Get This Blog by Email
BlogAboutBlogOverclockedResearchInitiativesPhotos

August, 2007 Archive

 < Home


links for 2007-08-20

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 20th, 2007 8:26 am

Tagged:

Comments Comments (0) Comments Trackbacks (0) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

Campaigns, Communications & Control

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 20th, 2007 6:48 am

To be called “smart” by Frank Rich in the pages of the New York Times is not something any right-minded person should aspire to. Such was my unhappy fate yesterday.

Finally, the “macaca” incident was a media touchstone. It became a national phenomenon when the video landed on YouTube , the rollicking Web site whose reach now threatens mainstream news outlets. A year later, leading Republicans are still clueless and panicked about this new medium, which is why they, unlike their Democratic counterparts, pulled out of even a tightly controlled CNN-YouTube debate. It took smart young conservative bloggers like a former Republican National Committee operative, Patrick Ruffini, to shame them into reinstating the debate for November, lest the entire G.O.P. field look as pathetically out of touch as it is.

The rise of YouTube certifies the passing of Mr. Rove’s era, a cultural changing of the guard in the digital age. Mr. Rove made his name in direct-mail fund-raising and with fierce top-down message management. As the Internet erodes snail mail, so it upends direct mail. As YouTube threatens a politician’s ability to rigidly control a message, so it threatens the Rove ethos that led Mr. Bush to campaign at “town hall” meetings attended only by hand-picked supporters.

And so goes the narrative. Republicans are all top-down. Democrats are bottom-up. What this ignores is that Rove and Mehlman ran a great new media-centric campaign in 2004, fully leveraging all the tools available to them at the time.

In 2004, it was John Kerry who had his blinders on when it came to new and alternative media. His campaign wouldn’t respond to anything in the Drudge Report. After the Swift Boat story broke, they thought they had contained the damage by leaving it to talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News to cover 24/7. The ultimate example of the New Media Davids slaying the Old Media Goliaths favored the right (Rathergate). To the Kerry campaign and its left-liberal allies in the press, it didn’t matter if the New York Times wasn’t covering it — and I’ll bet you can find a Frank Rich column to that effect backing this up.

Four years have passed, and I think Hillary Clinton is determined not to repeat the mistakes of the Kerry campaign. She’s still top-down, though it’s at least smart top-down. Instead of eschewing Drudge, her campaign leaks to him and in fact imitates him. To exercise even tighter message control, communications director Howard Wolfson is said to have visions of an MLB.com-like news bureau housed within the campaign. And to combat the perception that she’s top-down, she releases slick, overproduced (and incidentally, very good) web videos showing her down-home, culturally-aware side. And the big stuff she doesn’t even post to YouTube, where she might encounter a negative comment or two.

In 2004, Republicans conquered New Media 1.0. Hillary Clinton is looking to do the same, and maybe move to New Media 2.0. But this time, the new order is not New Media or Old Media so much as it is No Media — in the sense of there being no intermediaries between a voter and a potential mass audience. A guy with his cell phone camera can see a candidate make a gaffe at a rally, upload it to YouTube, and see it go global without anyone ever interacting with the press to give the story legs. No campaign, even a grassroots-aware one, is going to wholeheartedly endorse this state of affairs — but that’s irrelevant. The only rule of campaigning in the Internet age is that there are no rules.

This isn’t good, or bad, so much as it just is. And we don’t have the luxury of making value judgments about talking snowmen or “dignity” of the process, because that bottle has been opened, and the water ain’t getting back in. Future elections aren’t going to be any less modern or tech savvy or YouTubish than this one. With people’s ability to communicate growing exponentially, communications and messaging norms will always be looser today than they were yesterday. This is the new reality. And whether one believes in it or not, everyone is just going to have to deal with it, because the Internet is not going away.

So how does one cope with this new world? Campaigns are always going to be about focused messages (yes, even the Democrat ones). The stuff that happens publicly outside the campaigns is going to be looser and more out of control than ever before. Here’s how to leverage this community:

  • Crowdsource Message Development. The Internet is the world’s largest focus group. Anyone can tap into the collective wisdom 24/7 to sharpen their message and pick up anecdotes to support an existing message. I can tell you this was hugely important in 2004. The goal was to string together salable anecdotes about John Kerry, ones that had already proven themselves in the alternative media world, to clear a path of least resistance that would enable this message to saturate the general public. The best messages are the ones whose elements already strike a responsive chord in the public. Had Republicans better applied the collective wisdom of the blogs last cycle, they might have seen the wisdom of doing enforcement-first immigration reform in 2005-06, and still be in the game for a comprehensive solution in 2007. They also would have steered clear of the Dubai Ports mess.

  • Be Authentic. In terms of defining yourself, there’s still no substitute for authenticity. If a candidate can speak passionately and with great authority on a subject, that message will eventually permeate, and it doesn’t much matter if he has 3 surrogates backing him up, or 50. Long-term strategic messages will still come from the candidate, though the Web frees them somewhat from the 8-second soundbite. It’s battlefield messages, about the opponent, about stuff the candidate doesn’t feel innately strongly about, about topical issues that pop up in the course of the campaign, that are best crowdsourced.
  • Use Openness as an Offensive Weapon. It’s no secret that I believe the benefits of openness outweigh the risks, particularly in campaign environments that are so dependent on a sense of grassroots energy and momentum. But risks still remain, and campaigns should have a back and forth familiarity with blogs, socnets, and the folkways of buzz in the Webosphere, if for no other reason than being able to spot opportunities to exploit an opponent’s weakness. There’s a reason why the netroots extols open platforms and uses profanity more than 1,000% more than conservatives, and yet it’s all press releases when a conservative blog makes an even remotely un-PC statement. They are exploiting open platforms they themselves embrace as a weapon. Other examples of this could include messing with the expectations of Ron Paul supporters, and depressing Hillary Clinton’s web site traffic.

Tagged:

Comments Comments (1) Comments Trackbacks (2) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

links for 2007-08-19

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 19th, 2007 8:25 am

Tagged:

Comments Comments (0) Comments Trackbacks (0) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

Kos Smears Maine Blogger, Gets Pwned

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 18th, 2007 1:07 am

One of the strangest episodes in the week that was involved Markos Moulitsas and his jihad against Lance Dutson, editor of the Maine Web Report and director of Internet operations for Senator Susan Collins’ re-election campaign.

It all began when Kos tried to tar Dutson, and by association, Collins, with an angry little comment left on the former’s blog:

Arthur Frain, Portland ME
Aug 14th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
You know what this country needs? Another terrorist attack. Take out SF or some other city full of dirty libs, and then the country will rally behind the GOP for protection.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense… because every conservative I know talks like this! Smelling a rat, Dutson went and looked at his logs and found that “Arthur Frain” was actually a lefty sockpuppet troll, using the same IP address as the person who left this comment:

Name: Jason in Maine | E-mail: noone@nowhere.com | IP: 74.75.145.243

Wow, Collins must be getting desperate if she’s allying herself with such wackjob extremists and serial liars as Michelle Malkin and Bill O’Reilley.

Allen’s campaign hasnt even started yet, and she’s already this desperate!!

Too bad for Collins that Mainers have noticed her lockstep support for George W Bush. Not only does she support his failed policies, she oversees them via her role in DHS and its huge failures.

Silly stunts like this aren’t going to fool anyone, and they aren’t going to slow down Allen’s campaign. If anything, it will give it a boost.

Posted Jul 20, 1:02 PM | Edit Comment | Delete Comment | Edit Post “JetBlue dumps sponsorship of Tom Allen fundraiser blog” | View Post

As NewsBusters’ Matthew Sheffield points out,

In other words, Moulitsas is blaming Collins for a comment on a site she doesn’t own written by a person who is a left-wing Democrat.

This is laughable. I’d demand Kos issue Dutson an apology, if the underlying charge weren’t so transparently ridiculous, and Kos’ face wasn’t already caked in egg.

Not content to make a fool of himself once this week, Kos dug himself into an even bigger hole. Overrun by hateful, frothing at the mouth trolls, and egged on by Kos, FDL, and others, Dutson took the not unreasonable step of moderating comments on his personal blog. To which Kos responded with a post titled:

ME-Sen: Collins (R) limits access to her blog

Who gets to break the news to him that the Maine Web Report is not part of Susan Collins’  campaign?

