I have, for several months now, seen a string of posts and tweets from these same lefty friends that are either mocking or dismissive of the Conservatives nascent efforts on Twitter. Here’s one example courtesy of TechPresident’s own Micah Sifry.

It’s positively quaint to listen to Republicans murmur optimistically about their “dominance” on Twitter. #polc09, #tcot, #p2

The very first time I saw one, it reminded me immediately of comments I had seen and heard before. They were the openly dismissive comments directed by complacent and cocky Republicans at the Democrats efforts online.

I specifically remember more than a few people, myself included, who watched the rise of the online left with initial derision. As late as 2004 and 2005, I heard things like, “The Democrats and their blogs. How’s that working out for them? All that effort and how many wins has it resulted in?”

Beginning with Conrad Burns and George Allen, we began to quickly see the results of “those blogs”. It’s a lesson we failed to heed early on, and it contributed greatly to our demise.

What we failed to recognize was the infancy of an effort to use new technology to mobilize. It was an effort to build a new network and the infrastructure to disseminate a coherent message.

I have argued that the reason the Democrats never mastered talk radio was very simple – they never had to. In modern politics, the insurgent party will adapt to the most interactive (and the most real-time) technology available at the time. In 1992, having lost the White House, House and Senate, the GOP gravitated toward talk radio. Despite it being a broadcast medium, it was the most interactive medium available. It was adapted to facilitate the conversation about the direction of the party and the country.

The Democrats, rising out of the loss in 2000, had to coallesce around a platform. Talk radio, had the Internet not been available, would likely have become the staging area and the rise of the left on talk radio would have been a near certainty. But a funny thing happened on the march toward the AM dial.

With the Internet, blogs and Meetup became the new polis for the exiled Democrats.

Now you could argue that two data points is hardly enough to qualify my central thesis – the adaption of interactive forums by the out party. But keep in mind that Americans detachment from one another and from in-person communities really didn’t explode until about this same time. Prior to that, most people who were politically active simply turned to their party and its structures. It’s just the last 20 years that have split us from our parties and each other, so we can only look at the data available.

That brings us back to the present day and the Republicans.

Now that we are the out party, we are turning to the Internet to discuss, debate and strategize the party’s future. It is no longer, however, simple enough to label “The Internet” as a monolithic thing the way we did with the Democratic use of the medium. The Internet is no longer about websites as it was with blogs and Meetup. The Internet, as it exists today, is more a generic platform for advanced communication services – whether they are site based, text messages, cellular applications, or anything else.

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution).

For the Democrats that dismiss Republican testing of many and various models of activism on Twitter, you should watch very closely what’s going on, rather than simply mocking it. Complacency and satisfaction with your status quo is a slippery slope and it’s very easy to fall into the “yes, but what has it gotten them” mindset.

It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter’s framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won’t happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will – when you find yourself out of power again – be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Until then, to my friends on the left, let me say two things. First, we’ll keep using Twitter, and you can keep cracking jokes. Second, as long as you do, we’ll see you on the other side, soon enough.

Update: Based on further conversation (via Twitter) about this post, I need to clarify a point. I’m not claiming the GOP is currently “dominant” on Twitter. That was Micah’s reference. I’m simply looking at the tendency for conservatives to adapt to Twitter faster and easier than they have other online venues.

The left’s attitude (represented by Micah’s comment) seems to me to be that the GOP is putting all its eggs in the Twitter basket without doing all the other things that the left did to be successful. My argument is that’s a false assumption. It requires that the GOP mimic the left to advance online. Just as the left bypassed the right’s use of talk radio and went straight on to a different model, I think the right may be able to skip directly past the duplication of the left’s infrastructure by simply making use of what are currently the most advanced communications and mobilization tools. I see evidence that many in the right are developing new models in an effort to do just that.

Those new models have not yet become “dominant”. My central premise is, however, is that many on the left and right seem to believe we must embrace the left’s status quo. I, on the other hand, believe our salvation will not come in duplicating their model, but in creating a new paradigm for our own activism.

My problems have to do with Meghan McCain as a pseudo-celeb trying to force her views on people. It’s the same problem I have with people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian telling me what to think – people who have achieved nothing in life other than being born well.

Her latest appearance on The View was much like her written rant about Karl Rove – exaggeration, fabrication, and utter mind-humbing rot coming from a woman who would be unemployable if she weren’t the daughter of a former POTUS candidate. She has never met a truth she couldn’t stretch.

I joined Twitter a few months ago…

No, you didn’t. You joined six weeks ago. You know how I know that? Because you tweeted it on March 7.

We need to take Twitter back from the creepy people.

The creepy people who have been on Twitter for months or even years longer than you have? That’s right, Rove was on twitter two months before you were? What’s next? Are you going to demand we take America back from those creepy Native Americans that live near your parents’ house in Scottsdale?

Let us, instead, look at who contributes more to Twitter. Karl Rove has 43,000 followers and follows 40,000. That’s right. He actually listens to just about as many people as he talks to. What about you, Meghan?

Followers: 26327
Following: 68

Sixty-eight? I have followed more than 68 people completely on accident! How do you have 26,000 followers, but only listen to 68 people? It’s clear you don’t give a shit about the opinions of more than 99.7% of the people interested in your drivel.

Sometimes [Karl Rove] takes questions; other times he talks about his appearances on cable news and other shows. But he doesn’t say anything substantive.

Oh… so we should judge the two of you on substance. Ok… Surely, for someone with a lot to say, you must really put some thought provoking content up on Twitter, right?

I have a very exciting meeting today and the only dilemma is what to wear.

I remember some frito pies and I feel like I ate a lot of chicken patties and jello growing up 2, I loved my cafeteria!

I used to have the hugest crush on Eminem when I was in high school and he still looks hot in his new music video!!

Howard [Stern], I would so go on your show (but I would go on in a suit and keep my clothes on)

Now compare that to Karl Rove:

Please take time 2 read at least 1 of the interrogation memos. I’ve posted them on my website here > http://twurl.nl/b7iiik

Polling News & Notes: The Internet’s Growing Role in American Politics (PDF Download) http://twurl.nl/xm0eon

Politicians ignore tea parties at their peril. http://jijr.com/hehc

Wow! Clearly Meghan’s is a superior intellect. Why talk about foreign policy, trends in American politics, and political activism when you can talk about clothes, not taking your clothes off, jello and eminem.

(Meghan then goes on to pump up her dad’s use of Twitter and how it’s all him. Of course, this is the same guy that told us he couldn’t use a Blackberry because of his arm injuries. So which is it? Is he an invalid who can’t work his own thumbs, but wanted to keep a finger on the nuclear trigger? Or is he a twittering fool?)

Now, like I said, I have no problem with Meghan’s criticism of the GOP. She’s right on many counts.

What I do find tremendously offensive about her is the the fact that trashing the GOP seems to be more of a routine she performs to keep the media spotlight on herself. Now that dear old dad is no longer running for office, how can I keep people’s attention. I’ve got it. Rather than try to be a constructive voice, I’ll just kick the GOP while it’s down. That should get me on camera.

And don’t, for even a moment, think I am a big fan of Karl’s. For all his recent embrace of the Internet and jumping into the discussion, I have seen firsthand his real disdain for that discussion. I don’t buy his bullshit at all.

However, given a choice between the hypocrite and the ridiculous preening of the media whore, I had to flip a coin…

…and Meghan, you lost.

That is a critical point for people who aren’t connected, or people who aren’t actively using web 2.0 applications. In a study of people who are not online, Parks Associates found 44% of those not connected claimed “there’s nothing interesting online” as the reason they didn’t want an Internet connection.

That’s a funadmental problem you will have to overcome if you want people to adopt broadband. The easiest way I can think of to show someone the value is two part.

First, ask them what their interests are. What is the one thing you love, that you wish you could discuss with more people? What hobby is your wife sick of?

Second, take them online, and search for the active discussions of that topic. You’ll likely find hundreds or more.

And that’s the power of the web. It’s not just that conversations are no longer tethered. It’s a much larger idea that someone out there cares about the ideas that you care about, and no matter how odd or rare your interests may seem to your offline friends, you’ll find it’s not odd or rare at all online.

For years we decried the effect the Internet and media were having on people and the way it divorced them from their relationships. This was the fundamnetal concept of Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”.

