Since the very beginning, Blog P.I. has put an emphasis on transparency in online politics, and now comes a point where we, the bloggers who keep this website (more or less) updated, think it best to apprise you of who in 2008 we are are supporting/working for.
William Beutler:
New Media Strategies, my employer and the folks who pay the bills around here, has been contracted to advise on Internet outreach for Fred Thompson’s nascent presidential campaign. I’ll be working under Howard Mortman (aka Blog P.I.’s Higgins) alongside Jon Henke (he’d be our Face Man, if Blog P.I. was named for The A-Team; see his concurrent announcement at QandO) and others from the crack Public Affairs staff here in scenic Rosslyn, Virginia. As everybody knows by now, Fred’s campaign is putting an emphasis on using new online tools in innovative ways, and we’re honored to take part in the effort. I generally keep my own politics off Blog P.I., but I’ll make an exception here: Thompson will have my vote, even though I live in the District, where the Republican party might as well not even have a presidential primary. For what it’s worth, I’d describe my politics as right-libertarian; I’m a pragmatist with a preference for limited-government solutions. And as Cato@Liberty wrote of Fred last week, “On federalism, there may be no better candidate.”” Not to mention his strong record of fiscal conservatism, something the GOP could stand to stand for again. He’s also been realistic about Iraq, that we are left with no “good options,” the war was a good one but done badly, and leaving it to the Qaedists is the worst option. He’s a solid conservative and a “happy warrior” with more ideas than he’s given credit for (so far) and is already running a whole new kind of campaign. If you’re at all inclined to cast a Republican ballot, Fred Thompson is definitely the best choice. Regular readers (I assume you exist) will notice that I have mentioned Thompson a few times over the past few weeks. For most of that period, I knew it was a possibility that we’d be working for the campaign — though we certainly weren’t being paid. Even so, I only mentioned him where the analysis would suffer for his absence. And for what it’s worth, I did write about him (favorably) before this even started. What does this mean for Blog P.I.? The site will remain “an ongoing series of investigations into, studies about, and commentaries on uses of the Internet in U.S. politics” where “the writers have their ideological blindspots like anyone else” but “aim for observation and reason, not assumption and opinion.” You may start noticing more overtly positive comments about Fred Thompson, but they’ll stay rooted in analysis — and I’ll post a disclaimer whenever his name comes up.
Not Paul Begala:
My choice for president and the only candidate that I want to work for is Barack Obama. It comes down to a simple formulation championed by his main opponent: change vs. more of the same. This country is in desperate need of change. I am not one of those Dems that says Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency. If she is the general election nominee in fact, I’ll guarantee she will win. There is no more strategic and ruthless political family in the country and 2004 showed that the mechanics of campaigning can win elections regardless of issues and facts. As a serial campaigner, I can admire that. But I don’t want to win on a technicality. I want change, I want a movement, I want a governing philosophy and a majority that implements it. Obama’s mantra — that individual achievement is amplified when done through collective action is the antithesis to the “every man for himself” mantra of conservatism in the past 20 years. I want a nominee who will not only battle for people’s votes, but their hearts, minds and souls.
Olly Ruff:
I am not an employee of New Media Strategies, and I don’t aspire to work for the Obama campaign. In fact, as a non-resident alien, I don’t think I’m supposed to do things like endorse candidates for President. So, in what is either a principled ethical stand or simply a craven attempt to preserve my visa status, I pledge to carefully maintain my neutrality and objectivity throughout, and to eschew the cheap partisanship of my colleagues as I advocate for what I hope will become the moderate consensus position.
Okay William,
Here’s the deal. It is my belief that neither Ron Paul nor his campaign are “using new online tools” to generate all this great buzz. Rather: normal folks, lots of us, are “using new online tools” to advance Ron Paul because we believe in his message and feel he is the best messenger.