As for the underlying issue, I’m not a fan of these guilt-by-association attacks. Candidates generally do enough stupid things that there’s no need to bring independent supporters into the mix. That applies on the right as well as the left. I think it’s lame when the right (or Harold Ford) tries to tar Kos with comments left on his blog. Why? Because Mr. Screw Them himself gives us so much material work with that bringing up third hand crap left on his site dilutes the power of the attack. And anyone with half a brain knows that a single commenter doesn’t reflect the opinion of the poster.

If Dutson is the only person around Collins that Kos can attack — and it backfires so badly when he does it — then Collins must be doing something right.

Tagged:

Comments Comments (0) Comments Trackbacks (1) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

links for 2007-08-17

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 17th, 2007 8:24 am

Tagged:

Comments Comments (0) Comments Trackbacks (0) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

The Threats to Conservatism

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 16th, 2007 9:35 am

Patrick Hynes has written a significant piece on the future of conservatism that’s sure to spark vigorous debate and get a lot of attention. I disagree with a lot of Pat’s analysis, but think this kind of spirited conversation about the movement is long overdue. Since coming to D.C. in 2001, I’ve retained a healthy skepticism of the inside-the-Beltway “movement” (a/k/a “the groups”). On the ideas front, the Reagan and Bush II administrations got to implement more than most, leaving the cupboard of emerging conservative ideas relatively bare. By contrast, there is a reason that liberalism’s energy isn’t spent, and it’s that Bill Clinton didn’t get anything done as President (in terms of legislative passage of his signature priorities).

Pat thinks the conservative brand is broken — from Iraq to immigration to the Michael Gerson critique of conservatism on compassion/”mercy”. I think he’s saying that conservatives need to be more flexible and tolerate some dissent within their ranks — except on abortion, where we are too promiscuous in tolerating Romneyite pandering. Speaking as Pat’s former adversary, the Ryan Sager attack is bogus, but it definitely looks like Pat’s analysis is colored by his personal experience with the base’s utter rejection of John McCain.

Whatever the way out of this is, I don’t think the answer is being Democrat Lite. That may sound cliched or Kos-like, but as any good operative knows (and Pat is one) once you start letting the other guys dictate the terms of the debate, you lose. It’s one thing to critique the botched execution of Iraq. It’s another to adopt the liberal frame that conservatives are out to screw the little guy, especially when the Federal Budget has lacked for nothing these last few years, and “tax cuts for the richTM” worked. Conservatism is going to have to find a way to address different types of challenges (outlined below) — but do so in a way that’s radically different than the left.

Pat also read the Economist leader on “Is America turning left?”, and the situation they depict is a bleak one. There are a whole bunch of cyclical reasons I believe we are at a 1968-like point in our political history, and Hillary is Nixon. I won’t delve too deeply into those here, but I think this a time when history is sending out clear warning signals, and there is still time to heed these lessons to avoid a complete Carter-like meltdown in 2016 or 2020.

With that said, what are the immediate threats to the center-right majority that I’m most worried about. Some of them track with Pat’s, some of them differ.

Conservative Hostility to Immigration in an Increasingly Diverse Nation. I disagreed with the Senate immigration deal. I think you can do a guest worker program without a pathway to citizenship (they are coming here to work, not vote). I think you can build the fence as a security measure without alienating the Latino vote, provided you communicate a basic openness towards the Latino community that President Bush projected masterfully in the 2000 campaign.

The problem is it’s too late. The time to do a deal on immigration that defused these tensions was three years ago, not now. The Administration went way out on a limb for extreme regularization, hoping to lead the party there, when they should have gone for achievable objectives that also gave serious conservatives like Duncan Hunter what they really wanted (basic enforcement). Instead, we now have the Tancredoites baying for mass deportation and buying into groups that are not only anti-illegal immigration, but anti-population and anti-growth, funded by radical environmentalists like John Tanton. And we have exposed an entire generation of Latino voters to this message, erasing whatever hard-earned gains we might have achieved. There was an enforcement-first road that could have worked, but it was not taken.

Ours is a changing society. 25% of the population over 40 is a member of a minority group. That number for those under-40 is 40%. 46% of the children born in the U.S. last year were non-white.