Far from an isolating force, however, the Internet and social media have proven to be just the opposite. They have removed from human interaction the physical restrictions, and allowed people to gather together in unprecedented ways.

This was the thesis of a post called “Volunteering Alone” that I wrote for the Personal Democracy Forum in 2005. In response to Zephyr Teachout’s comentary on the need to reconnect people “offline”, I argued that the genius of Internet activism is the fact that it removes the physical presence requirement.

The Internet has the power to remove campaigns from activism in the same way eGovernment removes the government from transactions. It’s just the citizen and his browser. People choose to be active on their schedule. The campaign or party empowers activism, but allows me to be active on my terms.

In exactly the same way, the Internet removes the physical presence requirement from discussions of everything from gardening to politics to television programs. Your interests are shared interests regardless of whether they’re shared with people in your home, in your town or across the globe.

If you’re interested in looking at the characteristics that separate the top tier bloggers from the lower tier it all comes down to hustle. That’s pretty mych true of any profession, but that hustle takes a different form for blogs.

The average top-tier blogger posts 10 or more times per day and utilize 5 or more web 2.0 apps.

Perhaps the most interesting facts for social marketers are the way bloggers interact with brands. 90% talk aout specific brands, and 80% talk about customer service experiences. That should be enough to make any company take blogs seriously. However, the more relevant stat is the fact that 61% of bloggers report they are influenced by other bloggers discussion of products, services, and customer experience.

In short, whether you are online talking about your company. product or brand or not, there is an active and vibrant discussion of it taking place. You need to decide whether or not you want to be part of it.

I had previously posted on Matt Stoller’s late spring run in with the business end of a fist, and didn’t have the story quite right. My earlier post was based on a report that Matt had an argument with someone that turned violent. While I still stand by the person who gave me the story, it seems there was a little more to it than meets the eye.

Matt has always claimed that the guy sucker punched him. When he made that claim here, I pointed out that I have been in a lot of fights, have never been hit or thrown a punch without knowing exactly why that happened, and was pretty sure Matt knew why he got hit.

Well it turns out that Matt did get hit out of the blue, but the story of why was still untold – but I was right, Matt knows why.

The story was the ex-boyfriend of Matt’s then girlfriend saw the two of them together, and punched Matt in the face. That appears to be true.

Sources, however, tell me there was a bit more going on. It seems Matt was banging the assailant’s girlfriend while she and he were engaged to be married. Mr. Fisticuffs was apparently a little upset that trust fund baby was nailing his fiance. When given the opportunity to exact a little payback on Stoller, he took it.

As I said at the time of the original post, “I suspect there is at least a fair probability that it was provoked.” Turns out I was right.

On a related note, conversation also turned to a psychoanalysis of the type of girl that would date Matt to begin with. There was heated debate over whether she must have serious daddy issues or simply massively low self-esteem.

Consensus was reached on one point, however. In trying to describe the awkward thought of Matt and his paramour being in union, everyone agreed it probably went something like this:

(As young lass is trying to pleasure Matt, she hears) No. Nobody does it that way. Anyone who does it like that must be stupid and not worth my time… It feels awkward… Like knowing that John McCain will die of cancer in office… By the way, did I mention that Republicans are all racist? They are…

One note of caution, Matt. Watch out for those teeth when your girl wakes up to your bullshit.

It is very likely that McCain has cancer or some other serious illness. There’s no reason McCain wouldn’t let reporters look at his records otherwise. McCain is 72 years old and he was a POW, a member of a group with high rates of illness due to ill-treatment on the part of their captors.

Stoller makes the claim that McCain is hiding something despite the fact that earlier in the same post he points out that reporters were invited to look at his records – albeit with conditions. It’s simply not true that McCain won’t let the media look at them (as Matt states before contradicting himself). What McCain refused to do is let our ridiculous stable of yellow journalists give him a drive by colonoscopy, so to speak. He chose not to let them pour over every minute detail looking for something they could exploit to make news.

Stoller, compared to real journalists, doesn’t actually need facts. He just makes stuff up, or quotes what sounds like they might actually be facts without ever backing them up. For instance:

[McCain] was a POW, a member of a group with high rates of illness due to ill-treatment on the part of their captors.

