NOTE: I have no idea why this post is suddenly current. It was originally drafted in August, 2007. Why it’s here now, I dunno. But as it’s out there, no point in pulling it down. But do keep in mind all thoughts are in the context of 2007. Then again, how much has really changed in almost three years?

James Durbin at TechRepublican laments on the lack of any real organization like MoveOn or DailyKos on the conservative side of the web:

The sad thing is it wouldn’t take that much to build a solid organization. There are probably 5,000 blogs nationwide that could be organized into a conservative community and propped up with a Conservative Advertisers Network where politicians could buy geo-targeted ads and in-text ad links. For say, $500,000 total, we could work with one of the existing communities and grow it into a conservative powerhouse.

Any conservative George Soros out there want to pitch in some cheddar? Think of it this way – you’ll make more in a business-friendly environment then you will under a socialist one. I’m willing to give the set of plans to the right people, if anyone is interested.

And right there we see the problem with many people trying to play catch-up on the political side of Web 2.0.

It’s all about the money.

But it shouldn’t be. As I say in the comments:

Are we really just a bunch of mercenaries willing to go out of our way to advance the Conservative cause on the internet only if it pays well? Creating the “next big thing” or even utilizing what’s already there for the cause doesn’t take a lot of money, it simply takes time and a willingness to make it happen. Yet too many people are thinking in terms of dollars and seeing this as a money making opportunity. We’ve got to get past that if we can even hope to begin to compete on the web. Once you build something, once you have a model that works, then you can ask people to invest in it.

The reader generated value of my comment? -1 points. So is the comment of Brian Edwards who uses a comment to hype GOPHub which is an actual effort to create a Digg for right of center blog content.

So a comment that talks about what is being done (and without a half a million dollar investment) and another that points out that money should not be the issue aren’t worth noting. They’re worth less than that. Good to know.

The problem is that the right is trying to create the “next big thing” right away. And while that might not come cheap, it’s a flawed approach at the issue. MoveOn had some big backing, sure, but DailyKos, ActBlue, these sites started as activist driven, grassroots organizations that have grown through the years. If DailyKos and ActBlue have made their organizers money, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t their intention and has become a delightful perk. It’s also ignoring the existance of sites like RedState which act as hubs of conservative thought without large financial backing.

Let’s look locally. Virginia Political Blogs and Richmond Sunlight are two projects from Waldo Jaquith that show what one can do if they simply have the desire and the time. While money might have been nice, Waldo didn’t need a big chunk of cash to provide a great political service. Either of these projects could have been made to target one political side or another if Waldo were so inclined, and at the same low cost and great service.

So the question becomes, are folks on the right really seeking the next big thing that will drive conservative activism or the next big thing that will make money?

Ultimately it comes down to the line that still holds true: if you build it they will come. You can’t just ask for a chunk of change upfront and promise to deliver some amazing product that will be the answer to everyone’s prayers. You have to have a product that’s already doing something, a working model that shows potential that only needs a little boost to dominate. GOPHub is a good service in its infancy. If it just had a bit more backing, not just financially but among the blogs, it could go a long way to act as a clearing house for the national conservative blogosphere. That they have a working model shows that it can be capable of and that’s a better thing to look to than so far empty promises and hype that smacks more of panhandling than actual substance.

UPDATE: Cuccinelli responds to Brownlee below.

Today the John Brownlee for Attorney General campaign’s “The Brownlee Report” dictated that Brownlee was leading the fight to curb illegal workers in Virginia. How’s that?

In response to a question regarding illegal aliens and undocumented workers, John Brownlee said he strongly supports “the use of the U.S. government’s E-Verify system.” Brownlee supports making the use of E-Verify mandatory for all employers in the Commonwealth, including the state government, in an effort to reduce the number of illegal aliens in Virginia. E-Verify is a proven and effective resource for employers to verify citizenship / residency status and screen out illegals who are seeking employment.

In a response to the same question, State Senator Ken Cuccinelli said he opposed requiring private employers to use E-Verify, suggesting the system was too flawed to be reliable.

How do their stances measure up to other states in this fine nation?

Currently, three states – Mississippi, South Carolina and Arizona – require all employers to use the E-Verify system. Seven more states require state agencies and government contractors to use the system, and two other states (including neighboring North Carolina) require all government agencies to use it. Legislation requiring the use of E-Verify is under consideration by four other states, and as of July 1, all federal government contractors and subcontractors will be required to E-Verify their newly hired workers.

Nine states agree with Cuccinelli’s assessment as opposed to three following Brownlee’s take.

