website statistics

Archive for the 'Midterms '06' Category

Hakuna Macaca, What A Wonderful Phrase…

Published by William Beutler on August 16, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Campaigns, Earned Media, George Allen and Midterms '06. 5 Comments

The George Allen “Macaca” controversy continues to reverberate around the blogosphere, but as yet I haven’t seen anybody focus on the Virginia bloggers — the ones who will actually be voting to retain or boot him from office, and who first pushed the story into the national media’s consciousness. So I have.

Not all of the Virginia bloggers offered intelligent commentary, but that was certainly no impediment to being included in Blog P.I.’s latest round-up. This is a long, long, long post — and it’s all below the jump. Follow me:

Continue reading ‘Hakuna Macaca, What A Wonderful Phrase…’

“I Don’t Know Anything About the Blogs”

Published by William Beutler on August 11, 2006 in Blogging Officials, Democrats, Lamont v. Lieberman, Midterms '06, Netroots and Primary fights. 2 Comments

In a characteristically counterintuitive piece for TNR.com, Ryan Lizza argues that the “second half” of Lamont/Lieberman will fade as a national issue because, as an unnamed DSCC insider tells him, the national party isn’t going to busy itself much with Connecticut this fall:

Why would we spend money defending a seat that will be blue either way?

Later, a different (I think) Senate aide tells him the primary won’t induce Democrats to campaign on immediate withdrawal from Iraq, either:

Our Iraq policy has been driven by [Harry] Reid and [Carl] Levin. To be honest, they could give a rat’s ass about the blogs. In other words, these are policy-based decisions, and aren’t driven by the politics of Connecticut or anywhere else.

Not even a rat’s ass? Really? That might come as a surprise to the readers and commenters at Reid’s Give Em Hell, Harry blog, among the most popular blogs written by an elected Democratic official — almost up there with Conyers Blog, written (or “written”) by a more traditional netroots ally.

It also calls to mind Lamont’s absurd defenestration of Jane Hamsher late last week, for which he apparently paid no price in terms of blogger support (even from Hamsher). And let’s not forget Dem consultant Steve Elmendorf, who paid the ultimate price — excommunication from the left by Markos Moulitsas — for daring to admit:

The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections. The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left.

And what happens if Lizza is right, the Democrats give nothing more than lip service to Lamont, and the Conn. Senate race fades from the national scene? How vocal will the netroots be about their dissatisfaction? How damaging would that be to blogger-politician relations? Might Chuck Schumer, chairman of the DSCC, be the next pariah Democrat — or at least the next Rahm Emanuel?

Could it be that what seemed less than 100 hours ago like the first major gate-crashing will actually end up building more barriers between Beltway Democrats and the party’s online activists?

Upon Further Review, John Aravosis Is Only Half-Unserious About National Security

Published by William Beutler on August 11, 2006 in Blog Fights, Democrats, Lamont v. Lieberman, Midterms '06, National Security, Republicans and Terrorism. 15 Comments

I first ran across John Aravosis’ take on the British terror arrests via Conn Carroll in yesterday’s Blogometer. Carroll quoted Aravosis asking:

[I]sn’t it queer that the emergency [red alert on U.S. airlines] is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman’s loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.

Aravosis frames the events of the last 48 hours as the White House surreptitiously moving against against a) the Democratic party, and b) American business travelers. That Bush is using Lieberman’s defeat against Democrats, and second, that he’s imposing stifling aviation rules without justification. (Aravosis’ judgment on the credibility of the Scotland Yard-scotched terror plot has evolved, which I’ll get to a bit later.)

Look, I agree the color-coded system is capricious and unhelpful to the public, and if the no-water on airplanes policy persists past a few weeks, I’ll join him in decrying that (I would also endorse the notion that the shoe-checks have outlived their usefulness, though they were useful at first). But in dysfunctional government policy and hardball politics he sees actual malice. Take this post, filed early yesterday afternoon:

In today’s NY Times, Dick Cheney warned that the Lieberman loss would embolden “Al Qaeda types.” It is reasonable to assume that Cheney, like Bush, knew about the unfolding scandal in Great Britain. Think about this for a minute. It shows how evil the Bush/Cheney team really is. Knowing that this story was about to break, Cheney invoked Al Qaeda in purely political terms.

Cheney and Aravosis are actually making the same mistake on purpose, and both for political reasons. They both purport to believe that “al Qaeda types” are even following the primary defeat of a hawkish opposition party member, so they can politicize the war, for dovishness and calculation.

But what ground rules would Aravosis put on Cheney’s discussion of foreign policy matters? Only if he promises not to mention Democrats? Not within 15 days of an election? Aravosis isn’t criticizing the substance of Cheney’s remarks, but instead that he made any remarks at all.

And I don’t have time to check and see if Aravosis has criticized Bush for calling terrorists “evil,” but if thinking strategically about approaching elections is “evil,” then I don’t know what you’d call Jack Abramoff.

Flash forward to this morning, where Aravosis starts walking back from his verdict on the terror arrests yesterday: That the threat was not legitimate, and the U.S./British reaction was wildly overblown. Conservative bloggers seized on his coments — see Stephen Bainbridge and Pejman Yousefzadeh, plus George Gooding with a bigger picture view — identifying it as more evidence that the left-wing blogosphere is unserious about terrorism, as charged. Carroll put a “tin-foil hat” on him; earlier this week, Jacob Weisberg made a similar argument, saying Ned Lamont’s supporters “appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously.”

And Aravosis even wrote it like he knew he was mistaking bad timing as a conspiracy:

Do I sound as if I don’t believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don’t believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an “Al Qaeda footprint.” Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think “gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do.” That’s what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.

That’s increasingly untenable, as more information comes out and more arrests are made. Today Aravosis writes:

Intelligence successes are generally more effective when they remain private, but of course if a threat still exists, and can be minimized through public disclosure, that’s a legitimate reason for exposure. Still, considering the past (and present) political use of terror threats, I think skepticism about timing and motives is understandable. They boy who cried wolf writ large.

Well, that’s better. Still, he doesn’t really address his previous exculpation of previous U.S. terrorism arrests:

Were these guys totally innocent? Probably not. But there’s no reason to believe they were any more Osama’s right-hand than Jose Padilla, the famed dirty-bomber who I think is now only being charged with jay-walking or something. Then there were the famous six Muslim-American guys in New York state, supposedly operating their own al Qaeda cell. Not so much. Or how about the Al Qaeda cell in Florida trying to blow up the Sears Tower? Oh that’s right, they were just some demented friends squatting in a warehouse and “thinking” about it. And then there’s the famous plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge - with a single blow torch.

Padilla didn’t get very far as a prospective terrorist, but the legal battle surrounding him has been about how to handle al Qaeda arrestees, not about whether he committed conspiracy to commit jaywalking. In the case of the Buffalo Six, all six were convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda, and one was later killed by a U.S. Hellfire missile in Yemen. He identifies correctly the Miami case as one where there really was no case, and I’ll grant him that. Hey, I’ll even throw in Joel Hinrichs, the Sooner Boomer, the suicidal Oklahoma sudent who detonated himself outside Memorial Stadium during a football game in 2005, of whom conservative bloggers fanned many erroneous rumors. But as for the Brooklyn Bridge, I’m not sure where “a single blow torch” comes from, but Iyman Faris knew Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and he too was convicted.

Besides, there’s no proof that the 7/7 suicide bombers received practical support from Osama bin Laden either, but they were deadly nonetheless.

It’s more problematic that he doesn’t mention Richard Reid [Update: Spelling corrected; see this comment] or Lockerbie. Maybe terrorists haven’t had much luck with blowtorches or crop dusters, but for Aravosis to leave out all previous terrorist attacks involving planes in favor of other, lesser examples of terrorist attempt or intent, while blithely dismissing those and mangling the facts, sure, it’s fair to say that John Aravosis, for one, is not very serious about terrorism.

I will at least allow that he is serious about his opposition to Bush because he disagrees strenuously with his national security policy. I just don’t think Aravosis has any idea what to replace it with, and he’s not above sticking to bad conclusions that make Republicans out to sound as bad as possible.

P.S. Jim Treacher asks: “Why do the beverages hate us?” Along with other clever lines that would’ve made a good header to this post. [Update: He's now hosting a poll asking: What do we call this un-quenching imbroglio?]

P.P.S. Greetings, Instapundit readers! Is there a better Instalanche than a pre-lunch time link before the professor heads to class (I presume) for three hours? Nay, I believe there is not. Well, maybe on a Monday.

It’s Not Whether You Win Or Lose…

Published by William Beutler on August 9, 2006 in Campaigns, Election Night, Lamont v. Lieberman and Midterms '06. 0 Comments

Can it really be that as yet only one writer in the political mediasphere, bloggers or journalists, has thought to compare Joe Lieberman’s Tuesday night concession speech non-concession:

As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But, in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November.

With his infamous 2004 New Hampshire primary self-delusion:

We are in a three-way split decision for third place!

Apparently so. Beating me to the punch is none other than David Sirota:

You may recall that after he was crushed in the New Hampshire primary, he proudly boasted that “we are in a three-way split decision for third place” — as if he really thought voters were stupid enough to think that was a good thing and that he was well on his way to winning the nomination. Similarly, today he is claiming that the Democratic Party primary election is just the “first half” of the election process — again, thinking voters are so stupid they don’t see that what he’s really doing is giving the big middle finger to American democracy.

I wouldn’t call Lieberman’s stubborn refusal to admit the obvious after the first primary a “middle finger to American democracy,” but it strikes me as a valid argument this time around.

The comparison is reason enough for me to believe that, despite the rumors, Lieberman will stay in this one to the bitter end. And really, no matter what happens, bitter is how it will be.

P.S. If that wasn’t reason enough, this might be.

Joe Versus the Volcano

Published by William Beutler on August 8, 2006 in Campaigns, Election Night, Lamont v. Lieberman, Midterms '06, National Politics and Primary fights. 2 Comments

Hear that? That’s the sound of the “anti-incumbent mood” becoming CW talking point #1 through November. The three primaries lost by incumbents tonight, in Connecticut, Michigan and Georgia had almost nothing at all to do with one another, but maybe that only reinforces the argument.

Also, here lies the end of the political media’s perception that the netroots haven’t won anything, although conservative bloggers will probably hold them to a win in November. That seems likely enough, if not in Connecticut, then also very possibly in Montana. Not getting a dozen unknown congressional candidates into the group of 435 over the last couple of years will fade from the public consciousness, and probably from the blogospheric one, as well. Of course, no blog can “win” an election — their contribution to GOTV efforts is not as notable as their contribution to the framing of political debates. And that much they’ve done.

I always get in trouble with predictions, but I don’t think Joe Lieberman is a lock for the fall — as the primarhy winner, Ned Lamont will be legitimized to non-primary voters, while Lieberman may indeed start to look like a Sore Loserman. Yes, some Republicans might cross over to support him in the fall — but wouldn’t this anticipation send more Democrats into the Lamont camp? If I was a lefty blogger, I’d say so. [Update: Already one has gone the other way, but I get the impression he wasn't old enough to be registered in Conn. when he lived there.]

The lights went out for another incumbent, Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, which wasn’t very surprising. The leftosphere didn’t want to claim her, while the rightosphere openly encouraged her opponent, Hank Johnson. That’s about what happened when Denise Majette bested McKinney in the primary four years ago, when conservative bloggers cheered on the anti-McKinney. Both Majette and Johnson campaigned as moderates, though Majette all but gave McKinney the seat back during her Katherine Harris-esque run for the Senate two years later.

And lastly, moderate Republican Joe Schwarz got bounced in Michigan. It’s a win for the reconfigured Club for Growth, and I suppose you could say the reconfigured Red State is already 1-0. Sorry, GOPProgress.

P.S. And about that picture… is that more this The Kiss or this The Kiss?

The YouTube Election

Published by William Beutler on August 8, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Lamont v. Lieberman, Midterms '06 and YouTube. 7 Comments

A few weeks ago, Time.com headlined a piece by Ana Marie Cox “The YouTube War,” referring to Iraq. Not long after, at Hit & Run, Jesse Walker called Lebanon the “first YouTube war.” I won’t get in the middle of that dispute, and I won’t get in the middle of the Lamont-Lieberman debate, but I will say this much: No matter what happens in Connecticut tonight, this Senate primary is going down as the first YouTube Election.

In the 2004 presidential campaign, while blogging was the next big thing, political web ads were first seeing wide use. MoveOn also encouraged people to make their own television ads, which were available on their site, created some controversy, and almost made it to air during the Super Bowl.

Meanwhile, it’s been a standard practice for campaigns to send a tracker — an intern with a video camera — on the trail with the opponent, hoping to capture something worth turning into an issue. It had to be something pretty remarkable, because the only way you could get it to people was on the local news, or in a campaign ad. The former is unreliable, and the latter is expensive. So aside from the debates, virtually all televisusal contact between voters and candidates is controlled by the campaigns.

That will probably remain the case for awhile, but the plummeting costs of online video means we’re seeing more of it than ever, and more of it is coming from private citizens, many of them political novices. Video-blogging still trails the text-based version, for reasons I probably don’t need to go into. But the result was there was one Evan Coyne Maloney, one John Amato and one Ian Schwartz. Now, the YouTube platform lets anyone do what they did before, and at no extra charge they provide a highly flexible distribution channel — viewers can watch videos on the site or as embedded on any blog that chooses to host it.

Search “Ned Lamont” at YouTube, and you’ll get 230 results. Search “Joe Lieberman” and you’ll get 187 results (as of this moment). That’s a bit surprising, when you consider that Lieberman has been a national figure for years and Lamont is not (yet) a household word.

The most interesting of these were shot on a handheld camera by local Connecticut bloggers, such as CTBob (blog, YT), Spazeboy (blog, YT) and ctblogger (blog, YT). They interviewed Lamont, plus visiting politicians and movie stars, made their own ads, not to mention parody ads and in the most compelling video of all, even quizzed Joementum himself:

To be sure, many YouTube videos related to the campaign are simply television segments (most likely posted in violation of copyright laws) such as Lamont’s recent interview on The Colbert Report. But even that counts. First, they’re making information available that the networks can’t rebroadcast on demand. Second, if you’re not in Connecticut, you can still see what the local television coverage is like. Remember, in the blogosphere all politics is national.

By 2008, it’s conceivable that there will be more homebrew ads on the Internet than official ones emanating from the Beltway, and video bloggers will almost surely break stories before the national media does. I don’t mean to suggest they will become more watched than the traditional campaign ads or national media. They won’t, but like blogs now, they will have an influence — especially among campaigns and the media.

For earlier ruminations on YouTube and campaigns, see James Kelm and Abstract Dynamics. Earlier in the year, they were asking what YouTube could mean for campaigns. Looks like they’re already getting answers.

Apparently MyDD Doesn’t Stand For “My Defensive Driving”

Published by William Beutler on August 7, 2006 in Blog Consultants, Democrats, Lamont v. Lieberman, Midterms '06 and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

If it turns out that a couple of prominent Democratic bloggers are injured or worse during a car accident in Connecticut this week, well, we can’t say we weren’t warned:

Braking Blue (aldon) (A little campaign levity during Lamont Week.) I was just on the phone with Tim Tagaris who cursed a blue streak as he slammed on the brakes, cut off again by Matt Stoller as they raced down to the big rally in Greenwich. Posted at 08/04/2006 04:53:53 PM EST - #

Not Black Like I’m Not Either

Published by William Beutler on August 2, 2006 in Blog Fights, Comment Sections, Lamont v. Lieberman, Language, Midterms '06 and YouTube. 3 Comments

Note: Post updated below.

Today James Taranto and Michelle Malkin caught Jane Hamsher attaching to her Huffington Post column a Photoshop job of Bill Clinton standing a Joe Lieberman in blackface. Taranto: “Are there no limits to the racism of the ‘progressive’ left?” Malkin: “I am so sure the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and the civil rights brigade will be protesting this disgusting use of blackface in political discourse.” Mark Coffey has an open letter to Arianna.

So then: The picture disappeared from the site within hours, and the comments — many, but not all sent by Mr. Taranto and Ms. Malkin — filled up with comments critical, sarcastic, but you wouldn’t say abusive. And yet, every single comment was flagged abusive, even: “Good post—and right on target. But the picture isn’t helpful, though God knows Holy Joe would put on blackface if it pleased Bush.” Not to mention: “There should be a feature that would let us flag this article as abusive.”

Tonight, if you go to Firedoglake right now, the top post, “About That Graphic…” begins:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today. Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman’s campaign has used this in attempt to hurt Ned and score political points, mustering their own faux indignation in attempt to further distract from the issues important to the voters of Connecticut.”

She rejects “absurd charges of racism,” but then she also concedes: “I regret it and I invite them to take it up with the person who did it, namely me.” It’s not quite a Mel Gibson apology, but at least she didn’t call on Malkin and the Lieberdems to meet with her and help her to heal. I digress.

It’s unfortunate, inasmuch as the actual bloggers in Connecticut have been helping make this race the most exciting of the year. And not just their blogging, but also their extensive use of YouTube.

A couple days ago I explained how foolhardy was the NRSC’s attempt to tarnish Jon Tester by association with a troll at Daily Kos. It’s not always fair to use bloggers in campaigns, but Hamsher is not a nobody, even if she sometimes sounds like a troll.

If nothing else, the artwork sure was a non sequitur: Yes, the column is about old Joementum, but the point of contention was Wal-Mart, not race. The only hint that is still available on the site is the credit to somone named Darkblack who appears to be a regular contributor of artwork to Firedoglake; one of FDL’s distinctive features is the submitted artwork, including plenty of Photoshop work. (Plus, this HuffPo column also appears to largely be a quotation from Digby, but that might just be the sponsored ad mucking up the layout.)

I’m no fan of Ms. Hamsher’s Coulter-left (or Malkin-left) style, but I think at least this time she realizes her HuffPo photo was the kind of thing she herself would have seized on and flogged mercilessely if the blackface was on the other site*.

Update: The Courant gives it a few column inches; Dan Balz gives it a few more.

TPM Muckraker’s headline — “Lieberman Attacks Blogger Over Blackface Pic” — gets it exactly backward. Matt Stoller thinks the best term for Hamsher’s graphical selection is “edgy.”

Filling in for Reynolds, Ann Althouse pegs it as a “sorry if you were offended form of apology with the extra oomph of implying that a lot of the offense was bogus and an immediate descent into justification for giving offense.” TPM and Stoller are just glad to help.

The pro-Lamont bloggers actually based in Connecticut are sticking to the program, at least on the page. Yet independent Genghis Conn, on the other hand, catches Lamont going from “I’m very appreciative of the blogs.” to “I don’t know anything about the blogs.” Ouch. One Jane Hamsher comes along, and this is the thanks you get?

[Update: Jump removed to accomodate updates.]

*Actually, the one place where it is still up is Malkin’s blog.

Update: Only now, Slate is using it to accompany Dickerson’s take on the “bizarre Lieberman blackface scandal,” quoth the editors. Actually, so is Football Fans For Truth. Malkin has not just the blackface picture, but Steve Gilliard’s “Sambo” photo, a Tim Kaine had to extricate himself from late in the 2005 VA GOV campaign. So I’m just asking here, when is it considered outrage, and when is it evidence? So I understand it that Hamsher and Huffington are not allowed to post it — so what rules apply to others? Is it robbed of its power because it’s already been held out for criticism?

Nothing out there about Slate’s usage just yet. Will there be an email campaign to Jacob Weisberg?

P.S. Dales is right to point out the blackface photo is still up on Firedoglake, insofar as it’s still in a public folder. Of course, what’s important to remember is that it was there in the first place.

Easy As ABC? The Rightroots Get Ready To Find Out

Published by William Beutler on August 2, 2006 in Midterms '06, National Politics, Netroots and Online Fundraising. 7 Comments

Note: Post updated below.

I’ve been anticipating the GOP answer to ActBlue for some time now — a year now, at least. But when it finally arrived on my laptop Tuesday morning, I was a little confused. I had pictured something that blatantly (and wisely) lifted ActBlue’s concept wholesale. But that isn’t quite what it is — not yet, at any rate.

What we see now is a site named ABC PAC and a small group of privately-organized bloggers billing themselves as the Rightroots. ABC does the actual bundling for the slate of candidates endorsed by the RightRoots. The analogy is to ActBlue hosting pages for the Netroots Candidates or Blue America slates, each sponsored by a different set of bloggers. The immediate difference is that ABC/Rightroots debuts as a closed system. If you want to sign up and create your own slate, well, patience.

The ABC principals are ex-RNC eCampaign director Mike Turk, the prime mover; former Reagan adviser and McGuire Woods consultant Frank Donatelli; Jason Torchinsky, formerly an attorney at DoJ; and Chuck DeFeo, who recently bloggified Townhall.com and mostly just lent his name to this project. Turk hired Becki Donatelli’s Campaign Solutions to host the site and process credit cards, and through her, Frank and his old PAC became involved. An entity called the ABC PAC has existed almost exclusively on paper (and FEC.gov PDFs) since 2004. Republican operatives Donatelli, Craig Shirley and Charlie Black used the name to petition the FEC when BCRA was still being sorted out. Turk tells Blog P.I. they liked the name because “ABC” telegraphs ease of use, and indeed convenience was another reason to take an existing committee out of mothballs rather than filing as a new one.

Once they went live, John Hawkins from Right Wing news approached Turk about combining their efforts. Comprising the Hawkins-led Rightroots bloggers: Ed Morrissey, Kevin Aylward, Robert Bluey, Mary Katherine Ham, and Pat Hynes, each of whom posted their own announcements yesterday.

As of this writing [update: Danny Glover has more] the blog-friendly Rep. Jack Kingston and Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist have added their names to the Rightroots group. Kingston — who has put more stock in his blog guy, David All, than pretty much any other GOP member of Congress — has promised to donate $14,000 if the Rightroots can raise $26,000 by Friday midnight. With $12,070 raised so far, Kingston might not have to follow through on that — although a late-night arm-twisting session reminiscent of the 2003 Medicare vote wouldn’t be too surprising.

According to this Dave Weigel snark, half of the listed House candidates are already NRCC-supported. In other words, they seem to be hedging their bets against finding themselves in the uncomfortable situation I alluded to yesterday, and as Weigel puts it, of backing “their own loser candidates.”

But will it work?

Turk calls ABC and Rightroots a “proof of concept,” to see if the rightosphere will respond to online fundraising appeals like the leftosphere has. Thanks in large part to blogs like MyDD, Eschaton and Firedoglake, ActBlue has raised $1.2 million overall since it went online 26 months ago, with 11 of the many ActBlue “slates” (some are for just one candidate, such as Paul Hackett) surpassing $100,00 in donations each.

But conservative bloggers have never truly had campaign politics in their bloodstream like the liberal bloggers do. Their highest-traffic bloggers are busy sparring with Cindy Sheehan and watching the Middle East, while the left’s highest-traffic blogs have been raising money since their earliest days. The GOP does well in direct mail and telephone fundraising, but the RNC’s MyGOP project is dead in the water just months after its debut.

Polls tell us there are more self-identified conservatives in the general population than liberals, so this should mean conservatives should be able to raise more, even if not right away. But do blog demographics match up? MyDD netroots expert Chris Bowers, for one, doesn’t think so. As a veteran number-cruncher, he estimates that warm bodies in the left-blogosphere outnumber right by as much as 3-1.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bowers is gloating about the slow start. He characterizes it as “failing,” and is already using past tense:

There was no way for people to start their own fundraising pages or create their own slate of candidates. Instead of being able to give to every candidate for federal office, every party committee, and to candidates in several states not running for federal office, the only options available to people not in control of the page were to give to a fixed slate of around 18 candidates. Further, there were no links available to local blogs covering the race, candidate websites / official blogs, volunteer pages, or lists of campaign events. In short, this page offers only one way to become active in the 2006 elections: donate to their officially endorsed candidates.

As previously noted, Rightroots is the only slate available; other interested parties have been told they’ll just have to wait. I’m told that eventually it will be brought up to parity with ActBlue: Bloggers will have a personal ID with the site to track their accounts, and ABC PAC will make it possible to donate to any federal GOP candidate (right now only high profile candidates are listed).

The other problem the project has right now is a lack of transparency. While digging around I was able to discover that there is no overlap between ABC and the Rightroots membership, but for those outside the circle, it isn’t obvious where one ends and one begins. ActBlue offers an extensive FAQ and other information; ABC merely offers an under-written About page.

It turns out that Campaign Solutions is doing the back end at cost — the only overhead is site development and FEC reporting — but right now there’s no way to tell they aren’t taking a cut. Turk says transparency documentation is in the works: “As an independent PAC, we want to be fairly transparent so people will trust the donation will get to the candidate.”

Still, it’s perfectly obvious that they launched it before they were really, actually ready to go. I’m told that ABC is hoping to roll out tools comparable to ActBlue’s before November, but nobody is giving a date for when it will actually happen.

As yet, a proof of concept is really all it is: It’s more like a shareware demo that only lets you play the first level. Yes, it’s a big step for the conservative blogosphere in terms of catching up to the liberal netroots’ activist infrastructure. But only that. If the leftosphere is (I apologize in advance for using the term) Web 2.0, then the rightosphere is still figuring out 1.0.

P.S. If they wanted to be ActRed.org, they would’ve run into one obstacle: ActBlue’s Ben Rahn owns it. Bonus fact: ActRed.com is also taken, apparently by someone in France.

Update: Machiavel is right — the fundraising did pick up today, and Kingston will definitely be chipping in the 14 grand, and crawled the first day or so. Rightroots jumped over this bar — and in August, so not too shabby. So I withdraw gibes. While Bowers clearly doesn’t want it to work, I’m only saying the PAC site must improve to work over the long run. Also in my defense, I watched the Rightroots fundraising total inch slowly upward on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, and the the Rightroots ABC page says “(Candidate Totals Updated Daily).” Sounds like “once daily.” So how about a fundraising bat?

Elective RINO-plasty

Published by William Beutler on August 1, 2006 in Internecine Battles, Midterms '06, Netroots, Online Fundraising, Primary fights and Republicans. 3 Comments

Red State is one of the few conservative blogs to specialize in Republican activism, and now, guided by newly-minted CEO (but longtime contributor) Erick Erickson, the site has moved into territory only the liberal activist blogs have traversed: Supporting a primary challenge. In their first outing, Erickson & co. are teaming up with the veteran primary fight encouragers at Club for Growth to support former state Rep. Tim Walberg against liberal freshman Rep. Joe Schwarz in Michigan’s 7th district.

Red State, like almost all conservative blogs, has questioned the wisdom of Ned Lamont’s challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (not to mention the liberal blogs for supporting it). But they share a few things in common: First of all, both seats are assumedly safe for the squabbling side. Second, both incumbents are talking up their experience, their ability to bring jobs to the state, and their endorsements from traditional interest groups close to the party. This might work with the wider electorate in each race, but it isn’t working with the online activists. For Lieberman, his Democratic opponents just don’t care: His support for the Iraq war and his palling around with Bush dwarf all other issues. For Schwarz, his Republican critics are in no mood to hear it, either. His RINO tendencies are numerous, though there isn’t an issue as galvanizing as the Iraq war [Udpdate: In the comments, I'm told the major fault here line is abortion. I can believe it, but it's still not the issue that Iraq is]. The closest thing might be the conservative bloggers’ conscious crusade against pork barrel politics. But Schwarz has generally voted the right way on taxes, and is in fact trying to attack Walberg as a tax-raiser. They aren’t buying that either, but also, Tim Walberg’s internet profile is in no way comparable Lamont’s.

Since Erickson first threw down against Schwarz on July 27, he’s been working his way through 10 reasons why Red Staters should get behind Walberg: Schwarz’s opposition to drilling in ANWR, support for Medicare-subsidized Viagra, association with an anti-Republican gay rights organization, and pro-Kelo position on eminent domain, as well as his reliance on Democrats for support.

But there’s little excitement about Walberg evident on the site. Erickson’s first post collected just 27 comments and only two pledges to donate modest sums (and the Club doesn’t make fundraising figures immediately available). The subsequent posts have averaged about four comments each, well below what most front-page posts accumulate. Of course, starting 11 days out from the primary is just too late to have any kind of real impact. The lefty blogs were about a month out when they got involved in Ciro Rodriguez’s challenge earlier this year, and that wasn’t enough.

Republican blogger activists have a long way to go in catching up to their Democratic counterparts, and today they took a big step (more on this later) [Update: It's here]. But after hitting the liberal netroots over and over with their poor electoral track record, are the Republican netroots prepared to respond if they start going 0-fer themselves?