Tom Readmond's blog

I think Sarah Palin is a great pick, for all the reasons cited here and elsewhere.  But there's another angle to why she's such a good move.  The media - particularly after Obama's convention speech - has made such a production of the fact that Obama is a historic candidate, that his presence on the campaign, and by implication his election to the White House, represents such a historic moment for the nation that we're somehow squandering an opportunity if we don't elect him.

Now, America makes history no matter who wins.  Maybe I live in a bubble, but most Americans I know, white males included, want to see women and minorities succeed.  Let's all admit that no matter how much we might dread an Obama presidency, some little piece of us would feel a sense of pride that the country has reached a moment when a black man can be elected president.  That's only natural, even if you believe, as I do, that Barack Obama is the wrong man for the job.

With Sarah Palin on the ticket, Americans - all of them - can feel a sense of pride no matter who wins the election.  This strikes me as a tremendously important dynamic that benefits McCain because there's no longer any guilt associated with not voting for Obama.  It's also a tremendous moment for the nation, regardless of whom you support.  No matter what happens in November, a glass ceiling will be shattered, and that's really something.

I'm not anywhere near the first or last to comment on Barack Obama's rightward tilt since clinching the Democratic nomination, but I think there's a messaging opportunity here that may resonate well on Barack Obama: he is just another politician. 

There is a subtle distinction here between this and calling him a "flip flopper."  John Kerry ran a muddled campaign without a central message, and provided some absolutely golden soundbites that played into the notion that he was a flip flopper, so the attack really stuck.  Say what you will about Obama, but he definitely has a message.  Ironically enough, that could be his central weakness now.

Obama's entire campaign is based on the idea that he represents a new kind of politics, one which departs from the back-slapping, word-parsing, focus grouped, slippery politics of the past.  There are hints of Jimmy Carter's "I'll never lie to you" campaign in 1976.  So the notion that Obama is a slick used car salesman who will say anything to seal the deal cuts directly against his message of big ideas.

Today's Bob Herbert column compares him to Bill Clinton:

But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader - more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of "is" is.

However, the key distinction between Obama and Clinton in my mind is that Bill Clinton never really pretended not to be a politician.  In fact, there was a sort of winking pride on Clinton's part in just how clever he could be.  Obama, on the other hand, has spent more than a year telling us he'd lead us out of the politics of cynicism.

The most recent example is Obama's "refining" his position on Iraq, and newfound problems with partial birth abortion, but a great example is his decision to forego public financing.  The "Declaration of Independence" from a "broken system," claims that somehow Republicans manipulate the public finance system, and that 527s are creature of the right (if only!) - a through the looking glass twisting of Orwellian proportions.

Bottom line, calling Obama a flip flopper is probably accurate, but suggests that Republicans have just dusted off the 2004 playbook.  Calling him "just another politician" lances his central message right through the heart, and Mr. Obama has graciously provided us with prime examples.  I suspect he will continue to do so through November.

Promoted. -Patrick

Twenty-eight members have signed onto a letter to Nancy Pelosi on members of Congress receiving preferential treatment in the "Friends of Angelo" program.

Thus, we demand that the House of Representatives undertake an investigation with open hearings to determine: (1) the validity of these charges, (2) whether the described practices were widespread, (3) the extent to which this scandal might have affected public policy, and (4) what steps might be necessary to assure the public that elected officials do not receive such preferential treatment in the future.

And later, they connect it to ordinary Americans:

At a time when millions of Americans are struggling to repay their mortgage debts while coping with $4/gallon gasoline and soaring foods prices, they will be outraged to learn that some Members of Congress may have personally profited from their official positions through secret sweetheart deals on their mortgages.

While the GOP house isn't exactly in order on corruption, the Democrats have traditionally put them to shame when it comes to shady backroom deals.  Democratic corruption was one of the paths to power for the GOP in 1994, and if we can get serious about our own ethics, we may yet again gain the high ground.

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.  Each election of the 21st century has been partially defined by a candidate who embraced a new media to exceed expectations.  Clearly 2008 goes to Obama for his use of social networking; 2004 was the blogger election, between Howard Dean's use of that media and the debunking of the Bush National Guard memos.

What will the next generation be?  While we obviously can't predict how technology will progress four years from now, I'm sure there are some educated guesses.  What do you believe will be the next phase of new media to change a political outcome?

This is a very worthy point and one worth pondering. -Patrick

We spend a lot of time here and on other blogs lamenting all the progress the Left is making on the web, and how many Republican candidates don't "get it."  I personally have experienced this when dealing with a number of campaigns, and I've come to a realization.

Lots of Democrats didn't "get it" either, until Howard Dean came along.  And then, many still didn't get it, because his poor showings in the 2004 primaries were justification that at the end all this stuff didn't translate into electoral success.  But MoveOn.org enjoyed a resurgence largely thanks to the Iraq War, and Barack Obama raised untold millions and slayed a dragon for his party's nomination.  Now, lots of them "get it."

On our end, we have a lot of wonderful people blogging about the need for the Right to get moving, but we don't have a success to point to as evidence that the party and ideological elites will understand (see my earlier posts about our ideological elites being Reagan and Goldwater-era holdovers).  Someone is just going to have to do it, the same way that Howard Dean and Barack Obama did.

On the activism end, sites like this are a great start, but so much of these sites are inside baseball, and not grassroots.  There is going to need to be a push on a single hook issue (the 111th Congress will no doubt provide many opportunities) that engages not just political junkies, but truck drivers and secretaries.  And again, someone (probably not a political professional) will need to just do it. 

So, let's get to work.

(promoted by Soren. I think that this is tremendously important and that there is more for our party to gain by figuring out how to embrace Ron Paul supporters, although I confess to not knowing what that will really mean. Again, looking for thoughts.)

We all know the kind of success Ron Paul had during the presidential primaries: he organized a legion of followers with unparalleled levels of commitment and passion, not to mention outfundraising nearly every other Republican candidate.  By the same token, he never translated his organization into electoral victory.  But it's become apparent to me recently that the Ron Paul revolution is alive and well, and the implications could be far-reaching for the GOP. 

Last weekend, at the Virginia state GOP convention, unknown delegate Bob Marshall came within just a few votes of defeating former Governor Jim Gilmore for the nomination to run for U.S. Senate.  While some of Marshall's success stemmed from Gilmore's less-than-pure abortion stance, and far better organization on Marshall's part, Marshall also capitalized on the under-the-radar efforts of the Paul campaign to take over state, district and county parties.  As a voting delegate to the convention, I received mailers from Marshall attacking Gilmore for his ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, and he also implied that Gilmore supported a "North American Union."  Nothing in Marshall's career suggests that he's ever been active on those sorts of issues, but he clearly saw them as a way to stimulate the Paul followers and it paid off.  Gilmore, who went in expected to walk away with a 60-65% victory, won the nomination by less than 1%.

In VA-8 (my district), Amit Singh, who has been endorsed by Ron Paul and reaped benefits financially, faces social conservative Mark Ellmore in a primary this Tuesday, June 10th.  Needless to say the results of this primary are worth watching.  While it's unlikely either candidate will be able to defeat Jim Moran in November, the primary will be another indicator of whether the Ron Paul revolution may in fact change the Republican Party.

Paul is a little out there for me, but I think it's fair to say that Ron Paul Republicanism is just about the only kind of Republicanism that's thriving at the moment.  Has Ron Paul reshaped the party?  Will Ron Paul-lite candidates succeed in 2008 and beyond?  Does the GOP only borrow a few thoughts from the Paul crowd and discard the rest, or return to its pre-internationalist past?  The world wonders...

About a month ago I created a Facebook group called "1,000,000 Republicans say Democrats don't own the web".  I wanted to use some competitive spirit to demonstrate that there were lots of Republicans engaged online, to counter all the chatter that the Democrats dominate the Internet.

I didn't really have time to promote it beyond inviting my friends, and then like about 80% of Facebook groups, I promptly stopped checking or maintaining it.  However, today I went back, and it has continued to grow (slowly, but growth is growth).

I've thought of trying some experiments there, such as open-sourcing the group (I realize the potential for vandalism, but it would be incumbent on the rest of us to police it), and I'd definitely like to hear others' thoughts.

So, if you're on Facebook, join up and help me with this!

From Jonah Goldberg's column in today's USA Today:

The "Fairness Doctrine" might be restored to silence conservative media. There are even rumors that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pondering legislation that would require dogs to take orders from cats.

This may be Goldberg's brand of sarcastic humor, but needless to say I am DYING to know to what he's referring.  Anyone?

When Republicans began their campaign for the presidency in early 2007, I remember thinking that George W. Bush had thrown the party under the bus by choosing a running mate he knew would not run to succeed him in 2008, robbing us of a strong candidate and giving us the first election since 1928 where neither party had an incumbent president nor vice president seeking his or her party's nomination.

In retrospect, however, I realize that George W. Bush did the Republican party a favor by not saddling us with a candidate inextricably linked to a president with a 28% approval rating.  Even with Bush's low approval, there would have been enormous pressure to nominate an incumbent VP, and the party base, still largely loyal to GWB and the most reliable voters in the primaries, would likely have nominated a candidate much more vulnerable to the charge of being "Bush's Third Term."

Given all the talk about how Bush has weakened Republicans going into the 2008 election, I thought it worth pointing out that if we manage to win the presidency for another four years, it will be thanks in part to a decision made by none other than Bush himself.  The irony never ends.