Good Luck, GOP. See you in 2012.

Jan 22 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Pandering, Politics, Republicans

As a lot of people chatter about the departure of Fred Thompson from the race, I’m sitting here thinking about the last 9 months and wondering how I can ever look my party in the face again. For that matter, I don’t see how I can look my fellow voters in the face. Fred Thompson ran the race we all claim we want to see. For that, he got disparaging remarks about his vigor, his ambition, his wife, and his personal appearance.

It really is sad. We claim we want a candidate to talk seriously about the issues, to put forth bold policy proposals and debate on the merits of his plan. In a race crowded with style, Fred was all substance. Yet the people looked away.

In a campaign marked by cat-fights between candidates constantly engaging in underhanded digs at others’ religion, age, and life story, Fred took the high road and stuck to records, and policy. With debates that more closely resembled a three ring circus of 30 second sound bites, Fred stood, hands down, taller than the rest and demanded a little dignity.

The one “failing” of Fred Thompson seems to have been the fact that he refused to be treated like some retarded, inbred poodle jumping through every hoop the media threw in front of him.

When he built and unveiled his Internet presence, the media panned his effort with calls that he ‘plans to run his whole show online.’

When he and Jeri appeared in public, the media savaged his wife as a gold-digger, an interloper in the First Lady sweepstakes, and as a micromanaging puppet master working the strings of the campaign.

When he chose to spend time with his family, the media called him lazy, disinterested, and uncommitted.

Yet that lazy, uncommitted, disinterested candidate was the only one in the race saying something that mattered. He was the only one talking in complete sentences about the issues our nation faces. He was putting forth plans that got noticed by economists and experts as being serious and substantive. He was the only one demanding an end to the pageantry and a beginning to a new era of serious policy based campaigns. He was the only one that made it through the debates with his honesty and integrity in check.

It was, in short, exactly the kind of race we claim we want. He was, by placing his priorities on his family and not the sideshow, exactly the candidate we claim we want.

Yet once we got the campaign we’ve asked for, and once we got the candidate we asked for, he was labeled ‘lazy’ and ‘not serious’.

Well, at this point, all I can say to America is congratulations. You will get the President you deserve. You can pick from 32 flavors of vanilla. You can pick from the 6 remaining monkeys who are rabid enough in their pursuit of self-glorification that they will dance as you grind your organ. You can hold your nose and cast a ballot for candidates that perpetuate this ridiculous system we have created.

As for me, I’ll be sitting out the Presidential election this year. I am unable to find anything in the remaining candidates on either side that gives me hope at a time when we really need it. I’ll sit and ponder the death of statesmanship knowing that our American Idol obsessed culture has taken another step away from electing leaders and another step down the road of electing entertainers.

At this point I don’t see why you don’t chuck it all and simply let the winner of Bruno and Carrie’s Dance War run our nation for the next four years. I’ll bet they dance to your music better than any of the candidates you have left.

6 responses so far

Kung Fu Election

Jan 15 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Gaming, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics, Republicans

With a name like KungFuQuip.com on a blog covering politics, there was absolutely no way I could avoid commenting on Kung Fu Election. Choose your candidate and pit them against the other contenders in bloody death matches to determine the next leader of the free world. The intro song is really annoying and you should skip past it, but as it says, “China may have got our jobs, but we got their fighting skills.”

Now go out there and let John McCain, Mitt Romney, The Huckster, or Rudy serve up a hot plate of whoop ass on Obama, Richardson, Edwards or Clinton (technically Hill, but as you see in the screen grab below, just as in real life, she had to invoke the spirit of Bill to fight her battles for her).

Kung Fu Election at Atom Films

By the way, apparently they were going to include Fred Thompson, but they realized “Fred Thompson doesn’t decide who lives and who dies; he just makes it so.“

One response so far

Where’s Mini-Mitt? In Search Of End-Of-Quarter Dollars

Sep 25 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Fundraising, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics

(cross-posted at TechPresident.com)

There’s a lot of buzz in GOP internet circles about the glaring omission from Romney’s site. As we approach the end of the fundraising quarter, we all expected the return of mini-Mitt, the annoying and intrusive pitchman for the Romney campaign’s June finance crush.

