Well now he’s at it again.

In a post referring to an overtly racist pin some jackass was selling at the Texas GOP convention, Matt can’t help but make the claim that this is evidence of rampant racism in the Republican Party.

Every time I go on C-Span, and I’ve been on five times now, I get asked about race by callers on both sides. And while I try to make the point that the Republican Party is pretty racist on an institutional basis, the regular Republican activists are just so much more eloquent at expressing this point themselves.

His Twitter post of the same linked post said simply:

Texas Republicans, adorably racist as usual

Now this isn’t the first time Stoller has leveled this charge against Republicans. In a February 2006 post about a commenter at RedState, he claims to throw the term around sparingly.

I don’t throw around the racist word very often, because to me it is a very very serious charge. But there’s no other way to say it; this right-wing blogger ‘Blanton’ at Redstate is racist, and all the commenter freaks nodding in frothing agreement to his screed seem mighty close as well.

Yet his Twitter post, his current piece on the pin, his post on McCain’s “racist dogwhistle” in Meridian, a March 2006 post about the GOP’s “deeply racist institutional nature” and other Stoller diatribes have been pretty loose with the term and the generalization that Republicans are racist. (Granted, the McCain post was later updated to reflect his error, but how many of the people who linked initially updated their posts later to note his retraction?)

So a guy who claims to be conservative in the frequency with which he levels that particular charge uses some pretty generalized language whenever he does.

I find this interesting give the Democratic Primary voters who indicated that race was the sole or significant factor in casting their vote. Based on exit polls in a variety of states, you could easily argue that 15-20% of the Democratic base is racist. They openly declared that they voted based on that, or it was a significant factor in their decision.

So here’s my challenge to Matt…

I have $100 for him and will, on the day after the election, issue via this blog, TheNextRight, RedState, and TechPresident both a public apology for my “black eye post” as well as a formal acknowledgement that my party is more racist than the Democrats.

The conditions

On election day, if the final exit polls show Republican voters are significantly more racist, I will give Matt the hundred dollars and the apology. (By significantly, I’ll propose a 10% variation – so if Democrats report 15%, the Republicans can be no higher than 16.5%. If the Democrats are 20%, the Republicans can’t exceed 22%)

If, however, the number of Republicans who say that they voted based on race is lower than, or not significantly higher than the number of Democrats who say the same, Matt will give me $100 and post on OpenLeft, MyDD, and DailyKos a written statement that he is wrong, and Republicans are not institutionally racist, and his own party, is in fact, more so.

Pu your money where your mouth is, Matt. How sure are you about the GOP given your own party’s proclivity to declare their racism openly?

If the national environment does improve somewhat, and the nominee starts close to slightly behind, we won’t have the steady demoralizing drumbeat we had in 2006. Rank-and-file Republicans will be too focused on beating up Hillary. Democrats in red districts could be cross-pressured.

No Bush to Kick Around Anymore: 2006 was the last year in which a Democrat could effectively run against Bush. It is not possible to do more political damage to Bush. People know he’s leaving.

Is this a case for 2008 as a Republican year? Not yet. But the Democrats’ best-case scenario is probably a muted change election like 2000 or 1976.

The Democrats have – without a doubt – gotten just about all the mileage out of Bush that they can get. They’re in charge now, and the public knows it. Whether the public opinion polls that show Americans with a near-record low approval for Congress are due to their unwillingness to fulfill any of what they ran on, or whether it is simply a distaste for all things political is unclear. What is apparent, though, is a sentiment that Congress, as a whole, is dysfunctional.

It used to be that you could pretty much rely on voters to believe, “My Congressman is ok, but the rest of them are crooks.” That doesn’t seem to hold anymore. I haven’t seen that question asked in some time, but I suspect more and more people would believe there guy is crooked, too.

So what does 2008 look like? I think the likelihood is an anti-incumbent wave. Not anti-GOP and not anti-Dem. I also think that holds true regardless of who the candidates at the top of the ticket are. The fact is, there just aren’t that many people left who vote a straight slate anymore.

My guess is a lot of the internal polling numbers have made that case for a fair number of GOPers who are weighing their re-election chances. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that a slew of Members who likely just benchmarked their races are saying, “Umm… Maybe not.”

Ok, so if that’s true, why aren’t Democrats doing the same thing? Why aren’t we seeing more retirements? Well, to Patrick’s point, I think they’re misreading the cards. I think they’re assuming that this is a down year for Republicans, and the retirements have them giddy with the possibility of big numbers in 2009.