During a time of economic crisis and increasing burdens on private businesses to pay their bills and put food on the table of their owners and employees, John Brownlee feels the power of government should be to create a greater financial burden on said businesses. And to what end?

Brownlee added that by implementing E-Verify and reducing the number of illegals coming to Virginia, both businesses and taxpayers will save money and reduce costs.

By increasing the burden of government on businesses and the people you can decrease the burden of people on government.

Isn’t that a little backwards for a Conservative to argue?

Isn’t the more Conservative argument to limit the size of government so it is a less burden on the people?

Does E-Verify reduce the costs by preventing the government from spending thousands upon thousands of dollars busting up small businesses to ensure they are using an electronic surveillance system to track citizens… er, ILLEGAL ALIENS?

Is Brownlee taking the Bloomburg approach on small businesses?

We already know from the AG debate at the advance that Brownlee’s in favor of price controls.

What else does the government get to check?

This isn’t leading the fight against illegal immigration. It’s leading the fight against small businesses, entrepeneurship and limited government.

Brownlee’s full text available after the cut.

4/28 UPDATE: Ken Cuccinelli responds to Brownlee’s accusations:

For the record – I do not oppose any effort to verify the status of someone’s legal residency. Unlike John Brownlee, I have a proven record in the State Senate opposing illegal immigration. No where in my comments did I say I opposed E-Verify. But don’t believe me – long time party activist, VFRW member and party leader Helen Blackwell was there – and this is what she said:

“No where in Ken’s comments Saturday did he say he opposed E-Verify. In fact, he recited his record supporting E-Verify in the State Senate. Ken said that they have not yet been able to get E-Verify out of Committee in the State Senate, and he suggested that an approach he would support would be to have the state government go first, then require private employers to use E-Verify. Ken said generally that he believes that the government should first impose requirements on itself before imposing those requirements on business.”

Amazingly, John Brownlee’s lack of research has missed an important point. Working with then Attorney General Bob McDonnell, I actually PASSED legislation REQUIRING that all state government contractors hire only legal residents of the United States and for the first time, giving the Commonwealth the ability to FIRE contractors not in compliance. As simple and straight forward as that sounds – this was an enormously difficult bill to pass in the Senate. John didn’t mention that in his email. Another case of false rhetoric versus the actual record.

Cuccinelli’s full response is after Brownlee’s full text.

Continue Reading »

President Obama is asking the Cabinet to cut $100 million over the next 90 days.  RealClearPolitics has a video of reporters taking the administration to task for hailing the $100 million dollar cut as significant after dismissing criticism of an $8 billion appropriations bill several weeks ago.  Gibbs mentions how $100 million is a lot of money and to folks like you and me (assuming billionares don’t read J’s Notes) it most certainly is.  $8 billion is a heck of a lot more, though, and pales in comparrison to the $787 billion bailout.  Both of those are paltry compared to Obama’s proposed 2010 budget.  The Heritage Foundation has a handy graphic to put it all in perspective:

It is disengenious to try and tell the American people that you are saving them millions when taking them and their children and grandchildren to fiscal task for TRILLIONS.

That’s like saying “buy $3.69 trillion dollars worth of government, save 0.00271%!  The more you buy the more you save!”  Obama’s 2010 budget is nearly $12,300 for every man, woman and child in America, while his budget cut saves each and every single American an amazing $0.33.  Thanks!

(Graphic via Tertium Quids)

Welcome to the fold, Delegate. Now about that smoking ban…

Alan Wexelblat at Copyfight says the RIAA has taken over the Obama DOJ but Ben Sheffner says it’s much ado over nothing.  CNET has more here.

Not as technology but as communication:

At a New Organizing Institute presentation this morning, former Obama new media director Joe Rospars (last seen in these pages talking about the importance of good content to the campaign’s work) made a really significant point — his department was NOT a part of the campaign’s tech team. Instead, it was coequal with communications, field/grassroots, finance, etc., and was in fact just as much a client of the technology folks as, say, the press team was.

…

This also gets at a deeper issue in the online advocacy world — that political people often think of the internet as technology, when really it’s communications. Often, the problems political groups encounter in online outreach have nothing to do with hardware, software or websites, and everything to do with institutional systems and institutional structures. In other words, it’s not the tools, it’s the people and how they’re organized and directed to USE the tools.

It’s practically impossible to argue that Obama’s new/social media outreach wasn’t miles ahead of anything he opposed.  Maybe this is part of the reason why – a fundamental difference in how it was treated compared to other camps.

John Muden has announced his intentions to run for Richmond’s 7th District seat soon to be vacated by Deloris McQuinn when she officially wins the special election for Dwight Jones’s Delegate seat.  Style Weekly has a write up as well:

Neighborhood blogger and middle school history teacher John Murden says he will run for the 7th District City Council seat if the current occupant, Delores McQuinn, wins election to the House of Delegates in January as expected.

McQuinn won the Democratic primary Dec. 6 and is running unopposed for the 70th District House of Delegates seat being vacated by Mayor-elect Dwight Jones. A special election to fill the seat will be held Jan. 6.

Murden is best known for launching the Church Hill People’s News, a neighborhood news blog.

“What makes [a run] possible is the energy and enthusiasm and positiveness of getting people to work with each other,” through the blog, he says.

Personally, I think referring to John primarily as a blogger is doing himself and his neighborhood a disservice.  Sure he blogs.  And sure he runs community websites.  But these are virtual bulletin boards that are merely a new way of bringing a community together.  That makes him a community organizer that merely uses the internet as a tool in helping bring folks together and addressing their needs.  A technocrat of sorts using his knowledge and experience to help empower folks who otherwise might not have their voices or interests heard.  Yeah, that’s the way to go.

John is a man who has given his time and effort to help bring his community together and I think he’d be a great advocate not only for the 7th District but for all of Richmond on City Council.  He’s got my support.

(h/t Tobacco Avenue for the campaign poster)

Posted by Shaun Kenney, shared here:

From the introduction:

We know this, whether we are prepared to admit it publicly or not. The Republican Party of Virginia is broken, but not on ideas or principle.

The Republican Party of Virginia logistically is a wreck. Talk of throwing any part of our coalition overboard is both premature and unsound. Good candidates will no longer be able to paper over the severe disadvantages we have placed ourselves under. Until Virginia Republicans recognize and correct this problem, we will continue to slide further into a minority status.

Quick reforms are needed. This approach – even if taken in parts over time – will allow RPV’s infrastructure to make immediate strikes into our 2009 races now, while allowing Virginia Republicans the “long game” to re-ignite the entrepreneurial spirit we have arguably lost.

Click here for the rest of the memo (PDF 230K)

“Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.”

BD: GOP Youth Outreach

In an attempt to respond to a McCain surrogate saying NOVA is not the “real Virginia”, Daily Kos gives us this:

What’s worse are some of the ignorant comments left on Raising Kaine, but I’ll leave those be for now.

The map is inaccurate.  When talking about “real Virginia” and “fake Virginia” the split isn’t so far southwest.  At best it’s the northern border of Stafford County, worst case scenario the northern shore of the Rappahannock River.

It’s all about Northern Virginia.

I have yet to find anyone outside of Northern Virginia who is insulted by the “real Virginia” comment.  Please, if there is someone, step up and let me know.

But here’s the thing:  Norther Virginia is NOT like the rest of Virginia.  At all.

There are many reason for that.  One is that it’s been growing leaps and bounds up north and that’s been good for the state.  But you now have a small area that is top heavy with people who either have not been in Virginia very long or do not care about the rest of the state on the whole.  Their focus is on the DC region, not Virginia.

Now this is not to say they’re not “real Virginia” but they’re not the same.  For better of for worse.  And this is not a distinction that the McCain camp has just pulled out of thin air.  The Washington Post and Northern Virginians (particularlly the “progressives” and other left of centers) are pushing this NOVA/ROVA (Rest Of Virginia) split that has created an us vs. them mentality.

You’ll have folks try and paint this as a ignorance or racial thing.  It’s a matter of the more educated, urbanized Virginians showing those podunks in the middle of nowhere how to truly live.  Well, it’s certainly bigotry, but not how they’re describing it.

It’s elitism.  It’s a “me first” mentality.  And it’s disgusting.

The 2008 battle for Virginia is merely further highlighting this split that is happening between Northern Virginia and the rest of Virginia.  NOVA is very quickly taking over the reins of the state at the expense of the rest of Virginia.  Issues relevant to Northern Virginia aren’t so to much of the rest of the state, but as they are the population and economic center of the state you can expect their needs to take a front burner to those of elsewhere in the state.  Military bases are closing in southeast Virginia, jobs are bleeding out of southwest Virginia, but we’re focused on the critical need of a transportation plan that mainly benefits NOVA, nevermind it may cost the entire state to pay for it.

This is turning into a split that is only going to get worse.  2009 will further highlight this and drive the divide.

Thing is, this is not a shared belief among all people in Northern Virginia.  Typically this divide is hammered by “progressives” and Democrats in Northern Virginia.  They want to highlight their superiority to the rest of the state and the ignorance of the rest of it.  But that’s because they don’t get the rest of Virginia, a Virginia with real needs and beliefs that are different than those held by the urbanized elite.