With no mini-Mitt to talk about, I thought I’d look at what the campaigns are doing to grab those last minute dollars. There’s a lot going on, and it’s interesting to track the different tactics.

The House Party

In lieu of mini-Mitt, the Romney guys have rolled out a snazzy little splash page pimping the Rally for Romney (a clever rebranding of the standard “House Parties” tactic). Like Rudy’s House Party (scheduled for the 26th), the idea behind the Rally for Romney is to allow grassroots fundraisers to bundle checks and ship them off to the campaign before the end of the quarter.

House Parties are an effective method of raising money, but by comparison to traditional online tactics, I’m not sure they’re hugely profitable versus the labor. If your diligent at all about vetting the fundraisers your authorizing, you’ve got a lot of work to do. If your not, there is a good possibility your authorizing people with sketchy pasts to gather funds on your behalf.

I’m not sure that matters any more, however. Guilt by association used to be a significant reason for campaigns to watch their associates. If they’re raising small enough amounts, it may not matter.

The Celebrity Endorsement

McCain and Hillary are taking a slightly different tack. They have decided to roll out the celebrity e-mail. For Hillary the celeb in question shares a bed with her (at least occasionally), so I’m guessing it was no trouble to have Bill pen a missive.

McCain, however, decided to use the “Dancing with the Stars” definition of “star”, and rolled out an endorsement from former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach. Now, I’m not questioning the appeal of an octogenarian former football star, but I’d suggest someone with a bit more “name”. Couldn’t they find a current football player?

The celeb e-mail works, if the celeb in question is universally loved among your donors. Bill Clinton works because Democrats generally love him. Staubach is a questionable choice. I don’t know anyone but the most die hard Cowboy fan who will open their wallet simply because Roger asked.

The Viral Appeal

Obama is pushing a “matching funds” program that pairs supporters. If you give $25, some other philanthropist will match your funds. You can then exchange e-mail with them. I like the idea behind this, as it gives supporters a sense of community. Some might say it’s a bit goofy, but anything that makes people feel connected to the campaign empowers them to be a voice for the campaign.

The Give-Money-and-Win-Something Appeal

The Edwards camp is taking a page from the Obama playbook and offering a trip to meet up with Edwards for a handful of selected donors. His giveaway is a little different however. There’s no steak dinner at a fancy restaurant in store for the winner. Nope. The grand prize winners will be whisked off to N’awlins, Louisiana for a fun filled day of rebuilding Katrina damage.

I’m not knocking voluntourism. I think efforts to help the Big Easy rebuild are fantastic. I’m just not sure that helping John do a roof raising in the Ninth Ward is the type of tchotchke most people would be hoping for.

The Thompson finance team has a similar contest going, but it’s geography based. The town that brings in the most donations per capita by midnight on 9/30 gets a visit from Fred. It’s sort of a cross between Eventful and traditional fundraising.

There Can Be Only One

The downside to these efforts is the only people who will ever know if they’re successful are those in the respective campaigns. These aren’t likely to comprise the bulk of funds raised. The money rankings will come out in a week, and the winners and losers will be declared. Ultimately, the best online fundraising idea may belong to a candidate who doesn’t fare well overall.

Rest assured, though. In another 90 days, we’ll do it all again.

No responses yet

All Our Eggs in One Basket

Sep 19 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics, Republicans

As things look bleaker and bleaker for the GOP’s hopes next year, it’s becoming clear that our chances of holding the line in the Senate (which was already going to be difficult) and the possibility of picking up seats in Congress are both almost completely out the window. The math just isn’t there for us. We need to hold twice as many seats in the Senate as the Dems do. That’s bad. We also have a handful of incumbents bailing out, that’s worse. Throw in the marginal seats where we were already looking at a tough fight and we’re in deep trouble on the North side of Capitol Hill.

The House, sadly, isn’t looking much better. Sadly, the only thing I feel good about there is the comments Jack Murtha has been making lately. When Democrats start making claims that they’ll gain another 40-50 seats, I start to feel better. Their ability to forecast elections, and their tendency to over-promise and under-deliver is legendary.