You and several others have said that all the RP buzz is just a few “moonbats on kool-aid”, doing terrible things to online polls with a fork(). It is suggested that we are spammers, Astroturf, phantasms, and sock puppets.
So I challenge you, sir, to a duel. A duel with any of the new online tools (myspace, youtube, facebook, eventful, blogtracks, polls, or anything else of your own choosing) so long as it has an independently verifiable measurement.
The goal shall be to see which candidate can make the bigger buzz: you and whatever other paid lackeys the FT campaign has hired, or us.
One suggestion to show you where I am going with this: set up a poll: Fred Thompson Vs. Ron Paul. Go get all your neocon blogger buddies at LGF, PM, etc. Go get Fred Thompson’s CFR, NWO, NAU friends, and anyone else you can think of. Heck, you can even buy ad space during “Law and Order” for all I care. All I ask is that you let Google crawl the page, and title it “Fred Thompson vs Ron Paul - Poll” (I’m even willing to give your guy top billing; isn’t that generous of me?)
Let’s see who gets the most votes.
Or push FT on Myspace; let’s see how many friends you can get for your guy. Or youtube subscribers, or responses to a blog entry, or any other “new online tool” you care to pick. Let’s see what you can do.
No matter which tool you choose, you will find that it isn’t the messenger; it is the message. I don’t care how much you advertise FT, you won’t find many buyers for a continuation of the Iraq war or the joining of Mexico, Canada, and the United States of America into one big mega-state. Meanwhile Ron Paul’s message of freedom, liberty, and the US Constitution is finding new buyers every minute of every day.
Case in point - this very blog entry. How many responses have you gotten since you posted it? None - after nearly 20 days. How many responses did you get with your “inside the Ron Paul machine” entries in the first day? What about page views?
The only reason Fred Thompson is winning landline polling is that no one really remembers who he is or what he didn’t do while he was in office (Chinagate). All they know is that they have heard the name, and since he is a celebrity, they think he might get some people to vote for him.
So choose your weapon, sir - I challenge you. For no other prize than bragging rights. For no greater glory than for one of us to serve up a big heaping plate of crow for the other to feast upon.
Sincerely,
Kevin Houston
Unpaid, unaffiliated volunteer for Ron Paul 2008.
PS I have provided my email address should you need to contact me about any details of this little challenge.
Kevin:
Call me a coward if you will, but the online organizational effort is not all about the numbers. It’s about the effectiveness.
The Internet has changed how politics are conducted, but it hasn’t changed the underlying need to translate online victories into electoral ones. Call me a coward, but I decline the challenge — I don’t count raw numbers of fans at MySpace, Facebook, Digg or Twitter as useful measures of a campaign’s overall success.
It is true that opinion leaders on the Internet are great to have, but the real question is how to translate online support into real activism. Working with Fred, I think it’s quite likely we never match Paul in terms of, say, listed MeetUps. The bigger question is whether an online operation can reach people — can reach the right people — and influence politics offline.
So, I’d rather challenge you to compare Ron Paul’s showing in January and February of next year to Fred Thompson’s. You game?
William,
The reason I challenged you to an internet challenge was two-fold.
1) Because you just told us you were hired to advise FT on “Internet Outreach”. I am trying to tell you that OUTreach doesn’t work on the Internet. The Ron Paul campaign is not reaching out to us; we’re reaching IN. I wasn’t going to actually do anything to promote whatever the specific challenge was, I was going to sit back and watch it get picked up, and dealt with by the normal organic organization that this campaign is known for.
We support Ron Paul, because we believe in the message. The messenger is secondary, and the Ron Paul campaign knows this and is acting accordingly.
2) Because I am sick and tired of this demonstrably false image that some are trying to promote that internet support is somehow not real. Behind every IP address is a real, live, dedicated human being and the ones supporting Ron Paul, aren’t going to forget to vote on primary election day.
I think that various rallies for Ron Paul (NH, KS, IA) have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that this is not only a few hackers with legions of cybernetic sockpuppets. There are a lot of dedicated supporters. We are doing everything we need.
