The Politico today has a column penned by David All, a young GOP internet consultant, and Saul Anuzis, Chairman of the Michigan GOP. The column looks at the premise that the GOP is behind its Democratic counterparts online, and suggests one possible reason why - we don’t support the idea of big government intervention in regulating the Internet.

As Republicans, we must not only adopt the new techniques and structure of Internet democracy, but also understand the importance of preserving the open nature of the Net as a policy issue.The tools that are available at low cost to Republicans are only there because of an Internet ecosystem that has managed to remain open, despite the efforts of phone and cable companies.

Republicans need to adopt a lighter approach that will preserve the values of decentralization and freedom — essential conservative values — on the Internet. If we fail to engage in this effort, the Internet service providers, who control the last mile of the tubes into a customer’s house or small business, will choke off the affordable tools available to conservative activists.They have already started exercising their market power to block applications that enable Internet users to distribute information across the Net.

They will make the Internet look a lot more like cable TV, where citizens lack access to every legal channel available and where, consequently, conservative activists get shut out. Taking away these free tools will come at the major expense of the activists and small-businesspeople who are the core of our party’s strength.

Given the attacks on cable and telephone companies in this diatribe, it would be easy enough to discount any response from me as shilling on behalf of cable. Look at my bio, however, and you’ll see that I may be the one person uniquely qualified to address every inaccuracy and outrageous claim in his post. Prior to coming to work in the cable industry, I was the eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney ‘04, and the Republican National Committee. I’ve been involved in Republican politics - and online politics - since I launched one of the first state party websites (EVER) at the New Mexico GOP in 1995. At that time, there were only about 5 state parties online.

Since I have been active in GOP politics, and specifically online politics, since Andreesson released the browser in 1994, I have a bit to say about the reasons the GOP is behind (which virtually nobody argues). As an employee of the cable industry, I have a bit to say about what , if anything, that has to do with net neutrality.

The Cyclical Nature of Politics

To begin with, I, and many others, believe the GOP is behind online for the simple reason that it has never had to be ahead. When the GOP was previously in the minority it turned to talk radio to communicate and organize. In the early 1990s, talk radio was the most interactive medium and the party out of power generally gravitates to the best available method of message disbursement and organization.

In 2000, when the Democrats were out of power, they did the same and gravitated toward the Internet. The Republican Party still dominates talk radio, though the Democrats have been making inroads. Unfortunately, you can’t give money through your radio, so the media focused on the Internet and long ago stopped writing the “Why aren’t Democrats on talk radio?” stories.

Just as there is nothing preventing Democrats from building an audience on talk radio, there is nothing preventing Republicans from achieving online. Now that we are in the minority in Congress and, if Obama wins, may be completely out of power, Republicans will look to rebuild using the tools that offer the most capability to interact and spread a message. They will eventually catch up to and surpass what the Democrats are doing. That’s the cyclical nature of politics.

But What Does Net Neutrality Have to Do With This?

The short answer is absolutely nothing. But David is part of a group called Internet For Everyone whose founders have suggested nationalization of the Internet. The list of his coalition partners reads like a who’s who of the left. ACLU, ACORN, Care2, NOW and SEIU are just a few of the far left groups signed on to the project. David and his two web properties - SlateCard and Techrepublican - appear to be the only GOP organizations onboard with the project.

To his specific claim, it is simply absurd to make the suggestion that Republicans are behind because there is no national broadband solution. David might as well argue that the GOP is behind because the government hasn’t bought everyone a car. The two are just as closely related.

David, like most people arguing for Net Neutrality likes to throw out numbers that seem to support his point.

America’s rural voters are largely Republican. Yet they face major challenges in gaining access to a broadband Internet connection. The latest U.S. Census data show that only 39 percent of rural households subscribe to broadband — and nearly 10 million rural households are in areas not served by any broadband provider.

These figures come from an Internet for Everyone document, which cites a 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) of the U.S. Census Bureau.  There is a document available on the NTIA website that provides statistics from the CPS. According to the CPS, 39% of rural households did respond that they have broadband service, but 19% also said they have dial-up, and another 10% responded that they access the Internet outside of their home.  Thus 68% of rural households access the Internet according to the CPS survey.  The figures for urban households, the only other category, were 54% broadband, 9% dial-up, and 9% outside of the home, for a total of 72%.  The spread between rural and urban households is only 4%, hardly qualifying as a great divide, or leaving the poor rural folks behind.

Neither the NTIA site nor the CPS study address the 10 million households claim. The 10 million figure may be arrived at by referring to the number of housing units not passed by cable broadband service, according to estimates provided by SNL Kagan - a media research firm. Kagan found that 10 million households, not rural households, don’t have access to cable broadband - not broadband at all, which is what David claims . Simply put, not all of these people live in rural areas. For instance, some areas in Montgomery County, Maryland - a suburb of Washington DC, are unserved by cable, but that is hardly a “rural” area. Moreover, some of those are served by telephone company broadband service - as in Montgomery County. There are suburban or exurban communities that cable doesn’t serve, for one reason or another.

David also fails to note that the cable broadband he denigrates was a) built with $130 billion in private capital, not government subsidies, and b) was built without the burden of government regulation that hampered development of DSL. It was the lack of regulation and the investment of private funds that created the platform we rely on for high bandwidth applications. The cable system that serves 92% of Americans with broadband was built under a system identical to the current regulatory regime, not under the ‘good old days’ of common carrier and forced access.

It’s worth noting, by comparison, that the telephone companies sat on DSL technology for more than a decade while under the exact regulatory regime the IFE folks are now promoting. There was simply no incentive to invest in a network technology they could not monetize and see returns on the initial outlay. Now that they have been freed of such regulations, the telephone companies are aggressively building a $100+ billion Fiber to the Home networkto compete with cable.

Since David’s whole argument hinges on getting rural, Republican voters connected, it’s important to note that he got his central supporting facts wrong with regard to the current status of rural broadband. David made the same arguments in a Washington Times video interview posted yesterday (in which he conveniently rounds the number of Americans without a broadband connection down to 50%, despite many current estimates which place the figure at between 42% and 45% and likely to drop to 40% when numbers are compiled for the second quarter of 2008).

Since he has a habit of misstating facts and figures, one must ask if he is uninformed or intentionally misquoting numbers to justify his thesis. My belief is the former, but I still have some suspicion it may be the latter.

Further Pandering

Part of the reason I believe David may simply be desperate to make his case and willing to clutch at straws is the way he characterized the AP “research” into the Comcast/BitTorrent issue.

For example, Comcast was caught red-handed by The Associated Press blocking the distribution of the King James Bible. Martin launched an investigation and convened public hearings that put Comcast in the hot seat.

That is an absolutely false characterization of what happened. The Comcast/BitTorrent flap was a matter of Comcast trying to guarantee the best possible experience for the vast majority of its users, and trying to restrict the impact that heavy users of P2P applications have on broadband networks.

David implies that a) Comcast was aware the content the AP used in its test was the King James Bible and b) specifically targeted that traffic. Why would he make such outrageous claims to make his case? Because David is trying to convince Republicans to support his cause, and Republicans identify strongly with issues of faith. By claiming “the big bad cable company tried to stop you from seeing the bible” he’s pandering in the worst possible way.

As a Republican

As a Republican, I would be skeptical of Internet regulation on the best day, and downright hostile on any other. I do not believe the imposition of a new regulatroy regime is the cure to the perceived ills of either the state of broadband or the state of my party.  As someone who has been thinking of ways for Republicans to use the Internet for almost fifteen years, I disagree completely with David’s ridiculous claim that the only way to save the party is to create a new bureaucracy to regulate the Internet.

While I respect David’s opinion and right to speak out on whatever topic he chooses, I firmly believe he could not be further off track on this issue.  I also hope he will take the time to address my deconstruction of his argument and answer my challenge to the factual basis of his column. He may perhaps become informed about the subject matter rather than irresponsibly disseminating mistruths.

I’m actually working on a lengthy deconstruction of the parts he gets completely wrong and his outright fabrication of facts to make his point.  I’ll be posting that soon via one or more of the outlets for which I write.

On a personal level, however, one thing jumped out at me.  David makes the following claim about Republicans who oppose Internet regulation:

[I]f Republicans hide behind goals such as protecting the free market and refuse to engage in protecting the open Internet, we will cede ground to the left…

Honestly, I don’t know a single free market Republican who believes they’re “hiding behind goals” when they advocate for free market solutions and keeping the government from creating ever more bureaucracy.  David’s commitment to the ideals of the party seems to be so superficial that he sees remaining true to those ideals as nothing but a beard to be worn for convenience.

I am a loud and proud free market Republican.  I don’t believe that giving the government regulatory authority over technology they barely comprehend, let alone understand, is a bad idea.  Hopefully, I’m not alone in that.

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…

“This list is getting so long that everyone’s going to end up on it eventually,” joked Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has advised Obama on whom to pick.

The list of people I have heard on both sides can only be described as staggering.  I pity the poor saps in research shops who are pouring over every word, every nuance, every tenuous grasp at a position these would be Cheneys have ever uttered, muttered or drafted.

One name that keeps popping up on the GOP side is Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana.  The mere mention of his name is typically followed by “but if he’s smart, he’ll say no.  Otherwise he’s ruining himself.”

On that note, I’d like to specifically state that I’m not interested in the job.  Given my clearly demonstrated independence, I might be just the kind of guy McCain looks for to balance his “not your father’s GOP” positioning.  While I would appreciate the attention, I just wouldn’t want to ruin myself either.

The most annoying thing is the fact that every time I play, I can’t get the music that runs behind the menu out of my head.  Driving in this morning I was playing it over and over in my brain.  I did a quick Google search to find the artist and discovered it’s actually in the game, but unlocked only in the co-op career mode.

The offending tune?  Matchbook Romance’s Monsters.  Here’s the video, in case you’re interested.

Last week the Obama campaign released a list of states where it was going up with advertising - Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

An odd grouping of states, no doubt.  I saw a couple of posts that could explain most of those choices, but te authors always had trouble with Alaska, North Dakota and other outliers. Most posts simply suggested this was a combination of three things; trying to expand the map, normal targeting choices, and pipe dreams.

I disagree and I’d like to propose a new theory - one that I believe explains every choice very clearly.

At about the same time this list was released, I was listening to a presentation regarding state legislative bodies and places where the partisan control of chambers was razor thin.  What surprised me was the striking similarity between the two lists.

The states that would not normally be target states, but in which he is spending money have one of two common characteristics.  They are either states in which the Democrats are exceptionally close to controlling one or both houses, or states where they control one or both houses by slim margins.

Essentially, Obama (a former state legislator himself) is playing small ball. He’s using the vast sum of money he’s going to raise to set up the rest of the team for scoring runs.  He understands the role of state legislatures and is helping them increase their numbers.

Why?  Because Obama and his team are looking to pull a Tom Delay.  By setting up the Democrats to win these legislative bodies, he’ll be able to stymie (or dominate) the redistricting process and be able to not only elect more Democrats, but use it to put even larger majorities in place after 2010.

Will the Democrats have enough money to compete in 2010 and win the seats then?  Maybe. Maybe not.  However, it’s generally harder to raise the funds to compete in state legislative races, reagrdless of the top of the ticket.

In 2008, however, if Obama can actually raise and spend $500 million, that allows for a huge amount of leeway.  By spending money on uplifting ads like his first, in states where he’s not likely to win statewide, he can still move numbers on a district by district basis.  He can use vast sums of money to help them now, and focus next year on the few remaining seats necessary to seize power

What this all means for Republicans is scary.

Whether John McCain wins or not is almost irrelevant.  If Obama does what I think he’s doing, even if the Republicans are successful at challenging Democrats in 2010 and win back some seats (I’m working under the assumption that 2008 is a wash at best for us), the legislatures the Democrats control after November can erase those gains in redistricting.  We could be looking at a minority for a long time to come.

While we fret about the chances of J-Mac or our ability to reclaim congressional districts, we should be looking a lot closer at state legislative races and how to make a difference in these states.  We should be looking for ways to beat back Team Obama and prevent them from relegating the GOP to a long time in the wilderness.

Update: Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico and Obama’s Deputy campaign manager for confirming my hypothesis in today’s Politico.

But winning the White House won’t be his only goal, deputy campaign manager Hildebrand told Politico: In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places like Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

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?

This is the Worlde created using that post (click the img to see it larger).

Like many things on the net, the relative usefulness of this is low versus the entertainment value.    As a blogger, however, I like it for the way it frames the things I’m talking about in the larger context of the total volume of traffic on those subjects.

It’s worth a few minutes of your time to test it out.

Check out the video for Diablo Rojo below.

Making that argument to someone like me, however, is kind of a goofy thing to do.  I’ve been involved in campaign politics for almost twenty years now.  I’ve worked in politics at just about every level.  If I’m looking at a third party, I fully understand the implications of that.

Further, I think anyone who watched the elections in 1992 and 2000 knows full well what that means.  Even if I didn’t, however, it’s still a lame argument.  It assumes you know more about what I want than I do. 

When I decide to vote Libertarian (and that day will come soon, I suspect, though maybe not this year), It should send a signal that on my set of issues, I have determined the GOP has completely abdicated it’s support.  Yet the best argument you can offer is I should vote for the guy that’s giving me nothing because it’s a better option than the other guy who will give me nothing.

The other rejoinder is, “you should vote GOP for no other reason than the possibility that liberals will retire from the Supreme Court.”  Well, neither Republican nor Democratic appointees have done a lot for me lately.  I have jokingly said, “the Constitution’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.”  By that I implicate the Supreme Court as bit players in the larger partisan manipulation of society.  Yesterday’s 5-4 decision on the rights of detainees is exemplary of that.

Look at the attempt to deny habeas corpus to the detainees held at Guantanamo and the GOP’s willingness to toss that out for at least one set of people.  The Constitution seems pretty clear on trials:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, admittedly, I’m not a legal scholar, but I don’t see any reference in the the sixth amendment that carves out military tribunals, Guantanamo Bay, and enemy combatants.  That almost half the court (the conservative appointees no less) would toss out long held Constitutional protections in an overtly partisan manner is discouraging.  Add to that the willing treatment of these detainees as somehow less than human and you’ve got a court that makes me more nervous than thankful.

With that precedent set, what would stop another Congress from deciding that Republicans did not deserve such rights if we protest?  Based on the anti-militia group fever that ran rampant in the mid 1990s, I could see a Democrat political machine rounding up the most activist Republicans and holding them without trial as enemy combatants because “they might belong to militias.”

That also argues that the five liberal members of the court were not exactly acting with pure motives, either.  The fact that the majority’s decision read like it was written from DailyKos talking points was not lost on me.  The Supreme Court has become as partisan as Congress and now makes decisions based on prevailing partisan views, not based on the Constitution. 

Why would your best argument against my third party vote be, “We’ll give you even more reactionary judges willing to set dangerous precedents for partisan reasons?”

So here’s what I’m trying to say…  Don’t talk to me as if I have no idea what a third party vote means, and don’t talk to me as if you come from a position of moral authority when warning me against it.  If either of the political parties stood for something beyond winning in the next election, I’d vote based on that. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that’s true.