The fact alone is not a problem for conservatives. What is is that we increasingly have to find votes among groups that traditionally vote against us by 2-to-1 margins or more, and that task will be harder because of how the immigration debacle played out. Karl Rove made the not unreasonable calculation that it’s better to have 40% to 45% of a larger, immigrant-heavy Hispanic vote than it is to have 30% of a smaller, immigration-restricted Hispanic vote — and whether any act of Congress can keep it “small” for long is a dubious proposition. One may take issue with how they tried to go about implementing it, but that was the rationale.

So what is conservatism’s message for a multiracial nation? It seems to me there is a greater opportunity for a positive message of assimilation. The old identity politics are breaking down before our eyes. The inner cities that Mike Gerson built a worldview around are literally disappearing. African Americans are moving to the suburbs, and becoming middle class. Hispanics have shown that they behave more like swing voters if you treat them as such. (We bounced back nicely from our post-187 21% showing in ‘96.) Minorities are becoming more independent, and interwoven into the fabric of American society. That should create new opportunities for Republicans, if we remain the party that represents the hope of upward mobility.

The Young Voter Issue Matrix. Pat takes issue with my leaving of social issues on Agenda 2.0. That was partly an oversight on my part, but it’s also true that the contours of those issues are already pretty well defined. No one is going to figure out a clever new idea on gay marriage. That’s pretty much a black and white issue.

Over the short and intermediate term, social issues will continue to work for the Republican Party. Long term, I have questions. The trendlines are good on one and only one issue: abortion. And that’s because of technology, specifically the ultrasound machine. Things don’t look so great on one of the other triad issues, marriage. We already have de jure gay marriage in Massachusetts and de facto gay marriage in a growing number of blue states including New Jersey. And once established, gay marriage is very difficult to rescind. Within 20 years, most states with marriage amendments will have some form of judicially-imposed civil unions (which even President Bush supports). And public opinion will follow. People my age and younger have no problem with gay marriage — and when these voters hit 45 and 50, that changes the equation. The numbers for stem cell, on the other hand, are already awful.

Ironically, the issue set Pat is suggesting we hang our hat on is arguably the one with the earliest expiration date. (Perhaps that’s because he wrote the book on it.) There is no doubt that the religious right provides a lot of the enthusiasm and manpower for the Republican Party at election time. That was certainly the case in 2004, and will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. But in his post, and in a few places in his book, Pat seems to endorse jettisoning issues with more long term promise to keep the religious part of the base happy in the short run. In a couple different places in his book, In Defense of the Religious Right, Pat channels the Christian Right’s anger with the Bush White House for putting Social Security reform before a marriage amendment. It’s just this sort of — what’s the term? — identity politics that sabotages the movement. Social Security reform was our chance to lock in a generation for the notion that individual responsibility beats collectivism every time. It was a play for the future, for the same kind of generational sway that FDR or Reagan had. But by not advancing the idea seriously enough we decided to pander to the old vote, just like we did on Medicare Part D. And it was clear that the Republican coalition was not “all in” for transformational reform — choosing instead to advance their pet issues.

The War. There is no doubt that our biggest short term problem is the war — specifically Iraq. It is the meta problem without which the “competence” critique would not exist, without which the economy would appear to most Americans to be doing as well as it actually is, without which overall confidence levels would be 20 points higher, and without which President Bush would enjoy approval ratings over 50%.

I’m not sure how much this problem extends to the broader GWOT, as Pat contends. Soren Dayton has done a bang-up job in the last few days of demonstrating that there is a grassroots pro-national security majority in Congress. The Blue Dogs are being successfully cross-pressured on stuff like FISA and the war supplemental. Remember: this is a war whose leading exponent is a President with 35% approval ratings. Any time his positions are embraced by a bare plurality, as is the case on FISA/Gitmo/GWOT issues, that’s 30 points better than his approval spread. Think how much success a new pro-war President would have with these issues, without the same Iraq baggage.

Health Care. I’ll put in a plug for health care. This is an issue I strongly feel conservatives need to come to grips with and own. Trends that favor us overall, namely the rise of small business, self-employment, and the eBayization of the economy, are also leading to the breakdown of the employer-based health insurance system, and leading entrepreneurial voters (that’s our voters) to scramble for health insurance. The solution, at least in large measure: Deregulate health insurance, just like we did the airlines.