Is that true? Sounds like it could be, but who knows. Did he actually do any research to verify that claim? He certainly didn’t cite a source. Did he make it up? It would be his style.

Further, Matt jumps clearly afield with this little bit of stupidity

Cancer is relevant to the Presidency. Misleading the press about one’s health is relevant to the Presidency. This is not just a dude looking for a job, he’s going to have his hand on the nuclear trigger. Imminent death from a terminal disease kind of skews your perspective on this, you know what I’m saying?

Actually, Matt, I have no idea what your saying. Most people that I have been close to who died after a long fight with terminal illness (three grandparents among them), had developed an incredible respect for life. They had come to intimately understand the fragile nature of it and felt it was precious – not something to throw away.

Stoller, on the other hand, seems to imply that someone close to death from a terminal disease would be more than happy to take those around him down with them. That’s simply not a logical argument to make if you account for the number of deathbed confessions, last minute searches for God, and people trying to reconcile themselves with the great beyond.

Yesterday I was challenged by a pair of lefty Twitter users for not denouncing Jerome Corsi, an extremist fruit cake unfortunately aligned with the GOP. Now, anybody who has asked me about Corsi’s book has heard me decry his brand of venom. I had not, however, posted on the topic, so somehow I was abetting Corsi.

If that’s the measure we are to use, where are the Democrats who will step up and denounce Stoller for his repeated and over-the-top, Anne Coulter-esque diatribes? Why is the left, which was quick to challenge me, so unwilling to call out Matt Stoller and his absurd rants?

The fact is the whole thing is stupid.  Capuano’s argument for why he is doing this, Nancy Pelosi’s defense of him in her letter to Boehner, and Shelbinator’s defense all come down to the same lame argument.

In order to keep up with the “decorum” of the House, they ought to find a way to do so that doesn’t get too tangled up in commerce or political campaigning due to free market forces (i.e., if you watch a Representative’s “official” YouTube video, it might be unbecoming if the three “related” videos that pop up in the YouTube player after it’s over were a racist anti-Obama ad, a pitch for Viagra, or candid footage of Britney Spears’ crotch). Not unreasonable suggestions, I think.

I left a comment on Shelby’s site, but I think it bears repeating here.

If these rules are so critical to protect us from unrefined content that might accompany “official” communications, why hasn’t the Franking Commission required newspapers to print any columns submitted by Members on facing pages with no advertising, comic strips, or campaign news?

If this is such a reasonable request, why hasn’t the Franking Commission required TV news programs to not bookend Member appearances with commercials?  Why don’t they have rules for what other stories can appear in the crawl on the chyron?

The fact is Capuano is ignorant of the equivalence between offline and online communications.  He clearly doesn’t use, know, or understand the area over which he is attempting to exert jurisdiction.

Honestly, the idea of franking dates back to the 1600s.  The entire concept of the Commission is a joke in the era of the Internet.  With newspapers losing subscribers, TV losing viewers, and every other aspect of society being radically changed, Capuano’s action is nothing but a desperate attempt to remain relevant in a position that is growing obsolete by the second.

When Micah Sifry and I were in London in April, we had many discussions with the academics there that felt they could just watch the Internet change everything else on the planet, but somehow they would be excused from the Internet Age.

Congress is now making the same mistake.  They’re attempting to ignore the flames around them and keep playing their fiddles as the US burns.  They’ll continue looking for ways to apply 17th century standards of decorum to 21st century communications technology.  It’s frightening that our institiutions are so far behind the world around them.  But that’s what you get with bureaucracies…

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?

For my inaugural post at The Next Right, I thought I’d take a closer look at some of the incremental steps I see in the right direction. A recent e-mail exchange with a colleague pointed out one such item I had overlooked – John McCain’s “McCain Report”.

While I still must point out some of the things I find awkward about McCain’s blogs (not the least of which is that he has two of them that seem to compete with one another), I will note that Goldfarb’s content seems to be vastly superior to what is ostensibly their flagship blog – titled simply the “McCain Blog”.

The McCain Blog is largely the sort of press release and dull e-mail fodder we’ve come to expect from campaigns. It recaps the latest rally and pimps “new eco-friendly items” available in the McCain store. It gets updated every few days. The one upshot is they do allow discussion.

