Sunday, July 29, 2007
|
|
Do Not Cede One Inch
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
5:25 PM
|
Hugh and Dean think that online advantage is tied to macro atmospherics more than it is to specific online tactics. They'll be surprised to know that by and large, I agree. I wrote a piece on just this matter two weeks ago titled, "Message vs. Tactics Online." My position: message matters more -- and we probably won't be in a position to remedy our position online until Hillary Clinton is the opponent.
Needless to say, I think this a disagreement about more than tactics. It is about a basic responsiveness and willingness to answer questions. If our candidates believe themselves too haughty to answer an oddball question or two, that makes it less likely they'll listen to us on immigration, spending, and the war. Why? Because at some level, they think they're above certain forms of criticism. They think they always know best.
I also think it's a question of whether they'll be savvy enough to channel the flood of grassroots support that will arrive on their doorstep on February 6 of next year. Will they welcome them in with open arms, or set up elaborate rules and restrictions governing their interaction with the campaign and the candidate? Young volunteers like Josh Hersh and Ann Marie Curling are literally begging their candidates to get more engaged online -- because that makes it easier for them to recruit more volunteers and build an on-the-ground infrastructure to elect them.
On the message front, I don't believe the Republican campaigns are as volunteer-centric as they could be right now, and that isn't helping Republican enthusiasm any. When campaigns define themselves in the press in terms of insider terms like electability, money raised, and cash-on-hand, they shouldn't be surprised when volunteers stay away. When Republican candidates prioritize high-dollar fundraisers with 50 or 100 people over a debate watched by 2 to 3 million people, not even thinking of the online fundraising bump the debate could generate, that sends a message that the grassroots don't matter to them.
For all its riches, the Bush campaign was never like this. The volunteer goals were just as important as the money goals. And we had some pretty fired-up volunteers, largely because of the political environment, but also because of the body language of the campaign was welcoming and open.
The immigration example Hugh uses is a case-in-point of failing to capitalize on enthusiasm for the long term. That was a huge victory for talk radio and the Rightroots. But what do we have to show for it? Where is the million person email list of volunteers recruited during the immigration battle that we can activate again and again on the war, earmarks, and electing conservative candidates in '08? It's not true that the conservative base isn't energized on anything. They were energized on immigration, but because of a basic lack of online savviness or willingness to put the Web first, that energy has dissipated. That's in marked contrast to the MoveOn model, wherein they continue to bank activists on fight after fight, using them to mobilize them for the next battle.
Dean is right that you can't have tactical success without enthusiasm. But getting the tactics right is essential to channeling the enthusiasm. To some extent, Kerry blew it by not having a rational spending plan for all his extra riches. Howard Dean flooded Iowa with orange hats. So Democrats don't have this stuff down pat yet, something Obama has been especially cognizant of. But I do think they are closer to mustering the necessary combination of enthusiasm and tactics than we are.
My basic message here is that we can't take anything for granted, and we cannot cede one inch of ground to the Democrats. Just because the enthusiasm isn't there right now, that doesn't excuse us from doing our homework, or sending a dead-wrong message to the young grassroots activists who power our campaigns.
|
|
You can always cede the low, swampy ground. Trust me on this. Your concerns about volunteerism in the current campaign is nice; its also totally divorced from YouTube, except in your mind.
As I say again and again; its not the YouTube debate per se, but all of these modern American Idol debates. They are foolish wastes of time designed to make the issues trivial and the candidates small. |
|
Here is a fine example of why the Republican Party can generate no energy. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010397
Hugh argues all the time that we are a big tent party that has to accept buffoons like this that have been around for 25 years.
I say kick them to the curb and get in real conservatives.
The YouTube debate has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with it. |
|
Lighten up regarding whether the Republican candidates decide to debate on CNN/YouTube or not. You've presented your reasons for participating; now let them decide.
Many, including the candidates themselves, disagree that this particular venue is wise or appropriate. I personally don't see enough positives in participating in such a farce, and for them to participate would lessen my opinion of their judgement, too.
This "debate" would be nothing more than walking into a known ambush by well-prepared hostile activists. Imagine the sound-bites CNN could generate that would hamper/damage the candidates for the remainder of their campaigns. The candidates can get their messages out much more effectively in other ways. |
|
There is an aloof smugness emanating from top down withour government in general and the GOP in particular. For conservatives, we feel like the WWI veterans facing the troops sent by Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression. This is what we fought for?
There is just something wrong to the core with the current GOP crowd and we all know it. Look at the two sample e-mails Hugh has posted as updates to his post on fence-sitters. They are both from GOP Enablers who will automatically vote for whoever the nominee turns out to be. What exactly is Hugh's point? Those votes are already in the bank! What is needed is for the hemorrage of party defections to stop. I sent an e-mail and posted in on my blog for anyone interested. It mirrors many of the things you just said.