Global Warming. There needs to be a cogent conservative response to climate change that’s not small ball stuff like lowering the thermostat two degrees and driving a Prius. That’s all nice, but even the experts would agree this does nothing to stop the existing buildup of greenhouse gases that’s more than to do the predicted damage. How about an Apollo-like project to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, funded privately? (The hardcore enviros would hate it because it keeps Hummers on the road a few more years.)

Tagged:

Comments Comments (21) Comments Trackbacks (10) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

links for 2007-08-16

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 16th, 2007 8:23 am

Tagged:

Comments Comments (0) Comments Trackbacks (0) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

links for 2007-08-15

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 15th, 2007 8:26 am

Tagged:

Comments Comments (0) Comments Trackbacks (0) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

Letting Romney Off the Hook?

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 14th, 2007 9:52 pm

My friend Patrick Hynes has a bone to pick with the Save the Debate coalition, for supposedly letting Mitt Romney “off the hook” for not yet RSVP’ing to the YouTube debate. Here’s how we addressed the issue in our statement yesterday,

We have seen some reports that not all candidates have yet committed to the just-announced November 28th date. We are extremely optimistic about the incredible momentum behind this debate. Save the Debate is confident that when the dust settles, every candidate will seize this historic opportunity to engage the American people.

For my part, I fully expect Mitt Romney to participate. The same goes for Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, who haven’t officially RSVP’d, though we’ve heard favorable omens through the grapevine.

Likewise, we were encouraged to read this in the Washington Times today:

Sources close to Mr. Romney”s campaign, considered one the most technically savvy, predict he will get on board. His campaign has posted nearly 300 videos — the most of any candidate from either party — on YouTube.com, with about 700,000 unique viewers.

“Scheduling conflicts,” the candidates’ all-purpose excuse for declining an event, are no longer an issue. As TechRepublican reports, the Romney campaign’s schedule is wide open for late November. There is no reason for Romney not to participate.

If any candidate in fact turns down this opportunity, they will hear from us. The Save the Debate coalition is being kept active, with the goal of promoting a good debate with substantive questions, and over the longer term, encouraging the candidates to step up their online efforts so they will be in a position to defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama online. Should one or more candidates decline, the frustration you saw directed at the entire process last time would be focused like a laser beam on one candidate. Being the only candidate to decline would be a mistake far worse than the initial debate snub — and I think each of the campaigns understands this.

Tagged:

Comments Comments (2) Comments Trackbacks (0) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

Save the Debate: What’s Next

by Patrick Ruffini :: August 13th, 2007 12:59 pm

Thanks in large part to the intrepid work of everyone in the Save the Debate coalition, the Republican YouTube debate is back on! The November 28th date, just a month away from Iowa, makes this debate even more important. Good.

But we’re not stopping there. This morning on SavetheDebate.com, we launched a national campaign to encourage substantive question submissions from Republicans across America. This effort has two parts. First, recruiting volunteers to fan out across the country at Republican events and elsewhere to record questions from people who may not otherwise use YouTube. You can volunteer right here. And second, encouraging question submissions through SavetheDebate.com.

The full email Save the Debate sent to its list is after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tagged:

Comments Comments (1) Comments Trackbacks (1) del.icio.us digg it subscribe

Patrick Ruffini   Patrick Ruffini is an online political strategist, blogger, and wearer of many hats. More...


Ruffini Around the Web







 Subscribe in a reader

Add to Google

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add to My AOL

Subscribe in Rojo




Tags
2008 actblue activism al gore announcements barack obama bill clinton blogosphere bush congress conservatism cpac debate democrats epolitics eric cantor facebook fred thompson fundraising grassroots hillary clinton iowa iraq jim ogonowski john edwards john mccain MA 5 marketing media mike huckabee mitt romney movement netroots new hampshire online politics overclocked polls rightroots ron paul ronald reagan rudy giuliani savethedebate south carolina strategy straw poll technology user generated content video web2.0 youtube

By Month

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006



  •   


  • Blogroll

  • Join the email list
    Blogs
    Main
    Overclocked
    On the Side

    About
    Bio
    Portfolio
    2008 Wire
    MSM, Blogs
    GOP, Dems
    FAQ
    Initiatives
    ECorps
    Research
    Photo Gallery

    © 2007 Ruffini Strategies LLC

    Clicky Web Analytics