I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you have two days to live. The worse news is I was supposed to tell you yesterday.

So let’s assume Patrick and I are right, and we are actually looking at an election that we could, under normal circumstances, capitalize on. What’s the worse news?

The worse news is two-fold. First, we have a boatload of seats to protect. Going into the 2008 elections, we have to protect 2/3 of the seats up for election. The house, with a raft of retirements comes a lot of open seats. Open seats are normally harder to keep than incumbent seats, unless the incumbents are particularly disliked. Second, we have a serious problem with our base.

Trouble with your droids?

It’s no secret that the GOP base is unhappy. It’s no secret that they’re not engaging. It’s no secret that a lot of people are unhappy with our slate of candidates for President. It’s also no secret that we have a significant fundraising problem.

Does all of that add up to the Perfect Storm? Will it all conspire to steal what should, under normal circumstances, be an anti-incumbent (and therefore, favorable for the minority party) election? It may well. This is where I don’t share Patrick’s muted optimism. I think he’s right that the tealeaves are more favorable for us than a lot of people are acknowledging, but I think our hurdles are great, and I’m not sure that we’re fast or limber enough to clear them.

Jon Stewart, in coverage for Comedy Central after the 1999 straw poll, referred to the (mostly) quadrennial show as “Democracy’s Gaudy Pageant”. It truly is something to behold, and every GOP operative, at least once in their life, should attend. Of course, with more and more candidates realizing it’s a joke, the event has lost most of what it once was.

However, for those foolish enough to make the mistake of participating in 2011, here’s a rundown of what you can expect:

You are going to get screwed by somebody – The Straw poll is as notorious for this as anything else. It used to be common practice (and likely still is) for the second or third tier candidates to call supporters and encourage them to accept someone else’s ticket (and someone else’s free bus ride to Ames) and then vote for them instead. Many a candidate shelled out cash, food, and transportation only to find their “solid supporters” had screwed them. Case in point? Dan Quayle, my boss in 1999. We fed 3,500 people and got 900 votes. We had expected, and bought tickets for, about 1,500. A lot of people took our buses, and ate our lunch, only to vote for someone else.

You’re never going to do as well as you think – Ron Paul predicted he’d be in the top three only to come in fifth. Mitt Romney should have won by a huge margin, but when you add the second and third place candidates together, they actually beat him. In 1999, I learned this lesson from Lamar Alexander. I was seated in a cubicle upstairs in a study hall waiting for the results. I had found a phone line and was waiting with two press releases to send to our office in Phoenix – one announcing how well we had done, one announcing that we never expected to do well because we hadn’t invested the money in it. Alexander and his team came in and stood behind me – waiting for results on a TV in the room. When they were announced, and Lamar discovered he, too, had done worse than they expected, he shouted, “Well God Damn it, it’s not like we could have tried any harder.” After apologizing to me for disturbing my studies (I had my back to them, and they had not seen my Quayle 2000 polo), they stormed off in frustration.

It is likely that you will be outspent. If you’re not, you will probably win, but everyone will know the only reason you won is because you sent more than everyone else. – the straw poll is a fundraiser – first and foremost. The candidate who spends big wins big. The only way the race is close is if you have two candidates willing to spend big. In 1999, Forbes and Bush both spent an incredible amount of money. Forbes’ tent was ridiculous. It had giant glass French doors and air conditioning. The Bush guys were riding around on a fleet of brand new John Deere tractors and had an equally massive tent. Compare this to the Quayle operation which had secured the original tractor. It was made in Japan, had no instructions in English anywhere on it, and backfired like Uncle Buck’s Buick whenever it was turned off. Our ready room for the Veep consisted of a borrowed Winnebago. Looking at the results, I’m not terribly surprised that the two guys who spent a small fortune were duking it out for first. I’m also not surprised to see that Mitt won it this year (given he was the only guy spending a lot of money).

All the chatter about how the straw poll is a test of your ability to organize in Iowa is a bunch of crap. The straw poll is a test of how much you are willing to spend in Iowa. Period. He who is willing or able to spend the most will win. Congrats to Mitt and his team for proving that’s still true.

Not this time…

“If you are a Democrat, you have to like the atmosphere,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.).

“It is unquestionably closer than we would like,” said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.).

These two guys aren’t lightweights. Granted the article pulled two quotes that may well not be representative of their larger comments. Either or both of these guys could have said, “We’re going to hang on,” but the reporters left it out because it doesn’t fit with the storyline.