That said, I will gladly accept your counter-challenge. I never directly bet for my preferred candidate to win, as it makes the loss too great (lose the race and lose the bet) but you are correct: the only polls that really matters are going to be in NH and IA in early 2008.
The next test for Ron Paul will be the IA straw poll. It will not be quite make-or-break but it will be a major battle for him. If does well (top 3) it will boost him, but it will not push him into the “top tier”. If he does poorly (bottom 5) then it will hurt him, but it won’t derail him. Getting a landslide win or a goose egg would, of course, be a different matter, and could easily launch him into 3rd place, or relegate him to a footnote in political history, respectively.
It will all be over but the shouting by Feb 5th.
All right, Kevin. You’re on.
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%)
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)
5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)
Paul beats Fred 6:1
in the immortal words of Nelson Muntz
Ha-ha!
:P PLBBBT
See ya in NH
:D
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6824508
“Just four Thompson supporters showed up at Utah Republican Party headquarters for the event, leaving dozens of untouched cookies and vegetable snacks provided in hopes a much bigger crowd would materialize.”
Meanwhile, Ron Paul packs in 1000 in the same state.
http://www.sltrib.com/justice/ci_6908779
Woo Hoo!
4 million in one day!
Let’s see Freddie beat that. Ron is beating Fred in some state primary polls as well (how sad is that?)
See you in Iowa!
Meanwhile Fred loses his top fundraiser, and his plane ride. Guess he’ll have to fly commercial airlines from now on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110501937.html
tsk, tsk.
OK!
Glad to see the Fred heads are stepping up to the plate.
http://www.blogsforfredthompson.com/national-day-fred-giving-november-21-2007
Let’s see what you can do.
Well, looks like Fred squeaked by Ron in the IA Caucuses: 13% - 10%.
But Ron Paul managed to actually win one county - Jefferson county, appropriately enough. And he came in second in several others. Not a bad showing at all.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html
I think we have to call Iowa a tie.
The really strange part is that you guys seem to be doing your jobs very well. You seem to be introducing Fred Thompson and his agenda to more and more people, just like the Paulunteers, but for some strange reason, Fred’s numbers are on the way down, and Ron’s are on the way up.
I mean, at one point, just before he announced, he was getting 27 - 30% in polling numbers. At the same time, Ron Paul was barely being mentioned in most polls, and if he was, it was a 1-2% showing. Now, a few months later, both men are at nearly the same point in the middle.
Same with fundraising, Fred pulled in 12 million last time, and Ron only had 5 million. I don’t know what Fred Thompson’s fundraising has been like this quarter, but desparate emails to supporters begging for last-minute funds does not sound like a $20 million dollar fundraising quarter. But maybe Freddy is just playing it close to the chest, we’ll know soon enough.
See you in NH!
PS I think despite the actual results of the primary, this campaign will go down as one that spontaneously self-organized. There won’t ever be a “formula” for things like this. There won’t be any way to run a Ron Paul style campaign without a message of complete freedom, and an honest candidate willing to deliver that message (or at the very least, a candidate able to seem honest while delivering that message.)
“I think we have to call Iowa a tie.”
Haha. Nah, I think I’ll call it a win for Fred. Comparatively, of course. Especially considering the BS Politico story about Fred dropping out hitting that day; I’m afraid that might have cost him some votes — not because Iowans read The Politico (they don’t) but — because the media harped on it all day, which could have hurt him with marginal supporters.
I will concede, Paul has done much better over time than I expected. Certainly with the fundraising — although he proves again that being flush with cash is no guarantee that it will translate to wider support. Though Paul has had a memorable campaign, I still think his support depends more on anti-war lefties who realized Kucinich and Gravel were dead ends. The Ron Paul blimp people — and anyone who uses that “R[EVOL]UTION” logo — are especially the type motivated by his anti-war position, not by anything else in Paul’s philosophy or record. Ultimately, he’s been a vehicle for a wide array of people’s hopes, not so much a real candidate.
