? Absolutely. Do I also believe that much of what he says is probably exactly as he remembers it? Absolutely.

That’s why we need more of these books, not less. We need to be able to compare notes and make our own determination about what happened, who these people were, where they made mistakes and where they proved they were only human.

Now, the latest to weigh in against Latimer in protecting the Bush years is James Carville.

This little dweeb needs to be glove slapped… People that have the honor of working in the White House ought not be going out and publishing this…

I couldn’t disagree with Carville more.

The people that need to be glove slapped are Carville and his ilk for attempting to silence future tomes. If Dana Perino, Tony Fratto, or Ed Gillespie recall events differently, let them write a book and give us their take. By the time all the ink dries, we might have a semi-complete picture of life inside the GWB administration.

As for the content, let me expand on what I told Sam.

I have no idea what Scott did or did not experience in the White House and have no way of knowing whether his specific accusations are true or false.

My point to Sam, and the point to my Twitter comment last night, was that Scott has written a book about the nastiness of politics in general and the notion of the permanent campaign specifically, that is right on the money. The excerpts I have read of the book make a very salient and very meaningful point – this town and the culture of constant political battle, do great harm to the process of actually governing.

When you are unwilling to admit a mistake for fear of creating an opening your opposition can exploit for partisan gain, you create a cycle where bad choices become compounded upon one another. I think that is a syndrome that we saw emerge from the Clinton years and grow worse during the Bush years. There is simply no room for honest discussion anymore. There is merely partisan scorekeeping and score settling.

I also believe, as Matthew Dowd noted in the New York Times, that Bush has squandered the second term that 62 million people gave him.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

Believe it or not, there are more than a handful of people who work in politics and become involved because they fundamentally believe that we can change the world we live in. Matt referred to the idea in his NYT interview.

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

I think McClellan’s interview on Today this morning echoed much of that same sentiment. These are people who worked tirelessly to elect a President in which they saw so much more than what was to come. McClellan says they got caught up playing the Washington game. I believe that is true, and I believe almost everyone recognizes that is true.

As I told Sam, I think McClellan’s book should be viewed through that prism. The media and the Administration may portray this as a gotcha perpetrated by Scott, but I think that discounts the larger message. It is that message that I agree with. For that reason, I fear the typical Washington response to discredit the messenger will force us to lose sight of the message.

I am a believer. I think people can change their world by getting involved. Unfortunately, this town tests my faith in that idea every day. Watching Scott being savaged for fighting for that ideal is testing it again today.

Still, reprimanding him may cause future McCain operatives to think twice before doing their job. Is McCain recommending a sort of “limited war” in which the enemy can shoot at us, but we can’t shoot back?

Standing on principle is a good value, but so is supporting your subordinates and so is loyalty. It takes political courage to stand up for your team — even if it may cost you politically. Is McCain too concerned about wanting to come across as a nice guy?

The bigger point, and one I think that’s been lost in this, is that Soren was using his personal accounts in a personal communication. Unlike the Amanda Marcotte dust up, Soren was not hired as a spokesperson for the campaign and simultaneously promoting himself and his personal ideological agenda.

He didn’t use a campaign e-mail address to send the link to the video. He didn’t even use a McCain sponsored twitter account. He used his own personal accounts to share a thought with people he felt were friends about online politics – a field he happens to have both expertise in and familiarity with.

This was not like the Samantha Power incident where an adviser (albeit an unpaid one) was speaking with a reporter. This isn’t closer to the cases of Linda Olsen and Judy Rose who were fired for forwarding the “Obama is a Muslim” e-mail. While it was never clear to me whether the women in that case used official campaign addresses or their personal accounts, the material they sent was untrue and potentially slanderous.

Soren’s incident has none of that. The material in the video was predominantly Obama, his wife, and his pastor. Granted the video contains footage of Olympic athletes and Malcolm X that it should not have. The statements of Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright are more damaging without all that.

But again, Soren did not create the video. The message was not sent from the campaign systems. It was a personal note. He was not a spokesman, he was a private citizen working on a public campaign and using a personal address.

One thing about this incident sends a chill down my spine. Many people are afraid to run for public office because they fear the rectal probe that is our electoral process. They fear the media scrutiny and the potential that some past indiscretion – no matter how small – will make them a public spectacle.

Do political operatives now have to fear that their private communication will become tomorrow’s news story? Do the people that give selflessly in political campaigns have to dread every workday wondering if they will be the campaign’s latest black eye?

How many e-mails did you send today that, taken out of context and publicized on the news, could be an embarrassment to you or your employer? How many of your personal notes contain jokes about the office, your company’s competitors or some other matter best kept private?

If we have rewritten the political rules so every piece of personal communication sent by campaign staff is now fodder for political advantage, we will further degrade our political process.

Seriously. How can reasonable adults STILL toss “Nazi!” insults around in casual discourse as if it doesn’t diminish real horror?

It got me thinking about an e-mail I received from Micah Sifry once. In a post I wrote for TechPresident, I had included a reference to the Democrat Party. He wrote asking why we Republicans insist on dropping the “ic” from the end of the word. He suggested it was juvenile.

I agree. I think it’s totally juvenile, but it’s something Republican operatives are taught early in their political career and it sticks with you.

Between Mike’s tweet and Micah’s old e-mail, I came to a conclusion. We need to agree to a truce. Thus, I propose the following.

We, the Republican Party pledge to never again drop the “ic” from Democratic when referencing your party. In exchange, you, the Democratic Party, will acknowledge the real and legitimate offense inherit in comparing political rivals to a regime that tortured, starved, and killed 6 million people.

Political differences are legitimate and reflect divergent viewpoints on world events. Discussion of issues and participants in political debate should not be punctuated with juvenile remarks or insults that diminish the horror inflicted on millions by the Nazis.

Refering to Republicans as fascists and Democrats as dirty hippies is still perfectly acceptable.

I think it’s a fair compromise and takes a small bit of childishness out of politics. Do we have an accord?

P.S. Follow me on Twitter (and let me know to follow you)

A lot has been written about the Thompson campaign in the past two days. I have read a bunch of post-mortems all focused on what went wrong, but I thought I would spend a little time telling you what went right. For people interested in online politics and the way candidates use the web, the Thompson campaign is a great case study in what can go well, and go badly in our world.

On May 22nd, I was sitting at Inova Fairfax hospital as my wife was rehydrated. A vicious stomach flu was circulating through the house and had brought my wife and son down. As we sat there that evening, I received an e-mail on my Blackberry from the brother of a friend of the Thompson’s. A few days earlier, they had seen an article in the Washington Post wherein I chastised my party for not using the Internet effectively.

I had been sweating the fallout from that article for two days. I was not exactly loved by the RNC for my critical assessment of their online operation. That article, which was about 180 degrees removed from the series of conversations I had with the reporter, was not going to help.

The Thompson team, however, agreed with my assessment that campaigns could use the Internet differently and wanted me to come out to “The House” to chat about it. We agreed to meet the next day despite what would become a full-blown case of the flu. The Thompson team, it seems, had circulated that same flu about a week earlier and none of them were afraid of catching it again.

On May 23rd, I met with Team Fred and after a three hour discussion of new and innovative ways you could use the Internet to supplement a traditional campaign, I left with an assignment – build a Presidential website in the height of a media storm, that would withstand a huge rush of traffic the moment it launched, and do it all in 10 days.

The Launch

On June 5, 2007, we launched ImWithFred.com. The site was originally envisioned as a simple splash page that would gather low hanging fruit – early donors and supporters looking to sign up. A requirement that all forms be pre-populated so visitors would not have to fill in information more than once threw in a wrinkle and we ended up building personalization into a splash page – not something most people would do. We also ended up building tools that would allow viral recruitment for both donors and volunteers.

Now these tools were hardly new or innovative, but the combination of designing the data architecture, doing the graphic design work, cutting up the site, coding it all, and allowing time to test for bugs in 10 days (over Memorial Day weekend, no less) was about the craziest thing I have ever tried. The data architecture alone had to support huge traffic, and getting the servers provisioned, hardened and tested would eat into our ability to deploy a test environment. Doing all of this over the holiday made me very popular with the development team.

Speaking of the team, I have to give credit to Dan Hopkins, Blaise Hazelwood, Todd Zeigler, Ken Smith, Brian Lyle and the gang that pulled this together. They did an outstanding job getting the site launched under those conditions and rarely complained (to me at least).

