Archive for the 'Operatives' category

A Note To Danny Glover (No, The Other One…)

Oct 27 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Fundraising, Operatives, Politics, Republicans, The Internet

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.

4 responses so far

I’ve Lost What Little Respect For David All I Had Left

Oct 25 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Craziness, Free Speech, News Media, Operatives, Pandering, Politics, Republicans, The Internet

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).

David All preening

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

19 responses so far

David All On The GOP And Web 2.0

Apr 18 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Operatives, Politics, Republicans, The Internet, Web 2.0

Elevating the discussion that has been going on regarding the state of the GOP in online politics to more mainstream media, David All writes on his blog, and in The Politico that the GOP’s problems are more a function of not having a sufficient tech strategy.

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.

3 responses so far

US Attorney Michael Gehrke?

Mar 26 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Operatives, Politics, Republicans

Assuming the ranks of our US Attorney corps is to be filled with political hacks skilled in tearing down candidates, the first guy up for that post in an Obama/Clinton administration will apparently be Michael Gehrke. I received an e-mail from him today.

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.

No responses yet

ParkRidge47′s Gift To The Democrats

Mar 21 2007 Published by under Democrats, Operatives, Politics, Republicans, Technology, The Internet

While a lot of hand wringing has begun on the left, and much fretting over the impact on Hillary and Obama’s campaign has commenced, the real impact of ParkRidge47′s handiwork on the 2008 campaign will likely never be seen. The real impact will be felt in the Republican party, and for our guys, it’s not good.

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.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »