David Responds

Oct 25 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Craziness, Democrats, Pandering, Politics, Republicans, Self-Promotion, The Internet

I had heard through the rumor mill today that David was fairly upset at Erick Erickson and I (and later Lance Dutson) for chastising him about his recent rant against RedState for banning Ron Paul’s venom spewing minions. I had heard he was worked up and would be writing a reply, so I’ve been keeping an eye out for it.

I assumed David would argue that he’s not bent on self-promotion. I had expected him to challenge the notion that he continually puts himself above the cause. I had a number of things floating through my head that perfectly illustrated David’s tendency to do this. The best example was the e-mail I received asking about the status of RightRoots while we were rebuilding. I told him we were expanding what we had done in 2006 and would soon be rolling out the new version. He then rushed to build Slatecard to compete with it.

Now I’m not against competition and welcome it, but it seemed odd that given his desire to advance the cause he would choose to muddy the water with multiple competing interests rather than jumping on board an existing initiative. His actions, in retrospect, all make sense. He would have been assisting with RightRoots, but his name would be synonymous with Slatecard.

So I had all this stuff running through my head, and the strangest thing happened. He explained away his tendency to put himself above his cause as the practical reality of trying to run a business in the PR world. So be it. It seems he agrees with our assessment that he’s out for himself, and offers a reason, so I’ll simply accept it and move on.

His motivations notwithstanding, let me dig into his reasoning for opposing the ban (he completely ignores the Google/MoveOn controversy by the way, and that is most of what Dutson dinged him on, so we’ll get back to that). David argues that the support for Paul is very real, and as evidence offers a NH poll out today showing him with 7 percent support.

And in New Hampshire, a state which Paul hasn’t actively campaigned in, he places fourth in a poll which was just released today by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College…

Ron Paul is turning on people that have likely never been turned on to politics including young people. And regardless of what party they thought they belonged to, they are now supporting a Republican candidate.

Well, actually, no, they aren’t. They’re supporting a fringe Libertarian candidate. Now don’t get me wrong. I consider myself to be of the libertarian wing of the GOP. I am not, by any stretch, in the religious faction and nobody who knows me would accuse me of that. As a libertarian Republican, I cannot now, nor will I ever, get behind Ron Paul. If Paul is our nominee, I would have to push the button for Hillary. I could no more vote for Ron Paul than for Dennis Kucinich.

And what’s interesting is another little study out today that shows I’m not the only one who considers Hillary to be more conservative than Paul. Based on visitors to their website, and those same visitors tendency to read partisan blogs, the kind folks at Compete have analyzed “The Company They Keep” – a look at the reading habits of campaign supporters. What did it show?

Internet darling Ron Paul is attracting significant interest from the left, leapfrogging even Hillary Clinton.

What, you say? Ron Paul’s supporters spend more time reading liberal blogs than conservative blogs? 23% of Paul’s visitors read liberal blogs while only 13% read conservative blogs. They are almost twice as likely to read liberal blogs than conservative. Does that make them “Reagan Democrats”? All draws that comparison (one that any Republican who was actually alive during Reagan’s entire tenure in office would find distasteful).

The fact is Ron Paul personifies a brand of Republicanism that most Republicans find objectionable. If the Republicans spontaneously nominated Howard Dean, there would be an exodus of GOPers regardless of how many crazed liberals he brought along.

All further explains his belief that Ron Paul represents “change” and this is going to be a change election. (Note: I have advocated that this is shaping up to be an anti-incumbent election, but not necessarily a change election in the traditional sense. 2006 was about change. 2008 is about anger at Washington. That’s not about change, that’s about lashing out with little concern for the fallout, and is a very dangerous and unpredictable type of election for either party.)

I disagree with his description of Paul as the change candidate, as well. Paul is a reactionary candidate. He is attractive to a very narrow and angry minority who feel displaced by society at any given point. If he loses the GOP nomination (which I will go out on a limb and guarantee) he will seek the Libertarian nomination (mark my words). His supporters will follow him, and he will get the same .5% that Harry Browne garnered in 1996 and 2000.

Will a single one of his supporters (attracted to an anti-war libertarian who has accused the current GOP administration of engaging in an illegal war) support a nominee that is likely to be in favor of finishing the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubt it. If his anti-war hysteria is what draws them to Paul, I don’t really think they’ll hang in there to vote for Rudy, Fred, Romney or McCain regardless of how welcome RedState makes them feel.