And, despite your invitation to check in again post-NH, I think you know as well as me that Fred isn’t really contesting NH. Hasn’t been his state for months, which is too bad because I think his federalist message should resonate well there. No matter; if Paul comes out ahead of him there I’ll chalk it up to NH being NH. Fred did well in Wyoming tonight (even though it is only Wyoming) and is focused on South Carolina. So how about I see you there?
Oh sure, dismiss the state where Paul is doing 8 times better than Fred.
WY doesn’t count, it’s GOP party hacks only.
Tell you what why don’t we call IA a win for Fred, and NH a win for Paul, making it a tied game overall. I’m going claim that Ron beat Fred by a lot more than Fred beat Ron, and I think that Ron has a few more delegates now, but we won’t know for sure until tomorrow.
I think MI is next, then NV, and then SC? or is SC before NV? Anyway, see you at the next one.
Sure, I will concede Ron Paul won New Hampshire. If we’re only looking this as RP vs. FDT, no contest in NH.
WY is meaningless not because it’s “party hacks only” — Republicans nominate the Republican nominee, you know. MI will be interesting, NV is new so nobody knows how much it really matters yet; SC is the one that will really matter.
Also, are you still backing Paul now, with the TNR hit piece inflicting so much damage? I’ve been saying for months, at best he doesn’t know when to dissasociate himself from some people. Racists then, Truthers now.
No matter what happens to Fred, I’m going to feel good about supporting him. He’s the realistic libertarian, constitutionalist, minarchist’s candidate. He’s the sane Ron Paul.
Yeah, I still support Ron Paul. That TNR piece is a bunch of trash. I looked through their first two examples, and really read them. There wasn’t any racism there, never mind who wrote it.
The “kind words for David Duke” was a short 7-paragraph factual blurb about the results of his election, and why the people of LA voted the way they voted. There wasn’t a word of praise or condemnation in it. It was totally neutral. The author doesn’t praise David Duke’s platform, he says “To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense.”
The “calling Dr. King a plagerist and homosexual pedophile” was reporting what “establishment media sources” (Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe and the New York Times) and the FBI had said. But nothing was ever said about race! Even if the article was critical of Dr. King (and it was) that criticism wasn’t based upon his ethnicity or race, it was based upon the content of his character as reported by the FBI, and credible newspapers.
It may be true, it may be false - seems to me the biggest problem the author of these newsletters (not Ron Paul) has is a supposed Libertarian trusting the FBI (and the FBI under Hoover at that) to:
1) know the truth.
2) tell it.
Similarly, when you really read the L.A. riots article, you see the author trying to make a weak “cops are lazy” joke, and saying that the since cops are notoriously lazy (in Libertarian-speak) if they only arrested 70% of a given population, then 100% of them must be criminals - while missing the point that real laziness among police officers would have it that if the police arrest 70% of a given population, then probably only 35%-40% are really criminals.
Now there is some downright racist stuff in that article, no doubt, but it’s not the virulent hate-mongering that TNR tries to make it out to be. But what can you expect from TNR? They aren’t exactly known for their objectivity, or their accuracy. Remember this is where Stephen Glass was from, and TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. Hysterically told half-truth hit-smears are their specialty.
On the bright side, since this is coming out now, it can’t be a last-minute surprise for Feb 5th.
Yeah, Dr. Paul does seem to be a little too willing to take people at face value. That disassociation thing can be tricky - get it wrong, and it looks like (or can be edited to make it look like) you are apologizing for actually sharing the tainted supporter’s view.
And then it never stops with the first group. Once you return Stormfront’s money, then someone is going to yell that you need to return JBS donations and bit by bit, they chip away at your base. I think Dr. Paul is very clever to frame it the way that he did, and point out that if Don Black thought he was supporting a candidate who held racist views, then Don Black is wasting his money, and giving the money back would only allow Don Black to spend the money on racist goals.