I suspect, however, that the quotes above are actually about the most positive things they could say about the current environment. With two new polls out (USA Today/Gallup and ABC News/WaPo) showing the GOP getting its ass handed to it.

Most polling shows a drop in support among conservatives and independents, but I’d really like to see the conservative universe broken down by fiscals and socials. I don’t think we’re going to lose a lot of social conservatives because they don’t, strictly speaking, have a lot of hope getting the Democrats to pass socially conservative legislation.

Fiscal conservatives, however, now appear to have equally dismal options for getting fiscally conservative policies out of either party. I suspect that’s where we’re bleeding support, but the timing of the Foley things gives us a convenient out to blame the social wing.

Given their list of “GOP Insiders” it’s not a surprise. Most of those guys have been doing campaigns the “old school” way since the 70s and 80s. The fact that they would see a new medium as a fad or marginally effective is not a surprise.

The GOP is full of people who learned on old media – mail, phones, radio, and TV – and don’t know anything else. What’s funny is I imagine the same quotes were probably uttered by consultants when cable TV came along.

“Let’s be honest: The people who take the time and energy to [watch cable television] have made up their minds months before any election.”“When it comes down to it, those who are motivated to act via [cable television] are not being swayed to a different party or to vote. They are simply using [cable television] as another way to communicate.”

Now we recognize cable television for what it is – a very cost effective way to deliver a narrowly focused message. The Internet and blogs are that, and so much more.

The reason is inherent in the two-way nature of blogs. Imagine if television allowed anyone, anywhere to instantly refute the newscast with an audience of equal or greater size. Viewing blogs as some passing fad, or some novelty misses the point. It’s shortsighted and conveys a lack of understanding of new media and how people adopt new technologies.

Blogs are merely part of a larger movement in media. The concept of the “blog” will soon fade, but the movement they represent – a broad, diverse network of small, niche market news gatherers and commentators – will remain. As long as these “professionals” and the party leaders approach the changing media landscape with the same conceptual framework they apply to one-way television transmission, they’re going to get hammered.

The trouble for the GOP is we approach bloggers the same way we approach the media. We feed them sound bites, and send them suggested blog topics, but we don’t involve them in the process. We give them widgets they can drop on their website, and we allow them to participate in conference calls or seminars occasionally, but we do not leverage their real power.

Their power is their passion for politics, and their connections. If you had a community leader, someone whose social network was extensive, knew everyone, could gather a variety of opinions on short notice, had both a deep understanding of issues and a source for vetting solutions with an audience representative of the general populace, that person would be an invaluable resource for the campaign. They would likely be asked to serve within the kitchen cabinet for a fair number of candidates. They would likely be sought as an endorsement in the primaries, and as a trusted advisor to campaigns.

Because they are online, however, and choose to spend a great deal of time on the computer and manage their connections via e-mail and IM, the bloggers – who fit the description above in every way – are treated as media, and offered only occasional glimpses of the campaign, and rarely brought in to help.

That’s what the GOP doesn’t see. As long as it remains blind to that, we run the risk of turning the Internet into what talk radio is for Democrats – a medium that is not understood, and which gives the other side great power. Unfortunately, the power of the Internet, compared to talk radio, is much greater and capable of inflicting far more damage on us than we inflict on them with the AM dial.

Let’s assume the Administration is telling the truth and they really are just trying to find patterns that indicate some sort of shady activity. If that’s the case, you have to assume that the vast majority of the “tens of millions” give absolutely no indication of potential terrorist activity after being analyzed.

Let’s also assume that the average American “has nothing to fear because he’s doing nothing wrong”. That’s the reason people generally give when they hear stuff like this. Because I have nothing to fear, it’s ok if you do it to me, and to others.

That means the phone records of average Americans who are doing nothing wrong (guys like my friend Jay who happens to be married to an Iranian woman who calls home occasionally) are being studied. He has nothing to fear, because he’s done nothing wrong, but why should his phone calls be studied (and I imagine, under the other program, they’re being monitored as well) simply because of his wife’s nation of birth? Why should he, because of his individual circumstances, or because of who he chose to marry, be studied as if he were a criminal? Isn’t that an inherent discrimination?

This is still America, right? We are still assumed innocent until “proven” guilty, right? Every American, whether they have something to fear or not, should fear these programs. They are not based on a presumption of innocence. They are based on an assumption of guilt – somebody’s guilt. The fact that we don’t actually have a suspect is ignored by the government. Instead, they’re fishing through the garbage cans outside our homes to try to find evidence of a crime. They’ll cast a net into the innocents and segregate some pool of them until they can prove themselves innocent.

That’s not how government should behave, and as a Republican/libertarian, I fear any government big enough to ignore the constitution and to presume that the potential guilt of one justifies a willful attack on the rights of the many.

If the Democrats, under Clinton, had engaged in these same activities, the GOP would have screamed so loud you would have heard them in Canada. They would have railed aginst the heavy hand of government and decried the presence of big brother in our lives. Yet today, obsessed with controlling the levers of power, convinced of our own moral superiority, and believing some fairy tale that this is ok because “we have nothing to fear”, we are cheerleading the Administration for “making us safer”.

I imagine the citizens of any totalitarian regime that came to power, and instituted the same sorts of clandestine surveillance of it’s people, were met with initial attitudes of “that’s ok, I have nothing to hide.” Only after that government trampled on some right you did hold dear, and you finally felt violation at the hands of the state, did you stand up in opposition to their tactics.

Then you found your life scrutinized using the same tactics you previously advocated. You realized, because you spoke out, that suddenly you did have something to fear – suddenly you were the one being watched.

This scenario has played out in may nations throughout history. And you know what they say about those who fail to learn the lessons of history…

It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age — which I am — I am simply out of it, wherever “it” may be. All in all, I was — I am, and I guess I remain — the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.

I normally like Colbert, and I imagine Cohen may, as well. But the left, despite their cheerleading for John Kerry’s sense of nuance, sees the world in the same monochromatic way the Bush Administration does – you’re either with us, or against us. If you dare to state the obvious – that Colbert sucked that night – you are clearly a GOP stooge. It’s good that the angry left is turning on the moderates enough that they’re starting to see what Republicans have been saying for several years.

Bloomberg is reporting that the Iraq War and Vietnam enjoy differing levels of support. I have to say, this is probably the strangest piece of writing I have ever seen.

More Americans — 57 percent — say sending troops to Iraq was a mistake than the 48 percent who called Vietnam an error in April 1968, polls by the Princeton, New Jersey-based Gallup Organization show. That’s because more people believed that Vietnam was crucial to U.S. security, scholars say.

Comparing wars seems to me to be the ultimate apples and oranges scenario. Different political drivers, differences in force strength, differences in the attitude of the American people about life in general skew any possible findings. To say that the difference is purely attributable to the relative importance people place on the security interests of the nation is somewhat simplistic. The article glosses over the fact that 10 times as many US troops had died in Vietnam, and many were conscripted into service as opposed to our current all volunteer force. In doing so, they ignore a set of circumstances that seem to go unnoticed by opponents of the war who would attempt such comparisons.

Roll Call goes the opposite direction and clearly explains why 2006 isn’t like 1994. Echoing the Cohen piece, Winston’s take is the electorate is not reflected in the left.

Of those tested, voters perceived Howard Dean as the most liberal at 3.7. They gave the Democratic Party a 3.9 rating. Both President Bush and the Republican Party got a 6.6 rating.

The numbers take on real meaning, however, when put in the context of how voters see themselves ideologically. On average, voters put their own political ideology at 5.7 — clearly center-right, and within less than a point of the GOP. The voters’ perception of Democrats, on the other hand, was significantly to their left.

Now the Democrats see these three articles quite differently. They see the lack of public support for Iraq as their Golden Ticket. They believe those who question the war share their rabid ideology and will turn out in droves to drive the GOP from power – as they were driven out in 1994. It’s just not true, however.

“It is a challenging political environment,” acknowledges Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, “but we are confident that ultimately voters in November will recognize that a Democrat Congress would simply not be equipped to ensure either economic or national security for our nation.”

That’s the RNC’s response to a new USA Today survey showing the President down to a 31% approval with 65% disapproval. Granted the sample is adults, and that’s never a good predictor of the electorate come November. Still, the rain clouds just don’t seem to be breaking up for the administration.

Usually when you get in a bad news rut, it lasts a few days or a week, and then something changes the environment. I know trudging through the Abu Ghraib scandal on the campaign felt like a lifetime, but it was actually pretty short lived.

The outlook now just doesn’t seem to be getting any better, and it keeps coming down. That makes it hard to keep your eyes on the ball. My hat’s off to Tracey and the gang at the RNC who keep fighting on even when faced with this steady barrage of negative news.

When did Abramoff go to the White House and who did he meet? That question will be answered within the next week as the Secret Service turns the White House visitor logs over to Judicial Watch.

A bunch of new polls indicate a gloomy environment for the GOP. Gallup/USA shows the lowest approval of Bush’s Presidency and the lowest marks for the GOP at large since the anti-impeachment days of 1998.

In the meantime, CBS found that 47% believe the Democrats would be better at keeping gas prices low. Of course, that really means 53% don’t think they would be better, think nobody can do it (the right answer given its a supply/demand problem) or think the GOP is better. The poll is adults only, so it’s not terribly surprising the number is around 47%. The Democrats have done a good job of portraying Republicans as tools of the oil industry, so a generic concept like that is bound to emerge in polling with a question like that.

The New York Times has an interesting article on GOP policies toward abortion/abstinence/promiscuity and the morning after pill (subscription required, but they offer a free trial). The column makes the case that GOP efforts to limit contraception are actually driving abortion rates higher.

President Bush’s Food and Drug Administration has blocked that, apparently fearing that better contraception will encourage promiscuity. But unless the libidophobes in the administration mandate chastity belts, their opposition to Plan B amounts to a pro-abortion policy.

Two thoughts on that… A) I like the term libidophobes. I think I’ll incorporate that into my repertoire. B) This article is right on the money. We need to decide if our goal is fewer abortions or a puritanical belief system toward sex. As long as we’re pursuing both on a dual track, we’ll never achieve either.

Finally, under the heading imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the Bush-Cheney eCampaign team should feel pretty flattered. It seems the Democrats learned something from our online efforts in 2004 and copied our “testimonials and photos” messages following our online/offline events like Party for the President. Howard Dean sent me a nice little note sharing some of the thoughts from their event this weekend.

Dear Friend,

I wanted to pass along to you a few testimonials and photos from volunteers like you who were out in force this weekend:

http://www.democrats.org/april29photos

Isn’t that sweet? It’s too bad their events system is up to speed yet. If they want to copy us outright, you should be able to generate your own maps and literature online and never have to deal with the party. That’s the point to the Internet. It’s on my terms, not yours.

At a time when voters are in a sour mood and the GOP-run Congress is experiencing its lowest approval polls in years, Republican operatives here have reactivated their ground forces in key battleground states. These campaign workers have been sending in weekly reports on the number of new Republican voters they have identified and registered in strategic toss-up races, using a vast e-mail network linking district, state, regional and national party operations.

Having just spent a few days in the real world, I have to say the outlook is pretty bleak. The wife and I just took the little guy home. I spent several days listening to the thoughts and concerns of people for whom Washington DC represents most of what’s wrong with out country. They’re pissed at the GOP for the way it’s bungling things and pissed at the Democrats for being more concerned about regaining power than they are about actually solving problems.

It’s not a pretty view from the cheap seats.

The good news for the GOP should be the fact that I never heard anyone say the words Iraq or Iran. Unfortunately, that can also be seen as bad news since it indicates domestic issues have replaced security as the cause du jour. The really bad news is immigration was the main topic followed almost immediately by skyrocketing gas prices. The real world, especially in states where median income per month is less than half a DC house payment, is hurting. They’ll be looking for someone to savage, and at the moment, I suspect the GOP is it.

The one saving grace for the party may be, as Lambro says, “Republicans have road-tested and perfected an efficient voter identification and turnout system.” The GOP in 2004, left no doubt that they knew how to get people to the polls. The question this year is whether that machinery will run as smoothly given the sour taste in the electorate’s mouth.

The latest Fox News poll shows the President with a 33% approval. Among Republicans, he’s hovering around 66%, which is not great, but also not horrible. Horrible is his approval among independents – which hovers at just over a quarter. That’s about 18 points lower amongst the GOP and 8 points lower among independents than he was at the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal – the low point during the 2004 election.

As prognosticators like to say, ‘we’re still six months away from the election and a lot can happen in six months.’ That’s certainly true. The president’s approval was in the doldrums in the spring 0f 2004, and the GOP came back to win the election by a solid margin. It could happen again with the midterms. On the other hand, given the bleed amongst the GOP faithful and the loss of a good chunk of independents, it could be a bloodbath come November.

Let’s hope that Duhaime and the gang over at 310 First Street can pull it together as Lambro suggests they might.