All’s attitude reminds me of the county parties in New Mexico. When I was first hired to analyze the races in the state and make recommendations regarding which legislative districts would get resources (and where we should deny them), we were met with howls. The “fair” thing to do would be to divide the money evenly amongst our counties and candidates. We stuck to our guns, and ignored districts where we would not win, and put it into districts where we could. As long as we did, we added seats every year (regardless of what happened in DC or the statewide races. It was only when we were savaged by infighting that we lost.

David’s model is much the same. We should expend resources trying to make inroads in places we have no hope of making them. It’s a losing philosophy. It’s throwing a hail Mary on first and ten instead of steadily moving the goal posts.

Google/MoveOn

David, as I mentioned, left the Google question untouched. Lance Dutson (who, like me, All describes as a ‘friend’ despite not knowing either of us very well) was not kind to David when he weighed in:

I don’t know David All very well, but I do know him. Based on my experience, I think I would take this beyond the criticism of self-promotion that Turk and Erickson levy against him, and say that he is actually hurting the very movement he has anointed himself the leader of. David All is providing a crass misrepresentation of the work that the rest of us are doing, he’s proffering poorly-deduced theories about how the Right should use the internet, and he’s allowing the traditional media to paint Republicans as inept and childish when it comes to technology. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with some extremely talented people in this world over the last few years, and it really bothers me that David All has become the public face of what is in reality a remarkable group of people. His two-dimensional YouTube mania, his incessant and misplaced references to Anderson’s Long Tail theory, and his predilection for cliche in lieu of explanation works to widen the gap between an older generation of Republican leaders and the rest of us who are attempting to convince them of the need to evolve.

He also sums up David’s approach to the Google/Collins flap pretty succinctly.

All wrote a post about the issue at TechRepublican.com, in which he described me as his ‘friend’. His post indicated that he had contacted Google, and that after listening to what they had to say, he agreed with Google’s decision to ban the ads. Strangely, All didn’t bother to contact his ‘friend’ to get reaction or further explanation, a move that would have helped him avoid making a completely incorrect assessment of the situation.

I don’t think I can top that, so I’ll stop trying.

Comments

The Forgotten (Or Ignored) Libertarian Vote

Dec 13 2006 Published by under Democrats, Elections, Pandering, Politics, Republicans

The Hotline’s Blogometer today notes an Andrew Sullivan post covering this piece on Tech Central Station from David Boaz (of CATO) and David Kirby (of America’s Future Foundation). (Hopefully that’s enough attribution to keep me in good standing as a blogger… dear lord…).

The general theme reflects (with actual evidence) what I have been saying since before the election (based solely on my beliefs as a libertarian voter). The swing in libertarian votes away from the GOP was much, much larger than the swing amongst so-cons, and likely cost the GOP congress.

This year we commissioned a nationwide post-election survey of 1013 voters from Zogby International. We again found that 15 percent of the voters held libertarian views. We also found a further swing of libertarians away from Republican candidates. In 2006, libertarians voted 59-36 for Republican congressional candidates—a 24-point swing from the 2002 mid-term election. (emphasis mine) To put this in perspective, front-page stories since the election have reported the dramatic 7-point shift of white conservative evangelicals away from the Republicans. The libertarian vote is about the same size as the religious right vote measured in exit polls, and it is subject to swings more than three times as large.

The media loves to make a big deal about the strength of the so-cons within the party, but the fact is it is the libertarian vote (the fiscally conservative, socially liberal wing) that turned away from the party.

As I have always said, the fiscal conservatives put up with the so-cons agenda for regulating personal issues as long as the fiscal house was kept in check. The so-con wing had traditionally kept the fiscal house in check as long as they were free to pursue the social issues. That held the coalition together.

Over the last six years, the so-cons abandoned the pretense of fiscal restraint while pursuing, unchecked, their social agenda. This year alone, the Congressional agenda focused on social issues at the expense of good government in a blatant attempt to mobilize the so-con base.

The libertarians fled rather than betray their principles. In many cases they voted Libertarian as a protest (Boaz and Kirby highlight a number of races where the Libertarian vote was greater than the margin of victory for the Dem).

The bloodletting of libertarian votes has been going on for some time, however.

Based on the turnout in 2004, Bush’s margin over Kerry dropped by 4.8 million votes among libertarians. Had he held his libertarian supporters, he would have won a smashing reelection rather than squeaking by in Ohio.

That’s right! Despite popular perception within the party that Bush improved his numbers dramatically in all sectors in 2004, he actually lost libertarian votes. He could have won a Reagan-esque landslide victory had he not abandoned fiscal conservatism in his first term. His three million vote margin could have been nearly eight million.

I, and many of my friends back home, have always maintained that we support the GOP because it was easier to push for limited government in your personal life with Republicans who otherwise supported fiscal discipline and small government than it was to support lower taxes and smaller government within a Democrat party that historically believes in a large fed.

It doesn’t appear that is universally true anymore. If the Democrats pursue an agenda of taxation and larger federal programs, the libertarians will likely return home. However, if Democrats understand they will not win the South on a values debate, they may begin to pursue more fiscal conservatism (balancing the budget, reining in spending, and actually implementing real pay-go rules).

If that happens, the GOP may become the permanent minority as more libertarians shun the party of the religious right. As Boaz and Kirby state:

If Republicans can’t win New Hampshire and the Mountain West, they can’t win a national majority. And they can’t win those states without libertarian votes. They’re going to need to stop scaring libertarian, centrist, and independent voters with their social-conservative obsessions and become once again the party of fiscal responsibility.

Comments

More On Mair, Moderates, and Martin

Nov 30 2006 Published by under Candidates, Elections, Politics, Republicans

I couldn’t resist the alliteration when I saw Martin Knight’s reply to Liz Mair. In it, he leaves yet another little tidbit I find to tempting to resist.

In other words, we’re on the same side. That doesn’t mean we must be in lockstep. But it does mean that you should shield my back from the other side because we wear the same jersey. Don’t assist the other side in hurting me, because that also hurts you.

Does that include the way Steve Laffey shielded Lincoln Chafee? Everyone knew that a social conservative running in Rhode Island would get about 9% of the vote. That did not, however, stop the so-cons from savaging Chafee and leaving him mortally wounded following the primary.

The RNC, no fan of Chafee over the years, came to his aid because they realized the rigidly conservative Laffey would be unable to win. Chafee was, for all his undeniable warts, the only one of the two who could win. Is the Senate better served by yet another Democrat who will unflinchingly serve Harry Reid than they were by a guy who voted with the GOP 30% of the time?

Is that what Martin calls “shielding my back”? If so, and a moderate is counting on him for protection, I’d hedge my bets and buy some body armor.

He also makes a claim that he can argue on behalf of prohibitions on gay marriage and abortion without using religion and with consistent support for small government. I would like to issue a formal challenge to do just that.

Martin, I will gladly repost your reply to this challenge in its entirety if you care to make a coherent attempt at answering it. Please explain, without resorting to questions of religion or morality and within the framework of a party that believes in federal government as a last resort, why abortion should be legislated by Congress and why gay marriage should be federally prohibited rather than decided on a state by state basis.

I eagerly await your reply.

Comments

Liz Mair, Moderates, and RedState

Nov 30 2006 Published by under Congress, Elections, Politics, Republicans

So Liz Mair over at GOPProgress.com is shooting it out with Martin Knight at RedState over the blame game for the loss of Congress. The comments on Martin’s piece are full of chatter about two things – a glaring whole in his argument and the decision by fiscal conservatives to withhold their vote from sell outs.

Knight argues that the fiscal conservatives and moderates have begun calling the so-cons names, but the so-cons would never, ever do that sort of thing.

Take a look through all these websites and I can guarantee you that you would search in vain for even one positive mention made of traditional conservative Republicans. The attitude towards decent people like Jon Kyl, Todd Tiarht, Jeb Hensarling, etc. ranges strictly from hatred to contempt.

Perhaps it is possible that the fiscally conservative wing of the party got a bit sick of being called RINOs all the time. It’s entirely possible that we get sick to death of being told we’re “squishy” for opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion – despite the fact that is the more ‘conservative’ position.

I take pride in the fact that I oppose a constitutional ban on abortion. I find any attempt by ‘Republicans’ to argue for a ban to be complete hypocrisy. The Republican Party is the party of small government, and local control. Yet the social conservatives look to the Fed because they keep losing the dispute at the local level.

That’s the problem I have with the so-con wing of the party. The fiscal conservatives may withhold a vote for a Republican who refuses to support fiscal discipline. That may cost us control of congress. But over the long term, I find that holding true to your beliefs is far less damaging to the nation as a whole than being a total sell out.

Look at the Schiavo situation. That case was decided by the state court. As believers in local control and small federal government, that should have been the end of the Republican Party’s involvement. However, the social conservatives lost, so they abandoned the principles of the party to further their single issue.