See you in MI, only because it’s next.
Ok William,
Congrats to Fred Thompson for beating Ron in SC. I guess the pundits predicting his early demise are wrong.
So let’s look at the score:
Fred beats Ron: (and has 8 delegates)
IA, SC, WY
Ron Beats Fred: (and has 6 delegates)
NV, MI, NH
Looks like this game is all tied up.
Are you ready to concede the point that “Internet Outreach” is a futile effort? All your time, all your effort, all the natural talents of your candidate, all the fawning adoration by the MSM, all the advantages and Ron Paul is still holding his own.
Ron Paul barely understands how to use the internet himself, and has not hired any expensive “Internet Consultants” the buzz is totally generated by the popularity of the message.
Again, Ron Paul is not reaching out, we the people are reaching in. This is one more reason why I would not care even if Ron Paul wrote those newsletters himself, in longhand. This campaign isn’t really about Ron Paul, it is about the people of the United States rising up and reclaiming their natural rights. And while certain individuals wanting their rights certainly are racists (as one would expect in any random sample of 10% of the population) they are very few in number, and the rest (nearly 100%) find such views not only incorrect, but repllent, I have no fear that those who are racists will be completely marginalized
I guess the pundits were right after all…
Kevin, I’m getting to this a little late, and not sure if you’re even paying attention.
Internet outreach, futile? So you would advise that political campaigns eschew hiring a liaison to work with bloggers? No, definitely not. Not every successful campaign attracts energetic advocates like Howard Dean or Ron Paul (and I can’t help noting that these are/were NOT successful campaigns).
Meanwhile, “I would not care even if Ron Paul wrote those newsletters himself, in longhand” is just about enough for me to discount anything you’ve written here. If you’re not concerned that your candidate may have racist tendencies (and Ron Paul has some nutty tendencies, but I don’t really think that’s among them) then I don’t trust your judgment.
Just like when you say “This campaign isn’t really about Ron Paul, it is about the people of the United States rising up and reclaiming their natural rights,” I have to wonder: If the campaign is not in some measure about the candidate, then what is it?
I know what it is: It’s not a real political campaign. It doesn’t have to do all the establishment hoop-jumping that a legitimate candidate like Fred Thompson had to do. It doesn’t even have to be measured against normal yardsticks, like Fred Thompson’s was.
If Ron Paul does launch an independent bid once the GOP nomination is decided, and I half-expect that he will, this will only confirm again that Ron Paul has been the absent-minded leader of a highly disorganized activist movement, not a real presidential candidate.
let me address the second question first, since it relates to the first.
This campaign is in large part, a measure of Ron Paul’s consistency and integrity. No other candidate would have activated such a large movement no matter what positions they advocated, because few people would trust them. One can call Dr. Paul all the names in the book, but the one thing you can’t call him is unprincipled or a mugwump. You may disagree with his principles, and many do, but he certainly has them, and they guide his actions 100%. (He doesn’t vote that way because a focus group told him to.)
That brings me to my second point, about not really caring about Dr. Paul’s personal beliefs. Even if he were a racist, and I agree with you that he isn’t, everyone who has given this any thought at all would understand that Ron Paul would not violate the rights (or stand idly by while a state governmnet violated the rights) of any minority, (racial or otherwise) because Ron Paul wouldn’t stand for, or be part of, violating anyone’s rights.
Yes, I would advise that. Bloggers are a notoriously independent bunch, and rarely are they led by nose. They may support a candidate because they believe some lie that candidate tells about his positons (I don’t mean that as any kind of barb against Thompson, he seems honest enough as far as that goes) but they are not likely to be led by what some paid “liason” says. Any candidate worth his salt could get exactly the same result by doing a press conference. It’s the message of the candidate that bloggers care about, not the fact that someone emailed them about it and tried to get them to write a story.
But, Hey! if you can get paid for doing what you love to do, then more power to you. I’m not trying to break your rice bowl here. It’s not something I would pay for but I have rather frugal tastes anyway.
And Paul’s campaign is real (whatever that means) he has to file all the same paperwork, and put up with all the inane questions and belittlement that every other candidate has to put up with. He is measured by the same yardstick (# of delegates in St. Paul) too. As long as we keep doing the work, Ron Paul will stay in the race.
I’ve said it before: this isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon.
Of all the candidates, the one most likely to drop out is Romney, because he knows when he’s throwing good money after bad. He is the only one who will know when to pull the plug, and actually have the fortitude to do it.
McCain is just plain stubborn. There are only two ways he is getting out of this primary either he gets to the convention, or he dies trying (politically if not physically.) I doubt even a lack of funds will affect him, because he will have no problem going on political welfare.
Huckabee has faith and an ability to campaign with little or no money. The religious right is going to keep voting for him, and it will be enough IMHO to keep him going. Huckabee might drop out if the money totally dries up, but that is the only reason I can see that he would do so.
Ron Paul has said he will stay in it as long as we (the people) keep working and donating. Ron Paul isn’t stubborn like McCain, but we Paulunteers sure(!) are, so don’t look for the support or money to dry up anytime soon.
No way that Paul will run 3rd party. Too many states have sore loser laws which prevent party hopping. Also ballot requirements in a whole host of other states are also very onerous (Okla. for a prime example)
Ron Paul might register for write-in status if he does terribly on Feb 5th (gets absolutely no delegates, or no good results in any state - like comes in dead last in Alaska or someplace he expected to do well) but there is no way that he will run 3rd party or independent party.
I’ll bet you double or nothing on that. Think you can handle two plates of crow? ;)
Later.
PS I do check in here once in a while, so whenever you get to thinking about it, you can post your response.
HA!
Told you that Romney would be the one to quit (if anyone would)
Huckabee is in it for certain. He will not quit early.
Ron Paul is taking a breather to campaign in TX. Primarily for his Congressional seat, and secondarily for the TX presidential primary. Ron Paul is going to convention.
The next person to get out out of this race will do so only for death (physical or political)
Romney’s suspension (instead of withdrawl) means that his delegates are bound to him for the first round of voting anyway (depending on state rules)
This will definitely be a brokered convention. McCain will not win an absolute majority of delegates.
Well… I do think McCain is going to sew this thing up by Texas, at least. I am sure you’re right that Paul will keep doing whatever little campaigning he is doing until the convention, but Huckabee will call it off before he hurts his national profile. Texas is probably Huckabee’s last stand; he’s got Colbert in his pocket, but McCain’s got Perry.
Here is my fantasy (not likely, but at leaast possible) scenario for Ron Paul to still win the nomination…
1) McCain wins next few primaries.
2) Ron Paul wins TX (not required, but it’s my fantasy)
3) McCain reaches the magic number of delegates.
4) Huckabee drops out. He said he would if McCain cinches it.
5) Since it’s no longer possible for Ron Paul to win, the MSM ends the media blackout. His ideas get enough exposure that conservatives start wishing they had only known…
6) McCain (choose one: is arrested for corruption, has a melt-down, is caught inflagrente delecto with Larry Craig in the Senate cloakroon, has a heart attack, gets hit by a bus) 2 weeks prior to the convention.
My fantasy for Ron Paul winning the General election (this one is not just possible, but also plausible)
1) Obama wins the primary race, but Hillary gets the superdelegates and manages to get FL and MI delegates seated, and thus steals the nomination from Obama.
2) Ron Paul tags Hillary with the War (she voted for it, he didn’t)
3) Obama’s supporters, angry over Hillary’s back-room dealings, stay home, or vote Republican out of spite.
4) Ron Paul wins in a landslide.
(Nota Bene: the above is also how any Republican could win the general election.)