The “real Virginia” argument was started by these elitists.  These are the same “progressively” minded folks who firmly believe the rest of Virginia is full of racists and bigots and must be dragged to the light.  They have a strong misunderstanding of who makes up the rest of Virginia.  As long as that continues the “real Virginia” argument, the NOVA/ROVA argument will continue to exist as long as it serves their political purposes.

If Obama loses Virginia or even if he wins but loses the “rest of Virginia”, expect to hear a lot of shouting from Northern Virginia’s “progressives” about how awesome they are and how backwards the rest of us are.  Expect them to carry that standard into 2009 legislation and elections.  Expect them to keep hammering this divide.

And expect them to be insulted when you highlight this false divide that they themselves have created in a way that doesn’t suit their wants.

I’ve recently started posting at Bearing Drift.  Most recently:

Obama’s coming to Richmond Thursday but he may pick a Vice President as early as tomorrow.

A new organization on the Left is aiming to harass top Republican donors in an attempt to subdue their right to free speech as private citizens:

Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.

The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.

Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.

What’s next?  Threats sent to anyone who participates in a Republican primary?

Targeting the leaders of an organization and especially targeting their message is fair game.  By creating such a group and putting themselves out there they are inviting such debate and criticism.  Targeting those who provide some financial backing, especially when not being in charge of the direction or message, is out right intimidation and an attempt to infringe upon their rights as American’s.  Just as you have no right to threaten to destroy a person who writes a letter to the editor, no one has the right to personally attack a donor merely because they don’t like what happens once the check is cut.

It’s irresponsible gutter politics and I hope that no one buys into it.  Otherwise they’re inviting the same response to their donors and payback can be quite gruesome.

Michelle Malkin has a copy of the letter and more:

Ironies and hypocrisies abound. Let us count the ways.

You’ve got the nutroots brigade digging up the addresses of GOP donors to chill their political free speech while these same left-wing operatives and their followers label it “stalking” to publish public e-mail contact information for anti-war shills, or to Google Democrat donors, or to vet Democrat health care sob stories by actually reporting on their financial status.

When we do it, it’s intimidation. When they do, it’s “accountability.”

Dan Riehl makes a related point about a liberal blogger who dug into the background of a McCain donor.

When we do it, it’s bullying. When they do it, it’s journalism.

And an interesting note from a Free Republic commenter:

Where does this Rat Pack intend to get the names and addresses? If they are obtained from FEC records, they can only be used for information purposes, to show that Smith donated to Jones, for instance. If those names are used for fund-raising purposes, and preventing a flow of funds to your opponent is a fund-raising purpose, then this is a felony under election law.

For those of you who haven’t heard, #dontgo has been making a bit of news among the rightosphere as it covers House Republican members who are still holding debates in Congress about energy bills despite Congress being in recess and Pelosi turning off the lights, mics, cameras and all the Democrats going home.

The movement didn’t make too much in the way of news Friday when it started or yesterday when it continued, but something must be working because MoveOn is preparing a protest against the movement and the right is trying to counter. So that’s leading some (Patrick Ruffini in particular) to declare that #dontgo is now an official movement and potential turning point for the right.

And maybe he’s right. The energy issue has changed the tone across the nation and instead of Republican’s being told by leadership to do whatever they feel is necessary to win, Democrats are now being told that it’s OK to back drilling if they need to. This issue and the movement around it is growing and could very well fuel a lot of Republican fire. It’ll be interesting to see how it pans out.

UPDATE: Find out more about #dontgo at dontgo.us and dontgomovement.com

UPDATE 2: CNN picks up on dontgomovement.com.

Dragging Paris Hilton into political debates strikes me as kinda weird. Sure, John McCain did it and shame on him. But it seems he wasn’t the first of our presumptive presidential nominees to do it:

If it’s so awful to pull Paris Hilton into politics, as John McCain recently did in a commercial, then Barack Obama shouldn’t have dragged her into a Senate debate two years ago, when he attacked the repeal of the death tax:

Mr. OBAMA: Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the complete repeal of the estate tax.

First of all, [let's] call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is—the Paris Hilton tax break.

Ohs nos!

UPDATE: McCain wasn’t even the first to compare Obama to Hilton. It was, in fact, Sen. Obama himself:

A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:

There’s nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

“Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame,” says Barack Obama. “I’ve already had an hour and a half. I mean, I’m so overexposed, I’m making Paris Hilton look like a recluse.”