Goldfarb’s McCain Report, on the other hand, is actually good. It’s not full of PR fluff and cheerleading. It’s updated several times a day and it contains substantive material. It is what campaign blogs should be (save for the fact that McCain should occasionally author posts, which he so far has not).

Take one recent piece triggered by a Ben Smith item in the Politico:

As Ben Smith reported yesterday, the Obama campaign recently brought Jason Furman on as a senior economic advisor. Smith notes that Furman wrote a lengthy defense of Wal-Mart in 2005, titled “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.” In it Furman denies that Wal-Mart is suppressing wages, or exploiting their employees. The fact “that more than 1.3 million Americans work at Wal-Mart demonstrates that its compensation is at least as good as the alternatives,” he says. And he adds that ‚Äúthe available data is consistent with the premise that Wal-Mart pays wages that are comparable to the retail sector.‚Äù

His new boss takes a different view. In 2006, Obama told Fortune that “Wal-Mart is making enormous profits, and yet it has chosen to go with low wages and diminished benefits.” And in 2007, Obama told union members that he won’t even shop at Wal-Mart because of their exploitation of American workers. Has Obama moderated his views on Wal-Mart or will Furman and he just agree to disagree?

That is far from the typical piece on the campaign’s other blog:

Today, John McCain addressed the threat of global climate change and outlined his strategy to lead America to meet its obligations as a steward of this planet. The centerpiece of his plan is a market-based system designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy.

Be sure to watch the newest tv ad called, “A Better Way,” then click here for more information on the McCain Plan.

I’m actually very pleased to see the McCain camp doing something well. In fact, what impresses me most is the superior quality of the McCain Report when compared to the Obama blog.

Senator Obama released the following statement today in response to the news of the trade deficit increase:

Today we learned that the trade deficit jumped to its highest level in 13 months. This is not an accident. This is yet another sign of the failed economic policies of the Bush administration that John McCain seeks to extend – policies that reflect unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility and borrowing from abroad. Rather than get America’s fiscal house in order, Senator McCain is proposing $300 billion more in tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and he hasn’t explained how he’d pay for them. Just this week, John McCain reaffirmed his commitment to special interest-driven economic policies that will widen the trade deficit, but won’t help American automakers secure fair treatment in South Korea, and won’t ensure that China stops devaluing its currency and tilting the playing field against American workers. As President, Barack Obama will stand up for fiscal responsibility by restoring fairness to our economy, investing in a renewable energy future, and adopting a trade policy that serves the interests not just of multinational corporations but of America’s hardworking families.

You can learn more about Barack’s stance on trade here.

That is a stark contrast. The Obama team (vaunted as they are for their superior web skills) is running a dry boring blog, while McCain’s team have at least begun to get it. It’s nice to see.

(As a side note, I’d like to offer two suggestions to Team McCain. First, look into search engine friendly urls. Second, optimize the meta tags on your blog posts to actually include the specific content of the post. Especially with this new stuff critical of Obama, it’s going to be important that people can actually find it.

I actually can’t believe the first piece was only a month ago, however… And now he’s back with part two.

I’ll excerpt a bit, but you really should go read it all. There’s some great material in there.

Tell me the worst dating story of your life.

I fell asleep on the guy…. [My cousin] had the brilliant idea of setting us up to go see a play… I’m watching it, it’s warm in the theater, I’m sitting next to him and he’s not talking — The next thing I remember, he’s shaking me awake. I think I was drooling on his shoulder. I was out cold. I was so embarassed.

What do you think the biggest thing women have wrong about men is?

We, in our heads, over-analyze everything that the guy did. The reason that he moved to the couch was because there was more room, not because he was trying to get away from you.

What is the weirdest date you have gone on or been asked to go on.

…An Easter brunch where the guy I was dating told me I’d meet all the other girls he was dating, and sternly warned me I had to be nice to them. Obviously I didn’t go to that gathering. I never signed up to be on The Bachelor!

…The weirdest date I ever went on was when I was in college. I was taken, I swear to God I am not making this up, by a guy from my Spanish class to go to the dump and shoot rats with his friends… I didn’t hit any. I am tender hearted. …I really like shooting, but I don’t like shooting living creatures. …But, I did fire off a handgun or two, at cans.