On Hannity and Colmes, Fred announced his website url and the flood came in. We took a lot of heat for the thin site, but we didn’t have time for much else. Had we had a month to design, build and test, we could have done more. Given the time we had, and the limitations of working under the “Testing the Waters” rules, I thought we did fine. We attracted over 100,000 unique visitors, raised over a quarter million dollars, and added nearly 30,000 names to our list in the first 24 hours.

On June 12, we rolled out the Fred File, added Fred’s bio, and added tools to spread the word through traditional media by contacting talk radio and newspapers. I was traveling back from a meeting in Colorado that night on a flight that was seriously delayed. I ended up doing the go-live countdown from a seat just inside the arrival gate at Dulles airport on their wi-fi connection. We made the rollout about 30 minutes ahead of Fred’s appearance on Leno that night.

The blog was a hit almost instantly and led me to believe the path we had chosen was right. Fred’s commentaries were getting a lot of comments and I saw the beginning of an online community I’ve never seen around a GOP candidate’s online operation. What’s more, nobody wrote a single word about what supporters were saying online. Nobody accused us of endorsing the random beliefs espoused by the occasional nut, and nobody on the campaign had to answer a single press call (that I am aware of) about the blog or anything said on it.

ImWithFred.com Version 2.0 – The New McKinley

Described inappropriately as ImWithFred.com 2.0 by some creative types, the actual site was finished the week of July 9th. We had been asked to shoot for having the live site ready the first week of July (timed to be released with the announcement). The site was delayed by a week. The announcement was delayed by two months.

Originally I saw the campaign’s Internet operation as the modern day equivalent of McKinley in 1896. As Fred took his message to the people, they could, at the same moment, come and visit him sitting on the front porch of this virtual house. FDT could simultaneously campaign in Iowa and around the world, by carrying the coffee shop conversations online – posting about questions he was asked at a rally, or continuing to develop regular, and lengthy posts about the issues we face.

While the pundits will discuss and debate exactly where the campaign went wrong, the one thing I believe they misunderstand is the way the Internet could have, and should have, shaped this campaign. That misunderstanding contributed to the “Fred is lazy” storyline early on.

The campaign still had to do the things necessary to win – talking to, registering, IDing, and mobilizing voters. Nobody questioned that. That the campaign strategy was written off as “relying entirely on the Internet” was simply not accurate.

The idea, from my perspective, was to harness the power of the Net to build a robust community that would become an integral part of the ground game. The Bush-Cheney campaign had begun the process of enabling volunteer action online. It pioneered activism tools that allowed voters to create and run phone bank and canvass operations from their home. It allowed people to participate on their own terms, rather than forcing them to attend a Saturday morning walk.

I saw this campaign as the natural evolution of that effort, but it would go further in the one arena where BC04 fell short. The Bush campaign was innovative in allowing people to participate in the mechanics of the campaign, but it never developed the community that could interact, inspire, and spur each other into action. I felt in 2004, and still feel today, that is the missing pieces required to fully realize the benefit of these applications.

The Thompson web operation would be different. With Jon Henke, Howard Mortman and William Beutler constantly opening new channels through local, state and national blogs, and the campaign site providing a vehicle for those attracted to participate in the campaign, we could reach the tipping point where engaged people are empowered to contribute in ways never attempted by the GOP.

Buy In

When I first met with Linda Rozett, Mark Corallo and Ed McFadden, I was distrustful. I unfairly stereotyped them as traditional communications people. It has been my experience in dealing with campaign Communications staff that they have developed a sort of impenetrable cocoon around themselves. Any thought that runs contrary to the way they did things on their first campaign is somehow filtered out as a bad idea. I would describe it as a mild form of mental illness. It’s a cognitive dissonance of the first order and it seems to afflict nearly all of them.

Mark, Ed and Linda didn’t fit that mold. They understood that we needed to be part of the dialog on blogs and online forums like Townhall, but they also understood the need to drive traffic to our own property and to develop a community. The chatter about Fred online, the traffic to the site, and the money coming in led me to believe the theory was right and we could introduce a paradigm shift.

I knew from my RNC days and the Bush days that buy-in for a radically different approach would be critical. I was pleased to see that everyone in the campaign from Fred and Jeri through Linda, Mark and Ed was onboard. It really did make a difference.

The Little Red Truck

Unfortunately, the staff turnover that began in the late summer had an almost immediate effect on the Internet operation.

As the Communications team focused on traditional media tactics, their attention increasingly turned away from the Internet. The commentaries became less frequent, online initiatives were no longer part of the equation.

In October, we began discussions of an end of quarter fundraising drive featuring a real-time disclosure of our success. The concept was shot down over concerns that it would place too much emphasis on money. As we moved through November, we began to hear rumblings of Fredsgiving Day – a third party money bomb effort scheduled the day before Thanksgiving.

It was unclear whether the campaign would support the effort. There were concerns (voiced by many online) that the timing was off – nobody would pay attention the day before the holiday. In the event the campaign decided to jump in, we went ahead and built the little red truck to track contributions that day. It was never deployed.

It was late in December when the little red truck finally saw the sunlight. Over the next three weeks, that little red pickup helped the campaign raise 1.25 million dollars. Had it been unveiled sooner, who knows what might have happened.

Lessons Learned

I share all of this anecdotally in the hopes of illustrating something for GOP campaigns (and more broadly for campaigns in general). I’m afraid that the withdrawal of Fred Thompson will lead people to conclude that the model was wrong. I really don’t feel it was.

As I said, I think the Thompson Internet operation, in the early days, and in the final days, was really second to none. Political campaign professionals should study the Thompson effort not as a case study in what went badly, but as an example of what was going very well, and could have been extraordinary had it not been for the media’s obsessive demand for ‘the tried and true tactics of the 1980s’.

As an example of the strength of Thompson’s online effort, look at the Thompson campaign blog and you’ll see something remarkable for GOP candidates – comments. And not just a few comments, but hundreds and even thousands of comments.

Rudy’s blog doesn’t allow comments. Romney’s gets a few per post. Ron Paul just recently launched a blog (despite the fact that blog software is largely free). He currently gets between a handful and a few dozen comments.

I don’t think this indicates a lack of supporter enthusiasm as much as it indicates that the campaigns have created a blog with nothing to say on sites that are so scrubbed of interesting content they’re alsmost sterile. Most of the posts are rehashed press releases, rehashed campaign e-mails, or occasionally a video so overscripted it becomes almost completely unwatchable.

Most campaigns think of comments as a way for people to respond to the post. Almost nobody on the GOP side sees this as a way for their supporters to network, to share ideas, or to brainstorm ways to help the campaign.

Most Republicans fear the rogue comment that will be used to tarnish their campaign. What they fail to realize is in a vibrant community that rogue comment is always surrounded by dozens of voices or more shouting them down. If anything, they typically dispel arguments that your base is crazy.

For the rabidly partisan Democrats reading this, please don’t mischaracterize this post as “Republican Internet guru just discovers blogs and comments.” That is not at all the point. The point is something much larger that I have been shouting at my party for several years now – they need to trust and engage the people. Since the people are online, they need to engage people online. There are just as many Democtrats who need to learn this lesson (cough, cough, Hillary, cough, cough).

They need to build online operations so they invite people to the discussion rather than turning them off of it. Get candidates to write, in their own words, frequent posts. Understand that a ground game is critical, but it must be viewed in terms of ROI. A thoughtful, honest post from a candidate may be discussed and passed around by thousands of people online. It takes little time to write if it’s sincere and not obsessive studied and focus grouped.

If your candidate honestly doesn’t have time to write, have staff carry a video camera and a MacBook to post from the road. Forgo the hair, the makeup, and the lighting. You’re on a bus 50 miles from Waterloo. Nobody is going to believe that your makeup is perfect and so is the lighting. Be real. We don’t expect perfection, but we do expect honesty.

My last piece of advice is this… In your interview process, ask your Communications Director to name his five favorite blogs. If they can’t, ask them for a suggestion on how best to target communications to specific demographic segments using banner ads. If they can’t answer either of those questions, don’t hire them. They don’t get what’s going on in the world around them.

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 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.

Republicans are getting trounced by Democrats…

Some attribute this disparity to activist energy on the left, a hatred of President Bush or even dissatisfaction among Republican supporters with their own stable of candidates.

But I offer another reason: Republicans have failed to place a premium on an effective Internet strategy. While the Internet’s transformational shift has emerged and has been dubbed Web 2.0, Republicans still operate in a world of Web 0.5.

As Democrats rally, connect and urge activism with their base through coordinated nationwide town hall meetings hosted by MoveOn.org, Republican presidential candidates are still considering whether or not they should even blog on their sites.

This gets back to the heart of the discussion Ruffini and I were having last week. Patrick had suggested that my focus on implementing web 2.0 in an effort to get activists engaged would be less than successful without a corresponding effort to increase the quality of the content you’re offering. I agree. I think both are critical.

This is where I part with David. I agree that we need a more effective Internet strategy, and need to build an infrastructure that will support the type and level of activity David suggests, but I don’t think simply building it will attract droves of Republicans. The GOP has greater problems than a lack of social networking. There is a party that is not terribly happy with a sound electoral loss a few months ago, a continuing series of miscues by the Administration, and a lackluster field of Presidential candidates. That is a significant hill to climb, and we won’t be able to if we don’t fundamentally alter our approach.

The Democrats blog community is strong because the leadership of the party views bloggers as activists. With very few exceptions, our candidates and elected officials view them as another form of media. They approach blogs the same way they approach newspapers, rather than the way they approach a neighborhood association or a pancake breakfast.

Further, while the GOP has been recognized for its effective message control with a stable of surrogates repeating the same mantra over and over and over, the Internet gives more people a voice. That’s the appeal of web 2.0. But messages, like technologies, are introduced and then take on a life of their own – changing and shifting as they pass from person to person. GOP efforts will need to relinquish control over the message and allow users to adapt it if we ever expect to be effective in an Internet world.

As the new Research Director at the DNC, I’m working to build a Party apparatus that can immediately respond to missteps, lies, and scandals of the 2008 election cycle, and establish a narrative that our party’s nominee can use when the primary season ends.

Just as you helped put organizers on the ground in all 50 states, you can help build the Democratic Party’s research shop. Make a donation today:

http://www.democrats.org/research

Do you remember the George Allen “macaca” video?

That piece of coverage played an instrumental role in the election of Senator Jim Webb in Virginia — and winning back the Senate in 2006. But this turning point in Senator Webb’s campaign would not have been possible without his dedicated staff members following George Allen’s every move — and this costs money.

The Democratic Party needs to support that kind of diligent reporting in the new election cycle — with video crews permanently on the ground in early primary states, for example. What did John McCain say in New Hampshire? Who did Rudy Giuliani visit in Iowa? What did Mitt Romney do in South Carolina? The DNC needs to know the answers to these questions every time a Republican makes a campaign stop, and we have to be ready to take the proper course of action. Let’s set up a state-of-the-art operation to bypass the media and take the story of their lies, flip-flops, and out-of-whack priorities directly to you.

Despite the fact that this is simply another piece of fundraising e-mail; and the Democrats, despite having the ‘tech-savvy’ Howard Dean, have little else to offer online but appeals for money, that last paragraph should make the GOP nervous. If the DNC actually does deploy a videographer in every state, and had them catalog every miscue by Republicans, and we had nothing to counter, we’ll be hurting. Campaign gaffes are a fact of life – one that the right has generally ignored. Now we do so at our own peril.

At this moment, there are a bunch of Communications guys in GOP campaigns and consultancies who are using this as justification to avoid doing anything interesting on the web. They’re pointing to the 1984 ad as evidence that doing anything that isn’t “strictly on message” is inherently bad. They’re going to use this to reinforce their position that the Internet is simply too wild, too hard to control, and has no place in their well oiled machine.

For that reason, people in the Republican Party who understand the power of the Internet, and see the positive contribution this video represents, have just had their lives made harder. Those in the GOP machinery who are fighting for more openness, more transparency, more participation, and the empowerment of the individual have just received a swift kick.

When YouTube produced the Macaca moment, it made GOP operatives skittish. Despite the fact that this happened outside the GOP and involved Dem operatives savaging Dem candidates, it will be seen as further confirmation that the Internet is where bad things happen. The Net has not yet yielded a win for the GOP, only losses. Most of the anecdotal evidence to its effectiveness is stuff like this – and it is seen as a distraction.

So ParkRidge47, despite what you may hear on the news for the next few days, is not a rogue operative who as done damage to Hillary or Barack. He ultimately will be seen as a hero to Democrats, because he will have kept the GOP from realizing the potential of the Internet for a little while longer.