They demanded Republicans overturn a state court ruling, and throw the massive power of the federal government at the issue. They demanded a Presidential veto and recalled Congress to meet in emergency session to intervene in a case they should never have waded into.

They compromised their belief in the principles of the Party in pursuit of their social agenda. That is their prerogative. However, if they choose to do so, in my book at least, they lose all credibility in castigating others for selling out the party.

When fiscal conservatives stick to our guns and refuse to elect those who would vote for higher deficits while claiming to be in favor of balanced budgets; those who would pay for ever expanding social programs that benefit nobody by mortgaging our kids future; and those who had become so corrupted by the excess of Washington that they made excuses for pedophiles in order to keep their power, the finger of blame for the loss is pointed at us.

Fine, I say. Point that finger right at me. If my vote (or lack there of) for integrity, honesty, responsible government and fiscal discipline is what cost us the election, I take responsibility loudly and proudly.

The Republican Party was founded on the principles of fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism. The formation of a social/fiscal conservative coalition was a strategic choice that has worked well as long as the two wings respect each other and do not throw each other under the bus to meet our goals.

What has happened with the Republican Party over the last six years is exactly the sort of disparity that would threaten that balance. The administration catered more to social conservatism than to fiscal discipline. They created things like the Office of Faith Based Initiatives without a corresponding decrease in the existing social program infrastructure. They pursued tax cuts with a corresponding reduction in the growth of federal spending. They pursued anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage initiatives with no corresponding recognition of the fact that two dates brought them to the dance and both expected a kiss at the end of the night.

One reader who left Knight’s a comment said something that illustrates the flaw in logic evident in the post itself.

Say what you want about Fallwell and Robertson, but they fought hard for the GOP in the 80s and 90s and swung the vote our way and without them we will not win another elcetion (sic).

Nobody in the fiscal wing is arguing that point. What they are saying is they did not win the election on their own. They won because they teamed with a party that had its roots in small government and fiscal conservatism. Despite that, over nearly 30 years of relative GOP success, they have come to believe that they are solely responsible for the Party’s success. They have decided that the plant can live without its roots.

They are terribly, terribly mistaken.

What I suspected came to fruition. I voiced my concern that the fiscal conservatives, frustrated by no longer having a party that believed in their cause, would choose not to engage.

WaPo quotes a bunch of people fretting over the possibility that religious conservatives will stay home rather than returning the GOP to power. Honestly, that‚Äôs not my biggest fear. I‚Äôm more afraid that the religious conservatives are the only ones that will vote for us…

We’ve given fiscal conservatives no reason to vote for the GOP. We’ve given moderates no reason to vote for the GOP. Now Foley and the inept response of the leadership have taken away any reason a normal human would want to keep us in power. If all we care about is protecting our turf, and are willing to let a member of Congress prey on kids to do it, we deserve to lose.

Add to that the fact that somehow we overlooked a member of Congress printing bribery menus on Congressional note cards; Abramoff offering to buy Congressional offices at low, low bargain prices; and then staged a completely ineffectual response to any of it, and you’ve removed almost any reason for anyone to support the GOP.

If the social conservatives turn out, but nobody else does – or worse, the rest turn out and vote Democrat – that will cost us Congress.

That is exactly what happened. Now, the rest of my prediction, as evidenced by Knight’s post, is beginning to come true.

It will also lead the GOP to do even more to alienate mainstream America by pandering to those that did show up – the religious zealots.

If the social conservatives believe that they can win on their own, I’m tempted to let them try. In the meantime, I will continue to support candidates that pursue responsible government and restrained spending – and oppose all others.

Comments

Libertarianism

Oct 13 2006 Published by under Craziness, Democrats, Government, Politics, Republicans

Liz Mair over at GOPProgress.com has taken a look at Kos’s argument that the Democrats are more libertarian friendly. Kos argues:

This is really about the future of the [Democrat] party, rather than what it has traditionally been.

So all those libertarians seeking some pandering, too bad. This isn’t about you. It’s about us. Now libertarians have a choice ‚Äî continue to be taken for granted and pandered to inside a Republican Party hostile to just about everything important to libertarians, or help fuel the libertarian left. Of course, they can vote big “L” Libertarian or sit elections out. But if they want to have a real effect on the political process, the two major parties are pretty much it. And, fact is, one party is moving closer to traditional libertarian principles while the other is moving away from them.

It really is sort of a ridiculous argument that ignores a) the foundations of the two political parties, b) the recent history of the two major political parties, and c) the difference between national politics and local politics.

Continue Reading »

Comments

« Newer posts Older posts »