The GOP party registration is down to 27% of all voters and the party is at war with its base. You couldn't design a better plan guaranteeing a wipeout in 2008. |
|
|
Good -- cede the new techonology and maintain the paranoia. Yes: questions sent in by average Americans are ambushes -- Republican candidates should never field them. Youtube, google, windows, facebook etc. are all leftist conspiracies, and even discussing them dirties dignified Republican candidates like Rudy "drag-queen-twice-divorced-sleeping-with-his-mistress-in-the-Mayor's-mansion" Guiliani. Perhaps if the questions were sent in via Pony Express? |
|
The debate should be rescheduled with all the candidates.Even if the questions are "goofy", the candidates just re-phrase appropriately and answer with dignity.
I think Hugh acutally fell into a perfect example of this on his show. Even he acted surprised when it happened so naturally.Someone help me find the showclip.... I'll look for it so you all can hear.
|
|
First, thanks to HughHewitt.com for continuing this important debate on the debate. However, I continue to believe Patrick has the stronger position. Let me put my thoughts this way...
The Elephants are down 21 points to the Donkeys. It's only four minutes into the first quarter. Do Dean and Hugh really think we should go to the Prevent Defense? Really?
Running out the clock isn't an option. And caution is a luxury we cannot afford. We need offense, gents, and a lot of it. |
|
The youtube debate format stinks but then that's CNN's problem not the GOP's nor is it the Dem's issue either.
GOP contenders need to keep on plugging and dealing with reality and either the individual contenders can cope with silly, inane questions presented by Anderson Cooper et al or they can't; part of the ongoing weeding out process.
Maybe Rudi, Mitt, Fred, John and the others can respond with appropriate humor any snowman questions and maybe they'll be flummoxed! Tough cookies, that'll help us good guys decide who we'll be supporting in Feb '08!
|
|
|
|
This issue is the center of why conservatism is at a low ebb today -- it can't take what it regularly serves.
Don't most of the wonderfully enlightened posters on TownHall dismiss all criticism as sissy words from "libs" or "hippies?" Will we hear again about how the Senate minority leader "mitchslapped" his way to another minor tactical maneuver in Washington?
And isn't everyone who thinks the war in Iraq is in a bad way part of the "loony left" that'll kill Grandma with socialized medicine and let illegal immigrants steal her heirlooms?
Calling an inability to debate "self-respect" gives off a whiff of sad desperation reminiscent of the British Conservative Party in the UK before its final demise. Surely the present company would like to avoid that fate into national irrelevance.
DU
DU |
|
|
You are begining to sound a little too insistent on this. Better pipe down or you may get a visit from one of Mitt Romney's "police officers." |
|
Conservatives who are sick to death of RINOs.
We'll be damned if we'll support flop-floppers like Mitt (I hope he can overcome this label), tough-talking liberals like Rudy (pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-Amnesty), lunatics like McCain (John Kerry is a friend of his), and Pro-Muslim candidates like Fred Thompson (or else why hire Spencer Abraham?).
We need Conservative candidates to get excited about. Duncan Hunter looks, sounds, and acts right; but with the leadership of the Republican party showering people I won't vote for with accolades, there's no reason to expect that they learned anything from the Amnesty fiasco.
Go ahead, find us another Bob Dole ands watch Hilary or even Obama sail in to the White House...
Or give us Conservative choices and watch the whole country "turn red" (my how that phrase has changed since the Goldwater days)... |
|
|
If Patrick's message to Republicans is "Stay Awake" then I agree. If it is "Dumb Down", I don't. |
|
|
How can anyone expect signs of excitement by conservatives at this point? The RINO party still has an eternity before Jorge Bush stops screwing up and retires to Texas with his circle of cronies. Once his miasma begins to dissipate and the full horror of a Clinton II presidency dawns, minds will focus as they do on the steps of the gallows. Only then will the excitement will come. |
|
Border security is another squandered opportunity for Republicans. It is one of the few platforms that actually speaks to the nation, but none of the candidates took up the mantle.
McCain convinced the nation that they are right in rejecting him. Again. Rudy had to tread lightly because of his history in NYC. I haven't figured out exactly what Mitt thinks about the whole idea. Fred is making the correct noises about border security, but not loudly, and who knows if it will grow.
If one of the candidates makes it a major issue, I think it will spark the base, and the emotion will return. The problem is that taking a stand on border security means running against Bush, which has the potential to bleed over into other issues, like the GWOT.
Other issues that alienate the base:
Specter's attack on a conservative SCOTUS. If he wants to be a Dem, why doesn't he switch?
Spending, spending, spending
|
|
Many of us are just sitting back and taking it all in regarding the Republicans. We will get involved when the pack starts to thin. Why donate or volunteer until the race gets closer?
Furthermore, many of us are still very ticked off at many of the Republicans who voted for amnesty and not to have English as the official language. Hopefully, they will soon wake up!
What will be our end result if we don't vote for a Republican, Mrs. Clinton or Obama? Please!
|
|
|
|