That said, I do think the possibility exists that the Democrats could pick up another dozen. Frankly, I think it all depends on who gets the party nods for POTUS. We’re not in a mid-year, we’re in a Presidential cycle. That changes the dynamics of the election completely. There will be a lot of people who are turning out to vote for or against the nominees. Unlike ’06, this will not be an election about Bush, regardless of how hard the Democrats will try to make the GOP nominee into his stand-in. It will be about Hillary/Obama versus the GOP candidate.

If we’re facing Hillary, the number of GOP voters who will turn out for no reason other than to keep her out of the White House will greatly aid our chances at holding our own in Congress. If the Democrats pick Obama (or even Edwards, for that matter), the enthusiasm of the GOP voters will be greatly diminished. Only if we have an exciting candidate of our own can we get it back.

That’s the reason I got behind Fred. Mitt, Rudy and McCain just don’t rev the engine. It’s like going to McDonald’s and having three choices of shake flavors – but all of them are vanilla. Fred has the star power to make the race interesting, the others simply don’t.

I know, I know. Rudy keeps telling us he’s the only guy that can beat Hillary. It’s in every e-mail he sends out and it sounds more and more pathetic every time. Don’t buy it.

You need 50% plus one to win, and 40% of the electorate is Republican. If Rudy is hovering in the 25% range in polls of GOP primary voters, that means he’s got the backing of 10% of the electorate. If 30% of the electorate is having doubts before the first vote is cast, and 40% of the electorate are Democrats, you’re going to have a hard time getting from 10% to 50%. It’s just simple math, no matter how hard they try to bloviate.

The fact is all of our eggs are in the Presidential basket. If we get the right candidate, we can win. If we don’t, we’re in for a beating of epic proportions.

No responses yet

Context

May 21 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics, Republicans, Technology, The Internet

The Washington Post today carries an article covering the state of online politics and the relative advantages/disadvantages of the two parties. I’m quoted in the article on a couple of topics. I think there are a couple of things Vargas gets wrong, but he gets the general theme right – the GOP is playing catch up online.

I’m sure I will continue to catch hell from former colleagues at the RNC. I’m not exactly the most popular guy over there given my comments about this issue. This article is unlikely to change that. I would like, however, to provide a little context for my comments.

Yes, I’m critical of our efforts. Yes, I am probably too critical. There are a lot of people who believe these conversations are a private issue – keep them in the family, and don’t air your dirty laundry in public. I respect that opinion, but I fundamentally disagree. I think that perspective is an example of the problem we have online.

Now, should anyone take my thoughts as the gospel? Absolutely not. I’m just some guy who has some thoughts about the party, and what I think it should do differently. And that’s the point.

The Internet fosters debate and discussion. It allows an open, and deliberative decision making process. By having this discussion publicly, we bring people to the process who have been shut out. Many of those people have very good ideas – not just about the Internet and ways to reach and move people, but about policies, and ideas, and ways to make the country better. The best ideas will float up. Are mine the best? Not hardly.

Despite my willingness to speak publicly, I am actually terribly self-conscious and am probably harder on myself than I would ever be on the party. I am only willing to speak because it is a discussion that I believe needs to take place, and I hope to encourage others to jump in.

As for my feelings on the RNC, Vargas quotes me accurately. However, my feelings about the RNC bureaucracy could probably apply to just about any large, storied institution. Entities like that become complacent by nature. They lose sight of their mission because they put too much emphasis on protecting their reputation. I don’t begrudge the RNC for that, at all.

The Internet, however, is less about tradition and more about innovation. Online, if your reflection on past success prevents you from evolving, you die. If you can’t adapt to the other guys better idea, he wins. In a business that is about nothing but winning, that becomes problematic. The slow-mover gets run over. For us, the question is whether we’ll see the car coming before its tires crush our rib cage.

With regard to Rudy’s site, it’s unfortunate that Vargas chose to single out my critique of Rudy’s. I don’t think Rudy’s site is necessarily better or worse than McCain’s or Romney’s (or Hillary’s for that matter). He could just as easily have quoted many comments I’ve made to the effect that most of the current crop of Presidential candidates (on both sides, and, I believe, excepting Obama) have failed to move the ball.

That said, I think we’re going to see some really interesting things in online politics this cycle, but I’m also hopeful that a lot of what will be remembered after 2008 will have been done by Republicans.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »